"here's nothing wrong with a balanced middle-of-the-road approach."
That's the stupid notion of "all opinions are born equal". No, they aren't.
Just to make fun of Mr Godwin, since one opinion is "jews are people too" and the other is "let's kill all jews" are you still saying there's nothing wrong with "OK, so let's kill just half of them"?
Stablishing artificial scarcity to the so called "intellectual property" is a stupid notion on almost all grounds (except for the few making massive profits out of it without returning society comparable benefits), and History supports it i.e.: what did USA for as long as it needed to "stand on the shoulders of giants" for their own development? Would the world be a better place now if USA had honored the copy rights of the then developed nations, so it probably would still be now a third world country since those developed nations would have sucked up basically all the capital gains? As a general position, would be the world a better place if all-time intellectual creations were subjected to the terms and conditions that corporations stand for newer creations? I say "not at all".
Only on perception. Basically *all* service companies work that way: you*1 contact them asking for a service, they tag a price to the service, you negotiate and in the end, you either accept their conditions or you don't. If you accept the conditions, you pay for the service and they deliver. Quite easly understandable and common.
It just happens the provided service is "writing software".
*1 For an operative definition of "you": it can be you yourself, the company you work for, an association of end users, and association of companies with common needs...
I already said what. Why do you cite out of context asking question already answered within that text?
"compensating for said effort is appropriate"
No, that's never appropriate. If it were, I could make a living out of farting. Compensation is never asociated to effort -and it shouldn't, but to percieved benefits to the recieving end. That's in fact why selling software usage licenses have been such a good business no matter how much I dislike it: because there's an enormous differential between effort (basically nill) and percieved benefit (quite high, specially for niche/novelty products).
"Then there are the distribution costs"
Which I already told I'm perfectly open to pay for if I have to.
"Your position doesn't match the realities of the real world and no-one would take you seriously if you tried doing business with such a position."
The fact is that I *already* have been in such a position, both as provider and customer and you can bet I've been taken seriously -and why I shouldn't, since there's real and serious money in exchange?
"You find a number of people like OSS not because it is free as in speech but because they don't want to pay for anything."
Which they have perfect right to do. *I* don't want to pay for anything, from software to Ferraris. When I pay for something is because I *have* to do it.
"were completely opposed to the idea of paying for any software."
I am basically opposed to the idea of paying for something that it is already done, payed for and that has zero replication costs too.
Paying for writing new software or servicing said software, both of them activities that have obvious production cost tagged to them, on the other hand, I find perfectly reasonable.
"How they expected developers to put food on the table I'm not sure."
I'll tell you. By doing what they are qualified to do: writing software, not distributing software of tagging artificial scarcity to something with no replication costs.
"Are you saying the bible should, or should not, have expressed this measurement of a circle-like, real-world object, as being pi?"
I am saying nothing at all with respect of the bible on this thread.
It was *you* the one that found something weird with someone being amused that those that take the bible as basically a literal relation don't seem to find nothing extrange about the fact of said relation being unable to discern a circumference from an hexagon and went into comparing souls to mathematical abstractions.
"If you want to be pedantic there is no such thing as a strict physical law"
Being pedantic, it is the opposite: there's no other kind of law but the strict one (that's true even for the common/legaleese meaning for "law").
"in practice law is a weaker term than theory"
Your opinion. Law is a *different* term than theory: Government produces laws, never theories and there's no way that a theory becomes law (but theories produce a frame that induces laws -God is almighty and the Bible can't be wrong, so let's pass a law about evolution teaching in the schools).
"Then again both evolution and gravity are observed FACTS"
Of course they are, but were you, not me, the one splitting hairs about the "common" and "formal" word usage: in "common usage" when people talks about "evolution" doesn't mean the observed fact of the change of fenotype distributions from generation to generation but "Darwin's theory about the evolution of species by means of random mutations and selection of the best fitted" and when talking about gravity they don't talk either about the stated fact that apples come to ground but about the law that very specifically states how each and every object of the Universe, disregarding its position, speed or mass attract every other else.
"for which why have THEORIES explaining the facts"
We have... or we haven't. Again, what was the theory that explained in 1608 why planets rounded the Sun in elliptic orbits with the exact speed such in equal times the triangles formed by the arc of the orbit and the Sun were of the same area? There you have a LAW (the Second Kepler Law of planetary motion), and quite a precise one, that came out of plain observations, without a theory explaining why would that be the case.
"Facts are observed."
True, but tautological.
"Theories explain observed facts."
Theories do much more than that because theories, and that's the important part of them, explain STILL UNOBSERVED facts.
"Theories are sometimes stated as a small set of laws."
No, they never are and are in fact the opposite: at most, theories describe the predicted facts by means at least partly of some laws. Even Dirac (the first famous one to abandon the idea that theories had to "make sense") would agree to that.
Of course they are. Neither you can just sum up speeds (so the theory is wrong) nor two electrons (disregarding the electrical effects) attract each other as the attraction law states.
That the numbers match for a certain scenarios is not what makes right or wrong a theory or law. Do two bodies attract each other *exactly* proportionally to their masses and inversely to the square of their distance? No, they don't. Do exist privileged space references that could stablish the absolute motion of an object? No, they don't.
But it works! Yeah, it works, of course it works or else it couldn't have been accepted (imagine Newton predicting apples falling upwards) but so does work ptolemaic astronomy with its (basically) circular orbits and the Earth in the center of the Universe -ask any sailor or air pilot. The point is that they don't work in each an every case that the theories themselves said they worked and where they work, they do for the wrong reasons.
"So, you're saying [...] I should come up with exactly pi?"
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite.
"Sorry, your idea is so unreal..."
No. It is *your* idea about what you *think* it is my idea what is unreal. Hint: go to a dictionary and look for the "exist" verb. Then, go to a phylosophy dictionary and dig in concepts like "necessity", "contingency" and the difference between being and existing.
"The problem is that the word "theory" has different meanings to Scientists and Layperson."
I don't think so. To the layman a "theory" is a vision of reality (i.e. "I have the theory that this guy is here only for the money") that makes him produce some useful predictions ("...therefore I bet that he will try to push for an aggresive marketing campaign instead of waiting for the product to be ready").
The facts test the theory . As long as the predictions induced by the theory get real, the theory becomes stronger; if the facts go against the theory, this one is modified or abandoned altogether.
Well, that's exactly how science theories work, the only difference being (that's the hope) that science is a tad more rigurose at testing facts -past, present and future, against the theory than a layman about his own theories.
"The Theory of Evolution as it stands today might never reach the status of "Law""
Of course not, since the theory of (darwinian) evolution is, well, a theory, not a law. Can we, please, please, please, abandon the naive idea that a "law" is a kind of "stronger theory" or "a theory that proved itself to be right"?
A law is a precise representation (usually in a mathematical way) of the relationship of some magnitudes. Theory is a knowledge framework that bias our representation of reality. As such it usually includes some laws but it is neither a must nor the laws need to be unique or specific to any single law (so much when the law in question is plainly evident).
In example: Kepler proposed the law that planetary orbits were eliptical with the orbiting body "swapping" equal areas in equal time. It is known, not too imaginatively, as "Second Kepler Law of planetary motion" (the other two being "planets orbit around the Sun as an ellipse with the Sun in one of their foci" and "the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse").
It was a law that, published by 1609, after studying Tycho Brahe's data was not endorsed by any known theory of that time, it was a law without a theory.
After that, by 1687, Newton proposed the theory that all bodies had a property that made them attract each other and it happened that Kepler's laws fitted wonderfully within that theory.
The only reason for Kepler's laws not being widely known is because Newton's theory proposed another law (bodies attract each other with a strengh which is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance) that happens to be a general law of which Kepler's are just a derivative special case.
Please pay attention that it is widely known that both Newton's Theory and his attraction Law are WRONG! but being right or wrong is not what makes a theory a theory nor a law a law.
"Last time I looked it up, textbooks still said "Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution". In fact I've had many professors over the years argue even Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory"
Except, of course, they would be wrong. Law of Gravity is in fact a law and it -of course too, doesn't matter if it is right or wrong for it to be a law.
It is a law because it clearly states a simple mathematical way that relates some magnitudes to others.
Evolution by random mutation and selection of the best fitted is, in the other hand, a theory because, disregarding if it's right or wrong, it states some general principles that bias our view of certain aspects of reality.
General approximation: if it can be reduced to a single mathematical formula, it is usually a law; if it can be explained in a few phrases that can't be reduced to mathematical formulae, it is usually a theory.
"In science ALL things are theories"
Obviously not. "Planets go around the Sun in perfect circles" is a law. A false one, but a law nevertheless (as it would be a law if it said "planets go around the Sun in perfect squares", by the way). E=m*c^2 is a law too, that happens to be true as far as I know.
On the other hand, Special Relativity is a theory and within that theory there is the aforementioned law that relates energy to mass. Ptolemaic cosmography is a theory too and within that theory there's the law that relates planetary orbits to a constant radius and Pi.
"But for someone to summarize what happened, and not include the most blatant obvious fact that people were borrowing more money than they could ever pay back"
What is blatantly obvious is that no matter how pervasively I ask for money I can't borrow a dime if there's nobody wanting to lend it to me. If I go to the street crying our loud that I'll lend money to anyone that want it without asking for due guarantees on the other hand...
Oh, and who is the one that wrote the contracts and has the high payed risk analysts with enough data about the other side as to know even his favourite tooth paste brand? The borrower?
"tell that PHB that gas is to high and if you want us to come in then give us a raise"
Quite a good way for the PHB to think (he is a PHB after all) "well, if I don't see their faces nor usually hear their voices, what's the difference with those indian guys they talk me about? -and they don't ask a raise!"
"from a practical perspective as a system admin, its silly."
That you didn't find a corporate use case for something like that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A modern, server-grade, computer can take up to five minutes to boot up, loading firmwares, waiting for user prompts, etc. This is PITA when you are developing something that requires system reboots, in example, continuous integration of a service that deploys a complete server-something.
A practical instance is the OpenStack integration environment: booting up "real iron" servers, installing OS by means of PXE and, on top of that, installing and configuring OpenStack itself could take about half an hour... and you want a cycle to be run at each commit.
A judicious use of kexec (a more or less ksplice equivalent) and LVM snapshots takes this down to about five minutes.
"You don't have to wait for a distribution house to pick it up. Downloading and doing a kernel compile is easy."
No, you don't have to wait. But since Torvalds himself stated that stabilizing and bugfixing kernel isn't its kernel tree's job no more but a distribution issue, I wouldn't count on that being such a wise movement unless discovering problems and rebuilding boxes is either your job or your hobby.
"if you find suits uncomfortable then you aren't wearing a well made and properly tailored suit."
Right, and still you say,
"I agree that no tie is comfortable"
I should say exactly the same you said about suits: try a well made and properly tailored shirt and you won't find the tie uncomfortable. It is not the tie that you feel uncomfortable, it is the shirt's neck which is the problem: too tight and you suffocate; too wide or too bland and there's no way you can properly fit the tie's knot.
"Business cards, just like business suits, have no real purpose other than to make "executives", "managers" and "professionals" feel important, and to make them think that other people consider them important."
I agree, except on the "only" part: they serve as a discovering token too, just like the suit.
"If you're of any value to me, I don't need your fucking business card."
This work both ways, you know. Probably they'll think, and will be as right as you, "if you think you don't need my fucking business card, you are of no fucking value to me".
"Real people getting real work done don't go handing out business cards. They're too fucking busy doing real work!"
There's more than one way of doing "real work". You can bet that the one that in the end signs your paychecks do a "real work" you value. And he/she probably wears suit and owns and exchanges business cards too.
"But the article doesn't mention the doctors digging around in one's pockets, looking for change."
Because we are not talking here about *that* kind of dead people. After all, the ones we are talking here are good not onlyto look for change, we can take their organs too!
Slashdot Mirror
"here's nothing wrong with a balanced middle-of-the-road approach."
That's the stupid notion of "all opinions are born equal". No, they aren't.
Just to make fun of Mr Godwin, since one opinion is "jews are people too" and the other is "let's kill all jews" are you still saying there's nothing wrong with "OK, so let's kill just half of them"?
Stablishing artificial scarcity to the so called "intellectual property" is a stupid notion on almost all grounds (except for the few making massive profits out of it without returning society comparable benefits), and History supports it i.e.: what did USA for as long as it needed to "stand on the shoulders of giants" for their own development? Would the world be a better place now if USA had honored the copy rights of the then developed nations, so it probably would still be now a third world country since those developed nations would have sucked up basically all the capital gains? As a general position, would be the world a better place if all-time intellectual creations were subjected to the terms and conditions that corporations stand for newer creations? I say "not at all".
"Blender is rather unique though."
Only on perception. Basically *all* service companies work that way: you*1 contact them asking for a service, they tag a price to the service, you negotiate and in the end, you either accept their conditions or you don't. If you accept the conditions, you pay for the service and they deliver. Quite easly understandable and common.
It just happens the provided service is "writing software".
*1 For an operative definition of "you": it can be you yourself, the company you work for, an association of end users, and association of companies with common needs...
"So what if the replication costs are zero?"
I already said what. Why do you cite out of context asking question already answered within that text?
"compensating for said effort is appropriate"
No, that's never appropriate. If it were, I could make a living out of farting. Compensation is never asociated to effort -and it shouldn't, but to percieved benefits to the recieving end. That's in fact why selling software usage licenses have been such a good business no matter how much I dislike it: because there's an enormous differential between effort (basically nill) and percieved benefit (quite high, specially for niche/novelty products).
"Then there are the distribution costs"
Which I already told I'm perfectly open to pay for if I have to.
"Your position doesn't match the realities of the real world and no-one would take you seriously if you tried doing business with such a position."
The fact is that I *already* have been in such a position, both as provider and customer and you can bet I've been taken seriously -and why I shouldn't, since there's real and serious money in exchange?
"You find a number of people like OSS not because it is free as in speech but because they don't want to pay for anything."
Which they have perfect right to do. *I* don't want to pay for anything, from software to Ferraris. When I pay for something is because I *have* to do it.
"were completely opposed to the idea of paying for any software."
I am basically opposed to the idea of paying for something that it is already done, payed for and that has zero replication costs too.
Paying for writing new software or servicing said software, both of them activities that have obvious production cost tagged to them, on the other hand, I find perfectly reasonable.
"How they expected developers to put food on the table I'm not sure."
I'll tell you. By doing what they are qualified to do: writing software, not distributing software of tagging artificial scarcity to something with no replication costs.
"And this did not happen as a result of visionaries and dreamers, but of hard military necessity."
Of hard military necessity... and a lot of public founds.
"Two years from now, you won't be asking this question"
That doesn't invalidate the question now, does it?
"Are you saying the bible should, or should not, have expressed this measurement of a circle-like, real-world object, as being pi?"
I am saying nothing at all with respect of the bible on this thread.
It was *you* the one that found something weird with someone being amused that those that take the bible as basically a literal relation don't seem to find nothing extrange about the fact of said relation being unable to discern a circumference from an hexagon and went into comparing souls to mathematical abstractions.
"If you want to be pedantic there is no such thing as a strict physical law"
Being pedantic, it is the opposite: there's no other kind of law but the strict one (that's true even for the common/legaleese meaning for "law").
"in practice law is a weaker term than theory"
Your opinion. Law is a *different* term than theory: Government produces laws, never theories and there's no way that a theory becomes law (but theories produce a frame that induces laws -God is almighty and the Bible can't be wrong, so let's pass a law about evolution teaching in the schools).
"Then again both evolution and gravity are observed FACTS"
Of course they are, but were you, not me, the one splitting hairs about the "common" and "formal" word usage: in "common usage" when people talks about "evolution" doesn't mean the observed fact of the change of fenotype distributions from generation to generation but "Darwin's theory about the evolution of species by means of random mutations and selection of the best fitted" and when talking about gravity they don't talk either about the stated fact that apples come to ground but about the law that very specifically states how each and every object of the Universe, disregarding its position, speed or mass attract every other else.
"for which why have THEORIES explaining the facts"
We have... or we haven't. Again, what was the theory that explained in 1608 why planets rounded the Sun in elliptic orbits with the exact speed such in equal times the triangles formed by the arc of the orbit and the Sun were of the same area? There you have a LAW (the Second Kepler Law of planetary motion), and quite a precise one, that came out of plain observations, without a theory explaining why would that be the case.
"Facts are observed."
True, but tautological.
"Theories explain observed facts."
Theories do much more than that because theories, and that's the important part of them, explain STILL UNOBSERVED facts.
"Theories are sometimes stated as a small set of laws."
No, they never are and are in fact the opposite: at most, theories describe the predicted facts by means at least partly of some laws. Even Dirac (the first famous one to abandon the idea that theories had to "make sense") would agree to that.
"no they aren't."
Of course they are. Neither you can just sum up speeds (so the theory is wrong) nor two electrons (disregarding the electrical effects) attract each other as the attraction law states.
That the numbers match for a certain scenarios is not what makes right or wrong a theory or law. Do two bodies attract each other *exactly* proportionally to their masses and inversely to the square of their distance? No, they don't. Do exist privileged space references that could stablish the absolute motion of an object? No, they don't.
But it works! Yeah, it works, of course it works or else it couldn't have been accepted (imagine Newton predicting apples falling upwards) but so does work ptolemaic astronomy with its (basically) circular orbits and the Earth in the center of the Universe -ask any sailor or air pilot. The point is that they don't work in each an every case that the theories themselves said they worked and where they work, they do for the wrong reasons.
"So, you're saying [...] I should come up with exactly pi?"
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite.
"Sorry, your idea is so unreal..."
No. It is *your* idea about what you *think* it is my idea what is unreal. Hint: go to a dictionary and look for the "exist" verb. Then, go to a phylosophy dictionary and dig in concepts like "necessity", "contingency" and the difference between being and existing.
"The problem is that the word "theory" has different meanings to Scientists and Layperson."
I don't think so. To the layman a "theory" is a vision of reality (i.e. "I have the theory that this guy is here only for the money") that makes him produce some useful predictions ("...therefore I bet that he will try to push for an aggresive marketing campaign instead of waiting for the product to be ready").
The facts test the theory . As long as the predictions induced by the theory get real, the theory becomes stronger; if the facts go against the theory, this one is modified or abandoned altogether.
Well, that's exactly how science theories work, the only difference being (that's the hope) that science is a tad more rigurose at testing facts -past, present and future, against the theory than a layman about his own theories.
"The Theory of Evolution as it stands today might never reach the status of "Law""
Of course not, since the theory of (darwinian) evolution is, well, a theory, not a law. Can we, please, please, please, abandon the naive idea that a "law" is a kind of "stronger theory" or "a theory that proved itself to be right"?
A law is a precise representation (usually in a mathematical way) of the relationship of some magnitudes. Theory is a knowledge framework that bias our representation of reality. As such it usually includes some laws but it is neither a must nor the laws need to be unique or specific to any single law (so much when the law in question is plainly evident).
In example: Kepler proposed the law that planetary orbits were eliptical with the orbiting body "swapping" equal areas in equal time. It is known, not too imaginatively, as "Second Kepler Law of planetary motion" (the other two being "planets orbit around the Sun as an ellipse with the Sun in one of their foci" and "the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse").
It was a law that, published by 1609, after studying Tycho Brahe's data was not endorsed by any known theory of that time, it was a law without a theory.
After that, by 1687, Newton proposed the theory that all bodies had a property that made them attract each other and it happened that Kepler's laws fitted wonderfully within that theory.
The only reason for Kepler's laws not being widely known is because Newton's theory proposed another law (bodies attract each other with a strengh which is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance) that happens to be a general law of which Kepler's are just a derivative special case.
Please pay attention that it is widely known that both Newton's Theory and his attraction Law are WRONG! but being right or wrong is not what makes a theory a theory nor a law a law.
"Last time I looked it up, textbooks still said "Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution". In fact I've had many professors over the years argue even Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory"
Except, of course, they would be wrong. Law of Gravity is in fact a law and it -of course too, doesn't matter if it is right or wrong for it to be a law.
It is a law because it clearly states a simple mathematical way that relates some magnitudes to others.
Evolution by random mutation and selection of the best fitted is, in the other hand, a theory because, disregarding if it's right or wrong, it states some general principles that bias our view of certain aspects of reality.
General approximation: if it can be reduced to a single mathematical formula, it is usually a law; if it can be explained in a few phrases that can't be reduced to mathematical formulae, it is usually a theory.
"In science ALL things are theories"
Obviously not. "Planets go around the Sun in perfect circles" is a law. A false one, but a law nevertheless (as it would be a law if it said "planets go around the Sun in perfect squares", by the way). E=m*c^2 is a law too, that happens to be true as far as I know.
On the other hand, Special Relativity is a theory and within that theory there is the aforementioned law that relates energy to mass. Ptolemaic cosmography is a theory too and within that theory there's the law that relates planetary orbits to a constant radius and Pi.
"Science is most emphatically not about belief"
He didn't say nothing like that. Science is not about believes; teaching mostly is.
"I cringe a little every time I see that phrase "scientists believe""
Quite a different issue but, anyway, you shouldn't cringe: a given scientist certainly believe what he says.
"The Vatican even recently said that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and christianity, and rejects intelligent design."
That would mean something if the USA extreme relgious nuts were catholics. Hint: they aren't.
"Weird. You don't believe souls exist in reality, but believe ideal mathematical circles do. How does that work?"
It works by not working that way.
Circles don't *exist*; circles *are*.
"But for someone to summarize what happened, and not include the most blatant obvious fact that people were borrowing more money than they could ever pay back"
What is blatantly obvious is that no matter how pervasively I ask for money I can't borrow a dime if there's nobody wanting to lend it to me. If I go to the street crying our loud that I'll lend money to anyone that want it without asking for due guarantees on the other hand...
Oh, and who is the one that wrote the contracts and has the high payed risk analysts with enough data about the other side as to know even his favourite tooth paste brand? The borrower?
"tell that PHB that gas is to high and if you want us to come in then give us a raise"
Quite a good way for the PHB to think (he is a PHB after all) "well, if I don't see their faces nor usually hear their voices, what's the difference with those indian guys they talk me about? -and they don't ask a raise!"
"from a practical perspective as a system admin, its silly."
That you didn't find a corporate use case for something like that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A modern, server-grade, computer can take up to five minutes to boot up, loading firmwares, waiting for user prompts, etc. This is PITA when you are developing something that requires system reboots, in example, continuous integration of a service that deploys a complete server-something.
A practical instance is the OpenStack integration environment: booting up "real iron" servers, installing OS by means of PXE and, on top of that, installing and configuring OpenStack itself could take about half an hour... and you want a cycle to be run at each commit.
A judicious use of kexec (a more or less ksplice equivalent) and LVM snapshots takes this down to about five minutes.
"You don't have to wait for a distribution house to pick it up. Downloading and doing a kernel compile is easy."
No, you don't have to wait. But since Torvalds himself stated that stabilizing and bugfixing kernel isn't its kernel tree's job no more but a distribution issue, I wouldn't count on that being such a wise movement unless discovering problems and rebuilding boxes is either your job or your hobby.
"They only package it"
Oh, no, they do much more than this: they choose what to package.
"There is no such thing as a useful idiot unless that idiot is a fountain of money."
AKA "average consumer".
"if you find suits uncomfortable then you aren't wearing a well made and properly tailored suit."
Right, and still you say,
"I agree that no tie is comfortable"
I should say exactly the same you said about suits: try a well made and properly tailored shirt and you won't find the tie uncomfortable. It is not the tie that you feel uncomfortable, it is the shirt's neck which is the problem: too tight and you suffocate; too wide or too bland and there's no way you can properly fit the tie's knot.
"Business cards, just like business suits, have no real purpose other than to make "executives", "managers" and "professionals" feel important, and to make them think that other people consider them important."
I agree, except on the "only" part: they serve as a discovering token too, just like the suit.
"If you're of any value to me, I don't need your fucking business card."
This work both ways, you know. Probably they'll think, and will be as right as you, "if you think you don't need my fucking business card, you are of no fucking value to me".
"Real people getting real work done don't go handing out business cards. They're too fucking busy doing real work!"
There's more than one way of doing "real work". You can bet that the one that in the end signs your paychecks do a "real work" you value. And he/she probably wears suit and owns and exchanges business cards too.
You got it wrong: the best case is the smoking crater. Much easy to deal with than a flakey but still responsible service.
"But the article doesn't mention the doctors digging around in one's pockets, looking for change."
Because we are not talking here about *that* kind of dead people. After all, the ones we are talking here are good not onlyto look for change, we can take their organs too!