I'm not giving up coffee for any other caffeinated food or beverage. For one thing, I love the smell and taste of hot black coffee. For another, I harbor the suspicion that some of the other complex compounds in coffee contribute to the effect.
I have noticed this in myself and have queried many a co-worker and friend whether they thought that an equivalent dose of caffeine in other forms (soda, pills, etc) was as effective as coffee. Most have responded that they think coffee is more effective.
Not scientific, I know. If someone wants to fund it though...
Encyclopedias are meant as guides to further, substantive reading, not end-sin-themselves. Good thing that they don't end sin; what would we do on the weekends?
I challenge anyone to point out where, specifically the bill would have had any impact on free speech. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the landmark decision, Schenk v. U.S. (1919) that "a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a 'clear and present danger.'" Where is it? If that provision had passed, paid astroturfers would have to register with the gov't, which as the ACLU says, would "have a chilling effect upon free speech." But I guess that the ACLU lawyers and Oliver Wendell Holmes aren't quite the Constitutional scholars that your are.
You quote a section of the bill that prohibits imprisoning people for more than ten years (but doesn't say for what) See Section 222. But if you had really wanted to know instead of just trying not to be wrong, I guess you could have Googled for it
You then say it's no wonder lots of people were against it
And?
And from this (and nothing else, that I can see) you conclude "it *is* restricting political speech" Yeah, we wouldn't want to take the opinion of experts over yours. But anyway, what more do you want? The gov't would be placing restrictions, with possible jail time for not "having your papers in order" before engaging in certain types of political speech. That does not fit the definition of "free" (meaning unrestricted) that we normally apply to speech. The "restriction" is that you have to register or go to jail. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.
The word is "non sequitur" and you don't know how to apply it any more than you know how to spell it. Have you never heard the term "legal opinion?" In other words, current opinions and previous expert opinions have weight in a court of law. Since we are talking about a legal matter that is less than explicit (like abortion, the right to privacy, separation of Church and State) what else would we go on?
"SecondLife is a giant magnet for the desperate, uninformed, easily victimized. Its promises of wealth readily ensnare those who can least afford to lose their money" Just like the lottery.
Right. A point which was reflected in my post when I wrote "certain types of paid political speech."
Obviously what the bill was attempting to deal with is what is known here as "astroturfing," but it is still political speech and I'm not comfortable with the gov't placing restrictions upon it, no matter how dishonest or obnoxious it is. And BTW, neither is the ACLU, who said "Section 220, entitled 'Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying' imposes onerous reporting requirements that will chill constitutionally protected activity."
From Amendment 7 of the S1 the Bill:
SEC. 222. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1606) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) Civil Penalty- ' before `Whoever'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) Criminal Penalty- Whoever knowingly, willfully, and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.'.
There's a good reason why such a broad range of organizations, from the ACLU to Gun Owners' Associations were against the blogger provision--because despite being for only astroturfing, it *is* restricting political speech.
No, I don't think that America is listening or watching. That or they just don't care as long as they get all of the NFL football, Grey's Anatomy, or XBox 360 that they desire. I'm afraid that between the Patriot Act, the Fairness Doctrine, the recent Bill S1, and now this crap with the AG, it won't be very long that our rights will be so eroded that our Democracy will go out with a whimper.
The thing is that so many seem to support certain rights more than others and this could be our downfall. Gun owners want gun rights and don't care about free speech. Free speech advocates care about their thing and ignore freedom of religion. Etc., etc. It also seems that Republicans seem more offended at a Democratically-proposed freedom infringements, and vice versa.
If you read some of the other posts on this story, you will see people suggesting executing, lynching or murdering the AG (interestingly enough modded "Insightful"); but check their post history and see if they were so exercised when the Senate tried to control certain types of paid political speech by bloggers. The AG should most certainly be fired immediately, but one wonders whether party affiliation might have something to do with this selectivity.
The fact is that if you are an American and you haven't taken the opportunity to call and write your Congressmen/Congresswomen and pitch a huge fit, you are shirking *your* responsibility. After that, it may become necessary to protest in street, even if it's not a right that benefits us personally or reflects our party's position.
Because Wikipedia's search capability seems somewhat lacking, I have learned that it is usually much easier to find something on Wikipedia by entering the search term in Goole plus "wikipedia" or even "wiki." Will this affect how effective this search strategy is?
p.s. In fairness, this also works better with other sites (like Amazon, NewEgg, etc.) too.
I'm truly not trying to be argumentative or snarky, because what you said makes a lot of sense. But you haven't met the these customers. Or for that matter, the other employees with whom I worked at a Fortune 100 before I started my own business.
When I worked for this company, I was a writer in the advertising department, but I spent all of my time doing the following:
- Finding the other employees saved documents for them. This is because they would always save the document in whatever directory the dialog box happened to open to. When I asked them where they saved it, they would say "in Word" or "in Excel" or whatever. To use the search function would have been for them like deciphering hieroglyphics.
- Since they could only open an application if they had an icon on the desktop, I had to replace these icons whenever the Desktop Cleanup Wizard would run because they always clicked whatever the default was.
- Trying to fix spyware/viruses and trying to convince them that clicking "Yes" is a bad idea when Norton says "haxx0r.ownU.exe wants to execute on your computer. Allow?"
- Writing a macro that would take the line breaks out Word documents since they ALWAYS used a hard return at the end of a line, which caused Word to capitalize the first word in every line.
- Convince people that it wasn't necessary to email 30MB artwork files to each other since we had a network. The email had a 1MB limit in attachments.
- Convincing people that it is not necessary to paste a photo into Powerpoint in order to save it.
- etc., etc.
It's really not that much different now, other than I make more money at it. I guess that my point is that being incompetent in Linux is no worse than being incompetent in Windows.
So is it your claim that India is one of those places that have this "true level of hunger", where "there simply isn't enough food"? On what basis do you make this claim? Like I said, I've been there and I've seen it with my own eyes.
And, to bring this back on topic, do you seriously believe that unless you've solved problem A you can't work on problem B? In other words, as long as there are starving children in India, India can't work on, say, computers. Actually, at this point, I'm not sure. There may be an overlap that I hadn't considered. I'm not so sure about going to the moon, but as someone else pointed out, satellites have benefits for food production (weather predictions, etc). I wonder if it can be quantified.
In all fairness, I could be reacting more out of emotion and despair than straight logic. It is really a horrible thing to see so many people in so much need and realize that you can do so little about it.
So, how about the USA sharing with Third World nations some of that science? Why should a poor country like India have to reinvent the wheel when so much food surplus is sitting in warehouses in the rich countries? I couldn't agree more.
Less developed countries do export cash crops. But rich farmers are the true benefactors of the "Green Revolution". Poor farmers cannot afford the patented seeds, tractors, fuel, and everything that's needed to produce the crops American science has developed.
To feed the starving, many small social actions are needed, such as better education, professional training, crop diversity using native plants which have evolved to be resistant to local pests, etc. This is an effort that does not compete and can perfectly well coexist with and profit from space science. I agree. My wife and I have been very active for over ten years in efforts to bring this training and technology to third-world countries. I travel outside the US to teach certain aspects at least twice a year. More help is needed, especially from the type of technologically savvy people you find on/. Feel free to join us if you haven't already.
Umm, the biggest problem in India is not production but storage and distribution. Umm, well then use the money to build infrastructure.
And oh, these satellite thingys have helped improve agriculture by weather forecasting, geological and geographical surveys, communications etc. Amongst other things, such as education, industrialization, early weather warning systems and the like. Good point. Seriously, I hadn't really considered that. I wonder if going to the moon helps too.
But hey, you go ahead. In your total idiocy and lack of vision, sit there mocking at technological achievements which are the crux for the foundation and development of any society. Way to go, Strawman! I never mocked technological achievements. Not once.
What sheer stupidity. Denying a man his dream is the worst kind of sin one could commit. Such an asinine statement, that it doesn't really need to be refuted...but what the heck. A man (or woman) doesn't have the right to fulfill his/her dream on public money. Public money is presumably for the public good. If it is his/her dream, let him come up with or raise the cash like Jeff Bezos.
But hey, if the gutter smells wonderful to you, who am I to stop you from sniffing at it. Those that can dream will dream. Dream on then, Oh Great Strawman Dreamer!
I do volunteer work in the inner-city and in rural Appalachia so I've seen first-hand the things that your link indicates, but the poverty in these places simply does not compare to what one will see in some of the places (India, Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Pakistan) that I've been.
While anyone can cook up stats about hunger, there is a simple test that can indicate the true level of hunger in an area: offer a half-eaten sandwich (or whatever) to someone in the street and see the reaction. In the inner-city area near us where I serve, that will at least get you cussed out, if not get the crap beaten out of you. However, we have had six-year-old children at an outdoor restaurant in Oaxaca, Mexico, gratefully eat the last bite of our salad. Similar results in the countries listed above.
The fact is that there is hunger in some instances in the US, but it is more often due to parents' mental illness or drug/alcohol use than to a general lack of food availability. Often there is enough money but it is squandered on other things. In many cases in rural Appalachia, we have gone to houses where the kids truly do not have enough to eat and yet the parents have Marlboros (not even generics) and/or satellite TV. There's not much that can be done when parents care more about smoking and television than feeding their kids. Also, have you never heard of the Hunger/Obesity Paradox. Read up, becuase in America, the poorest kids are also the fattest.
Yes, there is work to be done in the US but it's mostly treatment and/or education. Your post, however, glibly trivializes the dire circumstances that exist in many parts of the world where there simply is not enough food.
I was in India last year; the poverty and malnutrition in the outlying areas is simply heart-breaking. Worse than anywhere else that I've been. Call me old-fashioned, but before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?
I guess that one could make the case that India's space program is an investment in the future, but I wouldn't want to be the one to try to sell that to people who don't have enough food.
I noticed in the Wikipedia article that Jack Chick is part of the King-James-Only Movement. I agree with them since everyone knows that the KJV is the bible translation that Jesus used.
I'm not claiming that FOSS applications are necessarily the equal of closed-source software (although many of them obviously are)--it's just that you can't get cheaper than free.
I have so many customers who are running pirated Windows or Office that it's not even funny. That or they are still running Office 97. If these people had to shell out $250-$400 for Office or $150 for XP Pro, they would switch in to OO and Linux in about the same time it would take to hear that it's free (as in beer).
My wife is a perfect example of someone who *doesn't* need Windows. She logs on in the AM to check her Yahoo mail account, checks the local news, buys some stuff from Amazon or eBay, then heads to work.
Isn't it peculiar that when someone (an individual, gov't or corporation) tries to pander to the hip or "kewl" crowd, it actually comes off as even more contrived and lame. This Microsoft comic reminds me of junior-high school health classes about drugs or sex.
Besides that, Microsoft has to walk a fine line with software piracy. If they could eliminate it entirely, that would be when you would see a more mainstream adoption of FOSS.
I am perfectly aware of all of the Republicans power grabs and rights curtailment--I am against them as well. I am also aware of the public airwaves argument in the "Fairness" Doctrine and the "paid" provision (now thankfully struck down) in the S1 bill.
You made a cogent, well-thought-out and well-written argument, but even if you write 400 paragraphs, it's still the government controlling political speech. And I don't trust some committee of political hacks, whether Democrap or Republicant (spelling errors mine), to decide what's "fair." I would rather listen to some twit like Rush Limbaugh 24/7 than to give the government more authority over free-speech rights. Nor do I trust the government not to use the list or registered (albeit paid) bloggers for future retribution.
My opinion is that trusting the government is historically a bad idea, but if you're comfortable with that and you don't think that this is too much of a transgression, then that's your business and your right. However, I would be willing to riot in the street to keep my (and your) freedoms in this regard.
Problem: at least two of the three examples you list are complete bullshit.
Yeah? Which two? I guess you could say that they're "bullshit" as long as you don't mind the gov't telling us who can say what and where they can say it. As long as you don't mind the gov't making one have their "papers in order" before one can engage in certain types of political speech. Personally, I mind. A lot.
And since the subject is hypocracy, where you appropriatly porportionally outraged at, for example, Tom Delay auctioning off chairmanships to the biggest fundraisers?
Yes, I was. If you read my post, you would have been able to see that I am actually quite hostile to both parties. But, apparently, you are only hostile to one and you think that the other has your interests at heart. Pffft, all I can say is "grab the KY and bend over," because you're gonna get screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not giving up coffee for any other caffeinated food or beverage. For one thing, I love the smell and taste of hot black coffee. For another, I harbor the suspicion that some of the other complex compounds in coffee contribute to the effect.
I have noticed this in myself and have queried many a co-worker and friend whether they thought that an equivalent dose of caffeine in other forms (soda, pills, etc) was as effective as coffee. Most have responded that they think coffee is more effective.
Not scientific, I know. If someone wants to fund it though...
This seems consistent to me--when I was in college, citing any encyclopedias was strongly discouraged.
You mean like they advertise in a neighboring state, "you can't win if you don't play!"
I challenge anyone to point out where, specifically the bill would have had any impact on free speech.
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the landmark decision, Schenk v. U.S. (1919) that "a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a 'clear and present danger.'" Where is it? If that provision had passed, paid astroturfers would have to register with the gov't, which as the ACLU says, would "have a chilling effect upon free speech." But I guess that the ACLU lawyers and Oliver Wendell Holmes aren't quite the Constitutional scholars that your are.
You quote a section of the bill that prohibits imprisoning people for more than ten years (but doesn't say for what)
See Section 222. But if you had really wanted to know instead of just trying not to be wrong, I guess you could have Googled for it
You then say it's no wonder lots of people were against it
And?
And from this (and nothing else, that I can see) you conclude "it *is* restricting political speech"
Yeah, we wouldn't want to take the opinion of experts over yours. But anyway, what more do you want? The gov't would be placing restrictions, with possible jail time for not "having your papers in order" before engaging in certain types of political speech. That does not fit the definition of "free" (meaning unrestricted) that we normally apply to speech. The "restriction" is that you have to register or go to jail. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.
The word is "non sequitur" and you don't know how to apply it any more than you know how to spell it. Have you never heard the term "legal opinion?" In other words, current opinions and previous expert opinions have weight in a court of law. Since we are talking about a legal matter that is less than explicit (like abortion, the right to privacy, separation of Church and State) what else would we go on?
Right. A point which was reflected in my post when I wrote "certain types of paid political speech."
Obviously what the bill was attempting to deal with is what is known here as "astroturfing," but it is still political speech and I'm not comfortable with the gov't placing restrictions upon it, no matter how dishonest or obnoxious it is. And BTW, neither is the ACLU, who said "Section 220, entitled 'Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying' imposes onerous reporting requirements that will chill constitutionally protected activity."
SEC. 222. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1606) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) Civil Penalty- ' before `Whoever'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) Criminal Penalty- Whoever knowingly, willfully, and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.'.
There's a good reason why such a broad range of organizations, from the ACLU to Gun Owners' Associations were against the blogger provision--because despite being for only astroturfing, it *is* restricting political speech.
The thing is that so many seem to support certain rights more than others and this could be our downfall. Gun owners want gun rights and don't care about free speech. Free speech advocates care about their thing and ignore freedom of religion. Etc., etc. It also seems that Republicans seem more offended at a Democratically-proposed freedom infringements, and vice versa.
If you read some of the other posts on this story, you will see people suggesting executing, lynching or murdering the AG (interestingly enough modded "Insightful"); but check their post history and see if they were so exercised when the Senate tried to control certain types of paid political speech by bloggers. The AG should most certainly be fired immediately, but one wonders whether party affiliation might have something to do with this selectivity.
The fact is that if you are an American and you haven't taken the opportunity to call and write your Congressmen/Congresswomen and pitch a huge fit, you are shirking *your* responsibility. After that, it may become necessary to protest in street, even if it's not a right that benefits us personally or reflects our party's position.
Because Wikipedia's search capability seems somewhat lacking, I have learned that it is usually much easier to find something on Wikipedia by entering the search term in Goole plus "wikipedia" or even "wiki." Will this affect how effective this search strategy is?
p.s. In fairness, this also works better with other sites (like Amazon, NewEgg, etc.) too.
I'm truly not trying to be argumentative or snarky, because what you said makes a lot of sense. But you haven't met the these customers. Or for that matter, the other employees with whom I worked at a Fortune 100 before I started my own business.
When I worked for this company, I was a writer in the advertising department, but I spent all of my time doing the following:
- Finding the other employees saved documents for them. This is because they would always save the document in whatever directory the dialog box happened to open to. When I asked them where they saved it, they would say "in Word" or "in Excel" or whatever. To use the search function would have been for them like deciphering hieroglyphics.
- Since they could only open an application if they had an icon on the desktop, I had to replace these icons whenever the Desktop Cleanup Wizard would run because they always clicked whatever the default was.
- Trying to fix spyware/viruses and trying to convince them that clicking "Yes" is a bad idea when Norton says "haxx0r.ownU.exe wants to execute on your computer. Allow?"
- Writing a macro that would take the line breaks out Word documents since they ALWAYS used a hard return at the end of a line, which caused Word to capitalize the first word in every line.
- Convince people that it wasn't necessary to email 30MB artwork files to each other since we had a network. The email had a 1MB limit in attachments.
- Convincing people that it is not necessary to paste a photo into Powerpoint in order to save it.
- etc., etc.
It's really not that much different now, other than I make more money at it. I guess that my point is that being incompetent in Linux is no worse than being incompetent in Windows.
And, to bring this back on topic, do you seriously believe that unless you've solved problem A you can't work on problem B? In other words, as long as there are starving children in India, India can't work on, say, computers. Actually, at this point, I'm not sure. There may be an overlap that I hadn't considered. I'm not so sure about going to the moon, but as someone else pointed out, satellites have benefits for food production (weather predictions, etc). I wonder if it can be quantified.
In all fairness, I could be reacting more out of emotion and despair than straight logic. It is really a horrible thing to see so many people in so much need and realize that you can do so little about it.
Less developed countries do export cash crops. But rich farmers are the true benefactors of the "Green Revolution". Poor farmers cannot afford the patented seeds, tractors, fuel, and everything that's needed to produce the crops American science has developed.
To feed the starving, many small social actions are needed, such as better education, professional training, crop diversity using native plants which have evolved to be resistant to local pests, etc. This is an effort that does not compete and can perfectly well coexist with and profit from space science. I agree. My wife and I have been very active for over ten years in efforts to bring this training and technology to third-world countries. I travel outside the US to teach certain aspects at least twice a year. More help is needed, especially from the type of technologically savvy people you find on
And oh, these satellite thingys have helped improve agriculture by weather forecasting, geological and geographical surveys, communications etc. Amongst other things, such as education, industrialization, early weather warning systems and the like. Good point. Seriously, I hadn't really considered that. I wonder if going to the moon helps too.
But hey, you go ahead. In your total idiocy and lack of vision, sit there mocking at technological achievements which are the crux for the foundation and development of any society. Way to go, Strawman! I never mocked technological achievements. Not once.
What sheer stupidity. Denying a man his dream is the worst kind of sin one could commit. Such an asinine statement, that it doesn't really need to be refuted...but what the heck. A man (or woman) doesn't have the right to fulfill his/her dream on public money. Public money is presumably for the public good. If it is his/her dream, let him come up with or raise the cash like Jeff Bezos.
But hey, if the gutter smells wonderful to you, who am I to stop you from sniffing at it. Those that can dream will dream. Dream on then, Oh Great Strawman Dreamer!
I suggest investing in crop science to produce more food with the same land resources. It's worked here.
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of this old argument?
No, there are plenty of people who feel the same as you--they're called Republicans.
I do volunteer work in the inner-city and in rural Appalachia so I've seen first-hand the things that your link indicates, but the poverty in these places simply does not compare to what one will see in some of the places (India, Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Pakistan) that I've been.
Yes, there is work to be done in the US but it's mostly treatment and/or education. Your post, however, glibly trivializes the dire circumstances that exist in many parts of the world where there simply is not enough food.While anyone can cook up stats about hunger, there is a simple test that can indicate the true level of hunger in an area: offer a half-eaten sandwich (or whatever) to someone in the street and see the reaction. In the inner-city area near us where I serve, that will at least get you cussed out, if not get the crap beaten out of you. However, we have had six-year-old children at an outdoor restaurant in Oaxaca, Mexico, gratefully eat the last bite of our salad. Similar results in the countries listed above.
The fact is that there is hunger in some instances in the US, but it is more often due to parents' mental illness or drug/alcohol use than to a general lack of food availability. Often there is enough money but it is squandered on other things. In many cases in rural Appalachia, we have gone to houses where the kids truly do not have enough to eat and yet the parents have Marlboros (not even generics) and/or satellite TV. There's not much that can be done when parents care more about smoking and television than feeding their kids. Also, have you never heard of the Hunger/Obesity Paradox. Read up, becuase in America, the poorest kids are also the fattest.
I was in India last year; the poverty and malnutrition in the outlying areas is simply heart-breaking. Worse than anywhere else that I've been. Call me old-fashioned, but before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?
I guess that one could make the case that India's space program is an investment in the future, but I wouldn't want to be the one to try to sell that to people who don't have enough food.
I noticed in the Wikipedia article that Jack Chick is part of the King-James-Only Movement. I agree with them since everyone knows that the KJV is the bible translation that Jesus used.
I'm not claiming that FOSS applications are necessarily the equal of closed-source software (although many of them obviously are)--it's just that you can't get cheaper than free.
I have so many customers who are running pirated Windows or Office that it's not even funny. That or they are still running Office 97. If these people had to shell out $250-$400 for Office or $150 for XP Pro, they would switch in to OO and Linux in about the same time it would take to hear that it's free (as in beer).
My wife is a perfect example of someone who *doesn't* need Windows. She logs on in the AM to check her Yahoo mail account, checks the local news, buys some stuff from Amazon or eBay, then heads to work.
Isn't it peculiar that when someone (an individual, gov't or corporation) tries to pander to the hip or "kewl" crowd, it actually comes off as even more contrived and lame. This Microsoft comic reminds me of junior-high school health classes about drugs or sex.
Besides that, Microsoft has to walk a fine line with software piracy. If they could eliminate it entirely, that would be when you would see a more mainstream adoption of FOSS.
I am perfectly aware of all of the Republicans power grabs and rights curtailment--I am against them as well. I am also aware of the public airwaves argument in the "Fairness" Doctrine and the "paid" provision (now thankfully struck down) in the S1 bill.
You made a cogent, well-thought-out and well-written argument, but even if you write 400 paragraphs, it's still the government controlling political speech. And I don't trust some committee of political hacks, whether Democrap or Republicant (spelling errors mine), to decide what's "fair." I would rather listen to some twit like Rush Limbaugh 24/7 than to give the government more authority over free-speech rights. Nor do I trust the government not to use the list or registered (albeit paid) bloggers for future retribution.
My opinion is that trusting the government is historically a bad idea, but if you're comfortable with that and you don't think that this is too much of a transgression, then that's your business and your right. However, I would be willing to riot in the street to keep my (and your) freedoms in this regard.
Yeah? Which two? I guess you could say that they're "bullshit" as long as you don't mind the gov't telling us who can say what and where they can say it. As long as you don't mind the gov't making one have their "papers in order" before one can engage in certain types of political speech. Personally, I mind. A lot.
And since the subject is hypocracy, where you appropriatly porportionally outraged at, for example, Tom Delay auctioning off chairmanships to the biggest fundraisers?
Yes, I was. If you read my post, you would have been able to see that I am actually quite hostile to both parties. But, apparently, you are only hostile to one and you think that the other has your interests at heart. Pffft, all I can say is "grab the KY and bend over," because you're gonna get screwed.
You could be right, and I actually hope that you are. In any event, we will see, but I'm not getting my hopes up too high.