Who cares if a currency is hoarded? That is the point of currency--to allow people to save as much as they like without taking real goods out of the economy and sitting on them.
You have a very bad understanding of the purpose of currency.
Currency does not exist solely as a store of wealth, that is only one purpose, and not even the most important one.
The most important purpose of currency is in providing liquidity to allow for greater freedom in making economic transactions.
All sitting on currency does is drive down prices, which sets up an equilibrium that makes people spend (ie "look how cheap that is! I'm going to use some of my savings to buy that and let it improve my life").
False. The reduction of currency in circulation due to hoarding also inhibits production, as producers realize that holding on to cash is better than producing goods. This leads to a deflationary spiral, with disastrous results. We've been through this. It sucked. It's the primary reason we have managed currencies.
Should investments be taxed higher or at the same amount as income? possibly, but that's a different topic.
No, it's not a different topic. It's the very basis of the argument. Why should capital gains income be taxed differently than wage income? Buffet's point in his recent statements on the subject is that the difference in the tax rates leads to accumulation of wealth at the top because the very system is regressive.
Your back-of-the-napkin calculation is missing a few things that eat into the leftover $500 pretty darn quickly -- $60 for incidentals doesn't begin to cover them.
Phone (say $30/mo). Actual medical costs (that insurance plan you list has a $5k deductible, remember -- at the minimum for basic standard of care you should have two dentist visits and one doctor visit each year, so roughly $250 in a cheap area), let's say $20/mo. Clothing (including shoes), let's say $20/mo (assuming shopping at goodwill). We've already busted your $60/mo, and haven't factored in laundry, cleaning supplies, furniture, etc. And forget about saving up a prudent (yet on the light side) rainy day fund of 6 months living expenses, plus saving $5000 for the insurance deductible in case of medical issue, plus the fact that the medical insurance will get much more expensive as you age.
Furthermore, since you reference 16th-largest city, I assume you're talking about Fort Worth TX. Turns out, $350 for studio apt rent is a lowball figure. Cheapest studio I could find in Ft Worth in a 10-minute online search is $380, and that's NOT including utilities.
So, more likely, assuming no health issues, monthly savings rate is closer to $200 than $500. At $200/mo, 40 years at a ridiculously optimistic real rate of 5% yields about $306k - but since it takes almost 5 years to save up the $5k medical fund plus the 6 months living expense fund, instead you're left with $228k at the end of 40 years.
And I'm going to hammer on the interest rates you've used. 5% real return over 40 years is ridiculous. 2-3% is much more realistic, and in line with historical figures, assuming a balanced portfolio.
It's easy to come up with impressive savings figures when you pull numbers out of a hat, and then use them in compound interest calculations over a massive period of time.
You could also argue that a big part of the problem of late is people living beyond their means. A nice, but modest, suburban home like the one you grew up in is no longer acceptable.
Pardon my french, but that's horseshit. Look at housing prices compared to household incomes (which considers that many more households have two wage-earners in them than in the past). Even for modest, smaller homes the cost is several times higher than it was 30 years ago (in terms of wages).
In terms of immiseration, the problem isn't exploitation but globalization (and cheap transport and communications). Back in the day, you competed for wages largely with people in your own country. Now, you're competing with workers from around the world.
That's part of the problem -- it feeds into the exploitation issue. But in many ways, it's an excuse given for profit-taking by capital. The workers have been conditioned to lick capital's boots, for fear of losing their jobs. Household debt plays into this, since it's one of the anchors that keeps people from rejecting low wages.
So, not only am I having trouble identifying the purpose of your non sequitur, I'm also finding it pretty funny that your factoid is meaningless in the context of how much money Newscorp spends on political activities.
I don't have substantive evidence of illicit activity, which is why I included the clause "there may be".
However, it's widely know that NOTW's US subsidiary has *craploads* of influence through legal channels via campaign contributions, PAC activity, and control of a media empire. It's just common sense to think that Fox News, for example, has ties to the US government, since it was effectively an administration mouthpiece under GWB. The question is whether or not there was provable illicit activity involved.
Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime.
Bringing evidence of corruption to light is not demonizing police -- it is demonizing corrupt police. There is a difference, unless a premise of your argument is that all police are corrupt.
Also, you are using a bogeyman (military control) to justify allowing corruption to continue in the current system. I question your logic on this one.
Regardless, I still prefer my methods (which actually do something to stop corruption) than yours -- which is to passively allow it to continue. You are an enabler of corruption and the police state, motivated by fear.
But they'll try every arrow in their quiver in trying to salvage *something* from this ordeal.
Damage control... at the end, a couple years down the road, when there is some bargain being struck... if there is not enough public outrage, they'll be able to keep their broadcast licenses.
Regardless of what happens in the UK, they will still try to protect their US assets.
Furthermore, there may be US involvement that NOTW/the Feds want to keep from seeing the light of day, or at the very least, keep the level of outrage in the US far below what is being seen in the UK.
What do you mean? Sony isn't an American company. People who couldn't access PSN might have actually instead contributed to local economies, instead of contributing to the bottom lines of multinationals.
I understand where your point originates, but Sony is a very bad example for your point.
And to be *really* fair, you should know that the FBI is part of the Treasury department.
Cars made of hiundred dollar bills would actually fall under the joint jurisdiction of the Secret Service and the FBI, as the Secret Service handles currency-related crimes like defacement and counterfeiting. The Secret Service is the only law enforcement agency under the Executive Branch, btw.
No. What is reasonable is that the FBI had the operation planned and ready to go, and were waiting for the green light from the top.
The green light from the top came when it was convenient to someone or some group.
It's classic distraction, and the FBI has used media distraction extensively during its entire existence. Bad press coming in on you or someone you like? Bust a notorious criminal.
I'm all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system
The system is broken. There is collusion within police departments, with prosecutors, with judges that prevent the system from operating properly. One of our only weapons against the collusion and corruption that dog our system is the ability to disseminate evidence that brings the foulness into the light of day. Since you're so fond of commenting on US issues, despite the fact you're not American... the right to free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, and dissemination of videos like the ones we mention should be allowed as free speech.
Trial-by-media is necessary because the justice system has been perverted.
Well, I'm pretty sure my analysis is correct... but not 100% certain... so I put the disclaimer there to draw attention to the fact that I might very well be wrong, and to entice responses from people who could correct me if I am indeed wrong.
You're mixing the issues here. The fact that a jury pool has been tainted does not in any way affect the admissability of evidence.
Whether or not the evidence is tainted depends on a few factors. First off, if the evidence is illegally obtained by a third party not under the influence of the authorities, the evidence is not automatically tainted. Chain of custody becomes an important issue, however, since the prosecution would have to pretty much prove that the evidence was not altered by the third party. However, the most important one to this example, I think, would be the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Namely, whether the authorities would have inevitably discovered these documents in the course of their investigations (assuming full compliance with warrant issued by the court). I don't think there is any way the authoities would NOT serve a warrant for those emails.
There are of course other factors involved in whether the evidence is admissable. But a third party acting completely independently from the authorities acquiring evidence illegally does not make that evidence inadmissable, no matter whether or not it taints the jury pool.[1]
And for what it's worth... without public outcry, it's quite possible that the alleged guilty parties at NOTW would enter a plea bargain and have the evidence suppressed (legally or extra-legally, they have a ton of influence). It's why this is such a big scandal... that's exactly what they've been doing for years. Public access to the information is the foundation of the only weapons we have against the government-corporate-media complex[2] that subverts the US democracy.
[1] IANAL. If you want a real legal analysis, consult a real lawyer. YMMV. Half of what I know about law I learned from Perry Mason, Colombo, and Law and Order. The other half comes from researching topics relevant to slashdot discussion on the internet. Do not use my post as legal advice. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
[2] I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much that line makes me sound like one. It's obvious to me that US Legislators are far more beholden to the companies that pay their election bills and hire them once they are out of office than they are to the public; especially so for media companies, who by-and-large control what information the public has.
That's not how it works in the US, I dunno about the UK (I assume you're from the US due to your spelling of defense).
If the authorities made no effort to induce the illegal acquisition of the evidence, then it would still be admissable in US court AFAIK. The evidence if only tainted if the authorities, or someone acting at their behest (not a third-party with no link to the authorities), performs an illegal source. Chain of custody would be an issue, I would think, because it would have to be proven (more or less) that the emails were not altered after being lifted from NOTW's servers.
*I know this from watching Perry Mason, Columbo, and Law & Order reruns; IANAL; YMMV; if you want legal advice consult a real lawyer; Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
You didn't spend eight years of your life defending the Constitution or the ideas in it. You spent eight years of your life risking that life to enrich the people at the top of the military-industrial complex.
You can't really find fault with me assuming you live in the US, since you refer to the US government as "the government".
At any rate, my point still remains. Have you signed up for Robinsonliste? It's free. Have you sent them a letter revoking your consent to be contacted by telephone? It is illegal for firms to telemarket in Germany unless prior consent is given.
So are you still going to sit on your ass and gripe about it, or are you going to take action to stop it?
For offshoring, the inefficiencies can be made up for over time as the offshore teams come up to speed. It takes years to learn how to work with them, and how to use them effectively, but overall it can be made to work, and sometimes it can work quite well.
In my experience, those gains are very rarely realized, since there is such a large churn of staff when you offshore. I feel lucky to get 12 months from an employee in India, even though our wages there are very competitive and we give good raises and bonuses. I think there's a view that staying with one company for too long makes you seem like you're not a go-getter over there, even if you're getting promotons and raises. I've had employees leave for a 2% increase in salary, though they knew they'd be getting a 5-8% raise in less than three months.
My view of off-shoring is that you have to be willing to sacrifice things to make it work, and you'll spend more money than you thought you would. In the end, you can still save cash, but only if you're willing to lose some sleep, some sanity, and some quality in your product. My field is finance, not engineering, but I think these observations run true for both fields:
1. In general, you shouldn't expect the quality of work to be as good if you expect to save a lot of money. Good personnel are becoming nearly as expensive in India as they are here. 2. You will need to more than double your management staff to get equivalent results. I have had success with a ratio of 1:8 for onshore ops, but I need more like 1:4 for offshore ops -- and that is not even including the local person you will need to manage the entire op. I believe this is due to the preference of Indian workers to not make decisions lest they be held accountable for them... every little thing gets kicked up the chain.
Blah blah blah blah big banks blah blah anti-government rant that has nothing to do withthe subhect at hand other than a tangential connection because the subject of the article happens to be a bank. You do know that Citi isn't actually the company calling you, right?
As for them calling you... telling them to take you off their list is not enough.
You need to ask them what company is calling on behalf of Citigroup. Then you need to ask to be taken off both their list and Citi's list. Finally, make sure you get the ID# or name of the person calling. Take detailed notes.
If they call again, fill out a complaint form with the FCC, the form is available at their website and extremely easy to file. I suggest grabbing the form first so you know what specific information to note when they call. This course of action may be unpalatable to someone who hates the idea of big government, so I'll understand if instead you just want to waste energy griping about it.
Just to be clear, since you haven't written it out in your posts in this thread...
You believe that we should have government owned and operated infrastructure, leased to private companies for content delivery, as per previous posts you've made. (Whereas, a couple years ago, you believed that competing telcos should be laying out their own privately owned infrastructure).
This is still your belief, correct? Or have you changed your mind?
And for the nitty-gritty... who should pay to dig the trenches and lay the cable? That was the original trade-off, a grant of regulated monopoly in exchange for the telco bearing the expense of laying the cable. These monopolies we're dealing with now represent us paying the price for damn-near-free (to the consumer and municipality) buildout. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
My county government MANDATED that, "Our citizens want cable television. Let's hire somebody to lay the cables and give them an exclusive deal for ten years," and then handed it over to the highest bidder
You're still conveniently forgetting the existence of natural monopolies that necessitate this situation. Even if your County didn't grant the telco a monopoly, you'd still have, at best, a single provider.
You argue that the only reason we have a monopoly is because it is government-mandated. This is false.
We have a naturally-mandated (due to extremely high build-out cost) monopoly that is recognized and over-seen by government. It is not government-mandated. It is government-regulated.
I know this is an old post, but I thought I'd call you out on this blatant falsehood you posted:
The overwhelming majority of the richest counties in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic Party
I know for a fact that the three wealthiest counties in NJ vote Republican (and they are all in the top ten in the US). Do you have anything to cite for your ridiculous claim? Or are you blowing smoke out your ass again?
Slashdot Mirror
You have a very bad understanding of the purpose of currency.
Currency does not exist solely as a store of wealth, that is only one purpose, and not even the most important one.
The most important purpose of currency is in providing liquidity to allow for greater freedom in making economic transactions.
False. The reduction of currency in circulation due to hoarding also inhibits production, as producers realize that holding on to cash is better than producing goods. This leads to a deflationary spiral, with disastrous results. We've been through this. It sucked. It's the primary reason we have managed currencies.
The capital gains rate is less than the personal income tax rate for all but the very lowest wage earners.
No, it's not a different topic. It's the very basis of the argument. Why should capital gains income be taxed differently than wage income? Buffet's point in his recent statements on the subject is that the difference in the tax rates leads to accumulation of wealth at the top because the very system is regressive.
Your back-of-the-napkin calculation is missing a few things that eat into the leftover $500 pretty darn quickly -- $60 for incidentals doesn't begin to cover them.
Phone (say $30/mo). Actual medical costs (that insurance plan you list has a $5k deductible, remember -- at the minimum for basic standard of care you should have two dentist visits and one doctor visit each year, so roughly $250 in a cheap area), let's say $20/mo. Clothing (including shoes), let's say $20/mo (assuming shopping at goodwill). We've already busted your $60/mo, and haven't factored in laundry, cleaning supplies, furniture, etc. And forget about saving up a prudent (yet on the light side) rainy day fund of 6 months living expenses, plus saving $5000 for the insurance deductible in case of medical issue, plus the fact that the medical insurance will get much more expensive as you age.
Furthermore, since you reference 16th-largest city, I assume you're talking about Fort Worth TX. Turns out, $350 for studio apt rent is a lowball figure. Cheapest studio I could find in Ft Worth in a 10-minute online search is $380, and that's NOT including utilities.
So, more likely, assuming no health issues, monthly savings rate is closer to $200 than $500. At $200/mo, 40 years at a ridiculously optimistic real rate of 5% yields about $306k - but since it takes almost 5 years to save up the $5k medical fund plus the 6 months living expense fund, instead you're left with $228k at the end of 40 years.
And I'm going to hammer on the interest rates you've used. 5% real return over 40 years is ridiculous. 2-3% is much more realistic, and in line with historical figures, assuming a balanced portfolio.
It's easy to come up with impressive savings figures when you pull numbers out of a hat, and then use them in compound interest calculations over a massive period of time.
Pardon my french, but that's horseshit. Look at housing prices compared to household incomes (which considers that many more households have two wage-earners in them than in the past). Even for modest, smaller homes the cost is several times higher than it was 30 years ago (in terms of wages).
That's part of the problem -- it feeds into the exploitation issue. But in many ways, it's an excuse given for profit-taking by capital. The workers have been conditioned to lick capital's boots, for fear of losing their jobs. Household debt plays into this, since it's one of the anchors that keeps people from rejecting low wages.
Oooh, you know what's even more ironic?
Your source, OpenSecrets.org, linked an article from Friday that analyzes Newscorp political spending in the US and comes to the opposite conclusion. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/15/how-rupert-murdoch-s-money-helps-him-makes-friends.html Newscorp spends far, far more in soft money than they do in campaign contributions.
So, not only am I having trouble identifying the purpose of your non sequitur, I'm also finding it pretty funny that your factoid is meaningless in the context of how much money Newscorp spends on political activities.
Adolescent fantasy. Might make for a good movie, though.
The government still has plenty of bread and circus to keep the masses off their backs.
I don't have substantive evidence of illicit activity, which is why I included the clause "there may be".
However, it's widely know that NOTW's US subsidiary has *craploads* of influence through legal channels via campaign contributions, PAC activity, and control of a media empire. It's just common sense to think that Fox News, for example, has ties to the US government, since it was effectively an administration mouthpiece under GWB. The question is whether or not there was provable illicit activity involved.
Bringing evidence of corruption to light is not demonizing police -- it is demonizing corrupt police. There is a difference, unless a premise of your argument is that all police are corrupt.
Also, you are using a bogeyman (military control) to justify allowing corruption to continue in the current system. I question your logic on this one.
Regardless, I still prefer my methods (which actually do something to stop corruption) than yours -- which is to passively allow it to continue. You are an enabler of corruption and the police state, motivated by fear.
I didn't say they'd be successful.
But they'll try every arrow in their quiver in trying to salvage *something* from this ordeal.
Damage control... at the end, a couple years down the road, when there is some bargain being struck... if there is not enough public outrage, they'll be able to keep their broadcast licenses.
Regardless of what happens in the UK, they will still try to protect their US assets.
Furthermore, there may be US involvement that NOTW/the Feds want to keep from seeing the light of day, or at the very least, keep the level of outrage in the US far below what is being seen in the UK.
What do you mean? Sony isn't an American company. People who couldn't access PSN might have actually instead contributed to local economies, instead of contributing to the bottom lines of multinationals.
I understand where your point originates, but Sony is a very bad example for your point.
And to be *really* fair, you should know that the FBI is part of the Treasury department.
Cars made of hiundred dollar bills would actually fall under the joint jurisdiction of the Secret Service and the FBI, as the Secret Service handles currency-related crimes like defacement and counterfeiting. The Secret Service is the only law enforcement agency under the Executive Branch, btw.
No. What is reasonable is that the FBI had the operation planned and ready to go, and were waiting for the green light from the top.
The green light from the top came when it was convenient to someone or some group.
It's classic distraction, and the FBI has used media distraction extensively during its entire existence. Bad press coming in on you or someone you like? Bust a notorious criminal.
The system is broken. There is collusion within police departments, with prosecutors, with judges that prevent the system from operating properly. One of our only weapons against the collusion and corruption that dog our system is the ability to disseminate evidence that brings the foulness into the light of day. Since you're so fond of commenting on US issues, despite the fact you're not American... the right to free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, and dissemination of videos like the ones we mention should be allowed as free speech.
Trial-by-media is necessary because the justice system has been perverted.
Not unless the last guy is willing to put his own eye out. He should be able to evade 6 Billion blind people, right?
Well, I'm pretty sure my analysis is correct... but not 100% certain... so I put the disclaimer there to draw attention to the fact that I might very well be wrong, and to entice responses from people who could correct me if I am indeed wrong.
You're mixing the issues here. The fact that a jury pool has been tainted does not in any way affect the admissability of evidence.
Whether or not the evidence is tainted depends on a few factors. First off, if the evidence is illegally obtained by a third party not under the influence of the authorities, the evidence is not automatically tainted. Chain of custody becomes an important issue, however, since the prosecution would have to pretty much prove that the evidence was not altered by the third party. However, the most important one to this example, I think, would be the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Namely, whether the authorities would have inevitably discovered these documents in the course of their investigations (assuming full compliance with warrant issued by the court). I don't think there is any way the authoities would NOT serve a warrant for those emails.
There are of course other factors involved in whether the evidence is admissable. But a third party acting completely independently from the authorities acquiring evidence illegally does not make that evidence inadmissable, no matter whether or not it taints the jury pool.[1]
And for what it's worth... without public outcry, it's quite possible that the alleged guilty parties at NOTW would enter a plea bargain and have the evidence suppressed (legally or extra-legally, they have a ton of influence). It's why this is such a big scandal... that's exactly what they've been doing for years. Public access to the information is the foundation of the only weapons we have against the government-corporate-media complex[2] that subverts the US democracy.
[1] IANAL. If you want a real legal analysis, consult a real lawyer. YMMV. Half of what I know about law I learned from Perry Mason, Colombo, and Law and Order. The other half comes from researching topics relevant to slashdot discussion on the internet. Do not use my post as legal advice. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
[2] I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much that line makes me sound like one. It's obvious to me that US Legislators are far more beholden to the companies that pay their election bills and hire them once they are out of office than they are to the public; especially so for media companies, who by-and-large control what information the public has.
That's not how it works in the US, I dunno about the UK (I assume you're from the US due to your spelling of defense).
If the authorities made no effort to induce the illegal acquisition of the evidence, then it would still be admissable in US court AFAIK. The evidence if only tainted if the authorities, or someone acting at their behest (not a third-party with no link to the authorities), performs an illegal source. Chain of custody would be an issue, I would think, because it would have to be proven (more or less) that the emails were not altered after being lifted from NOTW's servers.
*I know this from watching Perry Mason, Columbo, and Law & Order reruns; IANAL; YMMV; if you want legal advice consult a real lawyer; Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Hah. Sucker.
You didn't spend eight years of your life defending the Constitution or the ideas in it. You spent eight years of your life risking that life to enrich the people at the top of the military-industrial complex.
Your brainwashing is showing.
You can't really find fault with me assuming you live in the US, since you refer to the US government as "the government" .
At any rate, my point still remains. Have you signed up for Robinsonliste? It's free. Have you sent them a letter revoking your consent to be contacted by telephone? It is illegal for firms to telemarket in Germany unless prior consent is given.
So are you still going to sit on your ass and gripe about it, or are you going to take action to stop it?
In my experience, those gains are very rarely realized, since there is such a large churn of staff when you offshore. I feel lucky to get 12 months from an employee in India, even though our wages there are very competitive and we give good raises and bonuses. I think there's a view that staying with one company for too long makes you seem like you're not a go-getter over there, even if you're getting promotons and raises. I've had employees leave for a 2% increase in salary, though they knew they'd be getting a 5-8% raise in less than three months.
My view of off-shoring is that you have to be willing to sacrifice things to make it work, and you'll spend more money than you thought you would. In the end, you can still save cash, but only if you're willing to lose some sleep, some sanity, and some quality in your product. My field is finance, not engineering, but I think these observations run true for both fields:
1. In general, you shouldn't expect the quality of work to be as good if you expect to save a lot of money. Good personnel are becoming nearly as expensive in India as they are here.
2. You will need to more than double your management staff to get equivalent results. I have had success with a ratio of 1:8 for onshore ops, but I need more like 1:4 for offshore ops -- and that is not even including the local person you will need to manage the entire op. I believe this is due to the preference of Indian workers to not make decisions lest they be held accountable for them... every little thing gets kicked up the chain.
But that's just my personal experience, YMMV.
Blah blah blah blah big banks blah blah anti-government rant that has nothing to do withthe subhect at hand other than a tangential connection because the subject of the article happens to be a bank. You do know that Citi isn't actually the company calling you, right?
As for them calling you... telling them to take you off their list is not enough.
You need to ask them what company is calling on behalf of Citigroup. Then you need to ask to be taken off both their list and Citi's list. Finally, make sure you get the ID# or name of the person calling. Take detailed notes.
If they call again, fill out a complaint form with the FCC, the form is available at their website and extremely easy to file. I suggest grabbing the form first so you know what specific information to note when they call. This course of action may be unpalatable to someone who hates the idea of big government, so I'll understand if instead you just want to waste energy griping about it.
We've been over this before.
Just to be clear, since you haven't written it out in your posts in this thread...
You believe that we should have government owned and operated infrastructure, leased to private companies for content delivery, as per previous posts you've made. (Whereas, a couple years ago, you believed that competing telcos should be laying out their own privately owned infrastructure).
This is still your belief, correct? Or have you changed your mind?
And for the nitty-gritty... who should pay to dig the trenches and lay the cable? That was the original trade-off, a grant of regulated monopoly in exchange for the telco bearing the expense of laying the cable. These monopolies we're dealing with now represent us paying the price for damn-near-free (to the consumer and municipality) buildout. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
You're still conveniently forgetting the existence of natural monopolies that necessitate this situation. Even if your County didn't grant the telco a monopoly, you'd still have, at best, a single provider.
You argue that the only reason we have a monopoly is because it is government-mandated. This is false.
We have a naturally-mandated (due to extremely high build-out cost) monopoly that is recognized and over-seen by government. It is not government-mandated. It is government-regulated.
I know for a fact that the three wealthiest counties in NJ vote Republican (and they are all in the top ten in the US). Do you have anything to cite for your ridiculous claim? Or are you blowing smoke out your ass again?