Your question isn't intractable. It's sterile. It has the same amount of predictive and analytical power as "Goddidit". It's utterly boring. It leads nowhere. Not only that, but the Greeks already knew about it and found it to be an approach that lead nowhere. The best - and really only response - I got to this question is "Who cares?" As for which texts we read in "middle school", Plato's cave analogy was a nice starting point. Descartes in High School was a bit more interesting, but he fell flat due to the necessity to use circular reasoning to get anywhere with that approach.
What makes me roll my eyes isn't the philosophy, it's the attitude of people like you who think they've found some special trick question. You haven't. You're merely regurgitating a 2000 year old discussion that was rejected pretty much immediately. You're like a 9 year old who yells citizen's arrest! every time he sees his parents speeding. It merely betrays your own shallowness and lack of understanding.
And what's with the quotes. Did you do the appropriate air quotes with your fingers as well?
Yes, we all had the thought in our first philosophy class "what if all memory is wrong!?!?!?". Then we hit double-digits in age, and got over ourselves. Some, on the other hand, still persist. Congratulations on being stuck in middle-school philosophy.
That's my only problem with Bill's video: it was guaranteed to trigger the knee-jerk response of "You can't tell me how to raise my kids!". It was spoken from the heart, and as such a lousy piece of propaganda. To convince Americans, you have to weave in freedom "you're free from long dead guys telling you how to live your life!" and money "using the theory of evolution at work makes you more money than if you don't". It's sad, but true.
On more abstract notes: actually, we can. You can tell your kids that there's a giant bearded guy in the sky who is responsible for everything that's happening, and we can tell you that you're wrong and reducing the odds of your kids being successful. If you think someone telling you that you're being an idiot is the same as a tyrant telling his serfs to fork over more wheat bushels, you have unlearned every lesson a serf has ever learned. And finally, Creationism is not the same as belief in god. One deals with the unknowable, the other is just a creation myth that some people decided to take literally.
That was just Reid being Reid, and giving Romney and the GOP a big, fat middle-finger.
No, the reason that Romney is not revealing his taxes prior to 2011 is because of something called the FBAR. Judging from how aggressively Romney pursues tax shelters, I'm dead sure that a lot of the foreign accounts he had where specifically designed to hide money from the IRS. When the US started to move aggressively against such tax shelters, those accounts got squeezed - hard. Few reputable banks wanted anything to do with hiding money anymore, especially from Americans. And when in 2009, the IRS offered a limited and expensive amnesty to people with such accounts, Romney decided to pay the fine and make his money legal. That process would have wrapped up with the 2010 tax forms.
That's 100% speculation on my part, but it's the only reason I can see why Romney isn't releasing more tax releases prior to 2011. There has to be some sort of political suicide in those tax forms, and being labeled a tax cheat is probably as close to a death sentence as you can get in politics (short of banging someone other than your wife, I supposed).
If Romney was running as the moderate he ran as while aiming for job of governor of Massachusetts, I would actually be ok with him. Instead, he decided to follow the same gambit that McCain did in 2008: tack hard to the right to win the republican nomination, and then hope that you have enough political good will left that people will let you tack back to the center for the presidential election. McCain miscalculated badly in 2008 (he also had the problem of running as a Republican when the Democrats could have fielded a trained monkey and still would have had a reasonable chance to win), and I suspect Romney might be miscalculating as well. Even if he wins and decides to become a moderate, I doubt the tea-party and social conservatives will let him. If anything, I'm pretty sure they'll pull out the mandate approach GWB had, and just try to turn the US into a Baptist utopia.
Oh look - it's one of bonch's many, many extra accounts. Look - no one has it in for you. Your problem is your irrational hatred of all things Google, that makes you do stupid things like crapflood Google stories with 20 GNAA troll posts.
Sometimes, a troll moderation is just someone disagreeing with you. If every person with mod points thinks you're a troll, then maybe, just maybe, it is you.
The PC isn't dying. It is, however, going to undergo a dramatic shrinkage as a lot of people realize that they really only ever consume data. In that area, tablets and phones are going to replace PCs.
PCs will be the exclusive domain of the nerds and content creators. Just like it was in the beginning.
Wow, easily available contraceptives now lead to Brave New World? I don't know how else to say it, so: You're a fucking moron. Easily accessible contraceptives allow people to plan a family and to raise children when they're ready for it. They improve social efficiency, lower social costs like crime, abuse and neglect, and generally lead to happier families.
The entire "just don't have sex" approach has been tried, and it's not working.
Uh.... dude, sorry to break it to you, but shingles are a RESULT of chickenpox infections. If you've never had chickenpox, you don't get shingles. And yes, chickenpox is much more serious than shingles, if for no other reason than that it is highly contagious.
I also think that there is some development that needs to happen with the childs immune system before it is as effective at utilizing a vaccine. So I would wait a little longer than the recommended time for some of the vaccines.
Did you do some sort of study to come to this conclusion? Or is this just a gut feeling? I mean, Hepatitis vaccines.... fine, give them when they're 8 years old. Even bad luck with an infected needle at a hospital should be a pretty low chance for that. And no one is talking about yellow fever vaccines. So really... you're again illustrating fuzzy's point: people are making decisions on vaccines while being 100% in their understanding of the diseases and the vaccines.
Neither was an invention, nor innovative. Unless you think that "... on a phone!" counts as being either. Specifically bringing up the Retina display is retarded - it's nothing but a small LED screen that has exactly the same properties as any other high-density screen, and Apple didn't even develop or manufacture them! It's pure marketing BS, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Actually, that would be "Baptist". The Catholics had about 2000 years to get over themselves, and they finally stopped resisting the entire democracy/enlightenment movement about 50/100 years ago. The Baptists, on the other hand.....
This. This times a million. To me, there's nothing scarier than the social conservative wing of the Republican party. They demonstrated that science means nothing to them (by spinning Akin's comments as a misunderstood slip of the tongue, rather than just plain wrong), they demonstrated that they're willing to put THEIR interpretation of the bible over anybody else's opinion on how to handle themselves, and they've demonstrated that they're willing to go to great lengths to make sure that their political dogma becomes the law of the land.
Quite frankly, I'd rather shack up with the Paulites and the actual communists than the social conservatives. I don't actually care about their position, but the amount of work they're putting into shoving their stone-age principles down my throat is far greater than that of any other political group in the US. Not to mention that they're also far more successful.
Is anyone on your list advising Obama on policy, or helping the DNC shape the national platform? No? That's what I thought. The reason the republicans are indeed the scary fearmongers is because the republican leadership actually believes the shit Akin, and, to a lesser extent, Trump trots out.
now it's multiple dozens of shots for all kinds of pointless things.
I think you're quite nicely illustrating fuzzy's point: you have never actually SEEN the impact of a measles, dyptheria or whopping cough epidemic. That's the only reason you could think that those vaccinations are for things that are kinda pointless. All those diseases are not 100% deadly, but they are nasty enough and spread easily enough that the impact on society is very, very expensive, with a death toll that does make people sit up and take notice.
I'm pretty sure that the RIAA feels that in case the pleb revolts, they can just hire a few armed guards for their gated communities and electrify their fences.
Ah, I see: the $10 you would have received from those songs would have completed your 3rd gold-plated yacht exactly 28 seconds earlier. Since you have forever lost those 28 seconds of enjoyment of your 3rd yacht, someone should be put into debtor's prison. Gotcha.
Little note: in 1796, they decapitated a whole class of people for pretty much the same attitude. You might want to work a bit on your PR there.
By cost, I meant that people going into arbitration have to take PTO, they have to travel to the place of arbitration and actually study up on what is going on. And arbitration by telephone? That works only if it is something braindead that doesn't require any discussion of evidence. And it's funny that the arbitration costs only come into play for very small sums, which would indicate that the arbitration will be short and sweet. For anything more significant, you're on the hook for everything yourself.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Ah, the free market magic at work. What alternative would they use? What other online auction site has the same network effect? Yeah, that's what I thought. Not to mention that arbitration specifically targets small issues spread over a lot users - just enough to not piss off people enough to leave, but just enough to add comfortably to the bottom line. Looks like you're actually aware that that's already happening. Why bother with this line of argument if you already know it's wrong?
It is biased towards the corporation by definition. Number 1, the corporation has people on payroll who handle lawsuits and arbitration requests. As a result, an arbitration request is a wash for the corporation, but it still is a huge inconvenience for the individual. Number 2, arbitration is on average much, much cheaper for a corporation than a lawsuit. So cheap that it amounts to change found in the couch. However, arbitration is still a significant cost for all but the top 20% of the population.
So who will take advantage of arbitration? Almost nobody. And the corporation can be safe in its knowledge that it can fuck its customers over $100 at a time, and it will barely cost it a dime.
Really? You're ok with someone getting physically assaulted because they said something to someone? And something that isn't really that offensive? What the fuck happened to "land of the free"? What the fuck happened to your freedoms stop at my nose?
I know where this is going, and it is truly fucking scary: It's ok for someone to get physically abused as long as I don't like them.
Especially if the humiliation is heaped on others who are too dark, too unchristian, too unlike everybody else. Somehow, I suspect if lily-white "Betty" with grandma glasses from Ohio would have been wearing that t-shirt, a) it us much less likely that it would have happened at all, and b) this would be making much more the news rounds.
As for the "You consented" line you give, it is impossible for such an intoxicated person to give such consent, because they are not in their right mind, and as such, cannot be aware of the repercussions of their choice.
I think this is what I covered with the argument: if you drink enough on your own that you become that intoxicated, it's your own damn fault. Drunk drivers don't get off from manslaughter charges because they drank too much before t-boning someone. I understand that the law disagrees with me on this, and I find that a deplorable double-standard.... but again, that's my opinion.
As for "Men cant have sex while unconscious", that is BS. Men get erections while asleep all the time. Its called morning wood. Woman on top position does not require male thrusting. Granted, alcohol tends to cause male impotence. There are other substances frequently used at parties that can render people unconscious as well, that dont do that. Men can and do get rufie'd.
Good point. I should have said that men being raped after blacking out from alcohol abuse is so rare that it should require some independent confirmation, along with a solid trail of evidence (other drugs in the blood stream, etc.). The odds that someone blacks out from drinking too much, gets dragged into a dark corner by a woman and manages to still sport a boner is exceedingly low.
I don't know if that's the right approach. I'd treat it like any ol' website: if you just believe what the first site you find says about some complex medical issue, that's your own problem. I'd appreciate if the official government agencies have some guidelines on how to identify scammy apps and which apps are useful, but other than that, I'm comfortable with the idea that it's just information in a snazzy new package, and as such, cannot and should not be controlled.
That said, anything that is officially endorsed by a doctor to monitor patient data should be carefully vetted that it conforms to standard medical practices and HIPAA standards. Diagnostic tools that are also officially endorsed by doctors to help their patients identify the onset of critical side-effects should follow similar practices.
But if you decide you want to download Joe Schmoe's instant hypochondriac app, you should be able to do so. We need more ways entries for the Darwin Awards anyway.
Because it is difficult to rape someone while having blacked-out. Now, you might argue that the guy drank so much alcohol that he doesn't remember the evening, but you were still awake. To that, I can just say: tough luck. Abusing drugs is no excuse for what you do while on said drugs. If you're arguing that the woman has a better time with calling rape, that's because it is very possible for someone to have intercourse with her while she is blacked out, which is by definition rape. The fact that she might just not remember is something that men should consider: if she is so drunk that she might not remember in the morning, it might be better to keep your dick in your pants.
The final part of your argument is a bit trickier, because you are setting it up that both consent, except that the woman then later decides she didn't actually want to have sex. Personally, I say tough shit. You consented initially, you don't get to call do-over. If alcohol makes you do things you regret later - don't drink alcohol.
But that's just me, and I agree that the current law is a little less than even on this.
Pickup an atlas and show me where in the world ANY OTHER CULTURE that treats women better.
Pretty much any country in Europe, Canada, Australia, heck, Russia doesn't have this approach towards women (just political opponents).
Yes, we have flaws and we are imperfect.
We are so imperfect that the only countries that make us look good are the ones run by stone-age fundamentalists - and there's a significant proportion of GOPers who are actively trying to get to that stage. They just call it "living by the Bible", instead of "living by the Koran".
Step 1 on the road to improvement is to toss out all the Christian fundamentalists. That's what this study shows.
Slashdot Mirror
Your question isn't intractable. It's sterile. It has the same amount of predictive and analytical power as "Goddidit". It's utterly boring. It leads nowhere. Not only that, but the Greeks already knew about it and found it to be an approach that lead nowhere. The best - and really only response - I got to this question is "Who cares?" As for which texts we read in "middle school", Plato's cave analogy was a nice starting point. Descartes in High School was a bit more interesting, but he fell flat due to the necessity to use circular reasoning to get anywhere with that approach.
What makes me roll my eyes isn't the philosophy, it's the attitude of people like you who think they've found some special trick question. You haven't. You're merely regurgitating a 2000 year old discussion that was rejected pretty much immediately. You're like a 9 year old who yells citizen's arrest! every time he sees his parents speeding. It merely betrays your own shallowness and lack of understanding.
And what's with the quotes. Did you do the appropriate air quotes with your fingers as well?
Yes, we all had the thought in our first philosophy class "what if all memory is wrong!?!?!?". Then we hit double-digits in age, and got over ourselves. Some, on the other hand, still persist. Congratulations on being stuck in middle-school philosophy.
That's my only problem with Bill's video: it was guaranteed to trigger the knee-jerk response of "You can't tell me how to raise my kids!". It was spoken from the heart, and as such a lousy piece of propaganda. To convince Americans, you have to weave in freedom "you're free from long dead guys telling you how to live your life!" and money "using the theory of evolution at work makes you more money than if you don't". It's sad, but true.
On more abstract notes: actually, we can. You can tell your kids that there's a giant bearded guy in the sky who is responsible for everything that's happening, and we can tell you that you're wrong and reducing the odds of your kids being successful. If you think someone telling you that you're being an idiot is the same as a tyrant telling his serfs to fork over more wheat bushels, you have unlearned every lesson a serf has ever learned. And finally, Creationism is not the same as belief in god. One deals with the unknowable, the other is just a creation myth that some people decided to take literally.
That was just Reid being Reid, and giving Romney and the GOP a big, fat middle-finger.
No, the reason that Romney is not revealing his taxes prior to 2011 is because of something called the FBAR. Judging from how aggressively Romney pursues tax shelters, I'm dead sure that a lot of the foreign accounts he had where specifically designed to hide money from the IRS. When the US started to move aggressively against such tax shelters, those accounts got squeezed - hard. Few reputable banks wanted anything to do with hiding money anymore, especially from Americans. And when in 2009, the IRS offered a limited and expensive amnesty to people with such accounts, Romney decided to pay the fine and make his money legal. That process would have wrapped up with the 2010 tax forms.
That's 100% speculation on my part, but it's the only reason I can see why Romney isn't releasing more tax releases prior to 2011. There has to be some sort of political suicide in those tax forms, and being labeled a tax cheat is probably as close to a death sentence as you can get in politics (short of banging someone other than your wife, I supposed).
If Romney was running as the moderate he ran as while aiming for job of governor of Massachusetts, I would actually be ok with him. Instead, he decided to follow the same gambit that McCain did in 2008: tack hard to the right to win the republican nomination, and then hope that you have enough political good will left that people will let you tack back to the center for the presidential election. McCain miscalculated badly in 2008 (he also had the problem of running as a Republican when the Democrats could have fielded a trained monkey and still would have had a reasonable chance to win), and I suspect Romney might be miscalculating as well. Even if he wins and decides to become a moderate, I doubt the tea-party and social conservatives will let him. If anything, I'm pretty sure they'll pull out the mandate approach GWB had, and just try to turn the US into a Baptist utopia.
Oh look - it's one of bonch's many, many extra accounts. Look - no one has it in for you. Your problem is your irrational hatred of all things Google, that makes you do stupid things like crapflood Google stories with 20 GNAA troll posts.
Sometimes, a troll moderation is just someone disagreeing with you. If every person with mod points thinks you're a troll, then maybe, just maybe, it is you.
The PC isn't dying. It is, however, going to undergo a dramatic shrinkage as a lot of people realize that they really only ever consume data. In that area, tablets and phones are going to replace PCs.
PCs will be the exclusive domain of the nerds and content creators. Just like it was in the beginning.
I wish he was a shill. Instead, I'm pretty sure he fervently believes everything he said.
The US is a fucked up place right about now.
Wow, easily available contraceptives now lead to Brave New World? I don't know how else to say it, so: You're a fucking moron. Easily accessible contraceptives allow people to plan a family and to raise children when they're ready for it. They improve social efficiency, lower social costs like crime, abuse and neglect, and generally lead to happier families.
The entire "just don't have sex" approach has been tried, and it's not working.
Uh.... dude, sorry to break it to you, but shingles are a RESULT of chickenpox infections. If you've never had chickenpox, you don't get shingles. And yes, chickenpox is much more serious than shingles, if for no other reason than that it is highly contagious.
I also think that there is some development that needs to happen with the childs immune system before it is as effective at utilizing a vaccine. So I would wait a little longer than the recommended time for some of the vaccines.
Did you do some sort of study to come to this conclusion? Or is this just a gut feeling? I mean, Hepatitis vaccines.... fine, give them when they're 8 years old. Even bad luck with an infected needle at a hospital should be a pretty low chance for that. And no one is talking about yellow fever vaccines. So really... you're again illustrating fuzzy's point: people are making decisions on vaccines while being 100% in their understanding of the diseases and the vaccines.
Neither was an invention, nor innovative. Unless you think that "... on a phone!" counts as being either. Specifically bringing up the Retina display is retarded - it's nothing but a small LED screen that has exactly the same properties as any other high-density screen, and Apple didn't even develop or manufacture them! It's pure marketing BS, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Good grief. Stop sucking on Zombie Steve's cock.
Actually, that would be "Baptist". The Catholics had about 2000 years to get over themselves, and they finally stopped resisting the entire democracy/enlightenment movement about 50/100 years ago. The Baptists, on the other hand.....
This. This times a million. To me, there's nothing scarier than the social conservative wing of the Republican party. They demonstrated that science means nothing to them (by spinning Akin's comments as a misunderstood slip of the tongue, rather than just plain wrong), they demonstrated that they're willing to put THEIR interpretation of the bible over anybody else's opinion on how to handle themselves, and they've demonstrated that they're willing to go to great lengths to make sure that their political dogma becomes the law of the land.
Quite frankly, I'd rather shack up with the Paulites and the actual communists than the social conservatives. I don't actually care about their position, but the amount of work they're putting into shoving their stone-age principles down my throat is far greater than that of any other political group in the US. Not to mention that they're also far more successful.
Is anyone on your list advising Obama on policy, or helping the DNC shape the national platform? No? That's what I thought. The reason the republicans are indeed the scary fearmongers is because the republican leadership actually believes the shit Akin, and, to a lesser extent, Trump trots out.
now it's multiple dozens of shots for all kinds of pointless things.
I think you're quite nicely illustrating fuzzy's point: you have never actually SEEN the impact of a measles, dyptheria or whopping cough epidemic. That's the only reason you could think that those vaccinations are for things that are kinda pointless. All those diseases are not 100% deadly, but they are nasty enough and spread easily enough that the impact on society is very, very expensive, with a death toll that does make people sit up and take notice.
I'm pretty sure that the RIAA feels that in case the pleb revolts, they can just hire a few armed guards for their gated communities and electrify their fences.
Ah, I see: the $10 you would have received from those songs would have completed your 3rd gold-plated yacht exactly 28 seconds earlier. Since you have forever lost those 28 seconds of enjoyment of your 3rd yacht, someone should be put into debtor's prison. Gotcha.
Little note: in 1796, they decapitated a whole class of people for pretty much the same attitude. You might want to work a bit on your PR there.
By cost, I meant that people going into arbitration have to take PTO, they have to travel to the place of arbitration and actually study up on what is going on. And arbitration by telephone? That works only if it is something braindead that doesn't require any discussion of evidence. And it's funny that the arbitration costs only come into play for very small sums, which would indicate that the arbitration will be short and sweet. For anything more significant, you're on the hook for everything yourself.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Ah, the free market magic at work. What alternative would they use? What other online auction site has the same network effect? Yeah, that's what I thought. Not to mention that arbitration specifically targets small issues spread over a lot users - just enough to not piss off people enough to leave, but just enough to add comfortably to the bottom line. Looks like you're actually aware that that's already happening. Why bother with this line of argument if you already know it's wrong?
It is biased towards the corporation by definition. Number 1, the corporation has people on payroll who handle lawsuits and arbitration requests. As a result, an arbitration request is a wash for the corporation, but it still is a huge inconvenience for the individual. Number 2, arbitration is on average much, much cheaper for a corporation than a lawsuit. So cheap that it amounts to change found in the couch. However, arbitration is still a significant cost for all but the top 20% of the population.
So who will take advantage of arbitration? Almost nobody. And the corporation can be safe in its knowledge that it can fuck its customers over $100 at a time, and it will barely cost it a dime.
Really? You're ok with someone getting physically assaulted because they said something to someone? And something that isn't really that offensive? What the fuck happened to "land of the free"? What the fuck happened to your freedoms stop at my nose?
I know where this is going, and it is truly fucking scary: It's ok for someone to get physically abused as long as I don't like them.
Wow. The US is fucked.
Especially if the humiliation is heaped on others who are too dark, too unchristian, too unlike everybody else. Somehow, I suspect if lily-white "Betty" with grandma glasses from Ohio would have been wearing that t-shirt, a) it us much less likely that it would have happened at all, and b) this would be making much more the news rounds.
As for the "You consented" line you give, it is impossible for such an intoxicated person to give such consent, because they are not in their right mind, and as such, cannot be aware of the repercussions of their choice.
I think this is what I covered with the argument: if you drink enough on your own that you become that intoxicated, it's your own damn fault. Drunk drivers don't get off from manslaughter charges because they drank too much before t-boning someone. I understand that the law disagrees with me on this, and I find that a deplorable double-standard.... but again, that's my opinion.
As for "Men cant have sex while unconscious", that is BS. Men get erections while asleep all the time. Its called morning wood. Woman on top position does not require male thrusting. Granted, alcohol tends to cause male impotence. There are other substances frequently used at parties that can render people unconscious as well, that dont do that. Men can and do get rufie'd.
Good point. I should have said that men being raped after blacking out from alcohol abuse is so rare that it should require some independent confirmation, along with a solid trail of evidence (other drugs in the blood stream, etc.). The odds that someone blacks out from drinking too much, gets dragged into a dark corner by a woman and manages to still sport a boner is exceedingly low.
I don't know if that's the right approach. I'd treat it like any ol' website: if you just believe what the first site you find says about some complex medical issue, that's your own problem. I'd appreciate if the official government agencies have some guidelines on how to identify scammy apps and which apps are useful, but other than that, I'm comfortable with the idea that it's just information in a snazzy new package, and as such, cannot and should not be controlled.
That said, anything that is officially endorsed by a doctor to monitor patient data should be carefully vetted that it conforms to standard medical practices and HIPAA standards. Diagnostic tools that are also officially endorsed by doctors to help their patients identify the onset of critical side-effects should follow similar practices.
But if you decide you want to download Joe Schmoe's instant hypochondriac app, you should be able to do so. We need more ways entries for the Darwin Awards anyway.
Because it is difficult to rape someone while having blacked-out. Now, you might argue that the guy drank so much alcohol that he doesn't remember the evening, but you were still awake. To that, I can just say: tough luck. Abusing drugs is no excuse for what you do while on said drugs. If you're arguing that the woman has a better time with calling rape, that's because it is very possible for someone to have intercourse with her while she is blacked out, which is by definition rape. The fact that she might just not remember is something that men should consider: if she is so drunk that she might not remember in the morning, it might be better to keep your dick in your pants.
The final part of your argument is a bit trickier, because you are setting it up that both consent, except that the woman then later decides she didn't actually want to have sex. Personally, I say tough shit. You consented initially, you don't get to call do-over. If alcohol makes you do things you regret later - don't drink alcohol.
But that's just me, and I agree that the current law is a little less than even on this.
Pickup an atlas and show me where in the world ANY OTHER CULTURE that treats women better.
Pretty much any country in Europe, Canada, Australia, heck, Russia doesn't have this approach towards women (just political opponents).
Yes, we have flaws and we are imperfect.
We are so imperfect that the only countries that make us look good are the ones run by stone-age fundamentalists - and there's a significant proportion of GOPers who are actively trying to get to that stage. They just call it "living by the Bible", instead of "living by the Koran".
Step 1 on the road to improvement is to toss out all the Christian fundamentalists. That's what this study shows.