Not So Silent Bob Sun, 02/14/2010 - 14:57 — Christi Day
Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.
As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well.
Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank – as he’s been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience.
You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement.
Not So Silent Bob Sun, 02/14/2010 - 14:57 — Christi Day
Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.
As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well.
Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank – as he’s been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience.
You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement.
If you're going to charge the fat folks extra, you gotta give the rest of us the price break on kids' tickets.
Well, what it comes down to is they can only sell whole seats. Your 6 year old might only need half a seat, but that still means he's taking up the whole seat - they can't sell the other half seat to someone else. A fat guy might prefer to buy 1.5 seats, but that isn't an option: he has to buy 2 seats, and that second seat is being taken away from another paying customer.
On the other hand, there's a possible solution: seat the kid who isn't using half of his seat next to the fat guy who needs an extra half seat. But in order to accurately bill everyone for the fractional seats they use, the airline would have to know everyone's measurements ahead of time (not just weight, because bulk is what really matters).
A lot of people would be all for someone else setting them up with a giant content-stealing network, since they'd like to leech off of their engineering efforts just like they'd like to continue to leech off of film makers and musicians.
A lot of people would happily help pay to set up that network, just like they'd happily help pay for the production of new content -- as long as they don't have to pay to use the network after it's set up, just like they don't want to pay for access to content after someone has voluntarily produced it.
Aha! Right there is the problem. The first-class IDE is Windows-only.
Not quite... there are F# bindings for older versions of MonoDevelop, although it looks like it's missing from more recent versions due to license changes (the F# plugin was GPL, MonoDevelop is moving away from GPL).
If the Wii players want to gather in the same room and play they will find that there are very few Wii games with split-screen multiplayer capability.
Mario Kart, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros Wii... there are still plenty of simultaneous multiplayer games. Even Super Mario Galaxy has a limited 2-player mode.
Taken together, this means the Wii is by and large, a solitary experience unless the players take turns watching each other play.
This is pretty much the opposite of my experience. Also, don't discount taking turns: playing something like WarioWare or Wii Sports is still a social, multiplayer activity.
However, in the past week we have seen Flash running on the new Nexus One released earlier this week. Additionally, the Droid has now been shown successfully running Flash as well.
Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on?
If that were true Trent Reznor wouldn't still have his app on the app store after blasting Apple pretty hard after they rejected one of the updates a while back.
You think every random developer has the same clout Trent Reznor has?
How about the fact that because of the restrictions Apple places on developers, you either can't get some of the popular apps that are available on other smartphones, or can only get less-functional versions?
"You want to listen to personalized music streams while you're checking your email? Sorry, there's no app for that. You want to automatically set the ringer to silent when you get within 100 feet of your office? Sorry, no app for that either. Can I interest you in fart sounds instead?"
The Droid does have a physical keyboard. The Motorola Milestone is a GSM version of the Droid, but I doubt it'll work with T-Mobile's 3G.
I switched to T-Mobile to get a G1, and as soon as my contract is up, I'm switching elsewhere. Their coverage is acceptable where I live (3G is spotty but covers most of the city), but they have zero coverage at my mom's house.
The particular arrangement of those bits happens to be pleasing to many people, and it has taken a vast amount of time and money to acheive that arrangement. If the artist(s) don't receive reasonable renumeration, it is unlikely that they will continue to arrange bits in a way that many people find to be pleasing.
This is true, but you're implicitly committing the fallacy of assuming that "reasonable remuneration" means paying for copies. He's an artist, not an intern: he should be in the business of making art (arranging those bits in a pleasing manner), not making copies (burning pre-arranged bits to disc and selling them). If arranging bits is a valuable thing to do, then he can get paid for it directly, just like people get paid for other valuable services.
The tailor can continue to make suits and profit from them regardless of the use you put them to. However, for a DVD, if the purchaser could perform that DVD to crowds and profit from it, the market for further sales, cinema showings etc., would totally disappear.
There are a few serious flaws with this argument.
First, it's not quite true. Just because I can go to someone's house and pay to watch his DVD doesn't mean I don't want a copy of my own so I can watch it at home, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather go watch it in a theater instead of someone's living room.
Second, even to the extent it is true, it misses the point by focusing on profit: if I set up free public exhibitions in my living room, that has an even worse effect on the market for cinema showings than if I charge for tickets. Yet according to your rule that "the licensing of creative works should be in proportion to the likely profits to be made from them by the purchaser", I can put on free shows without paying for a license, whereas the for-profit cinema owners have to pay extra.
Third, it can be used to justify just about any restriction on post-purchase use of any product. Letting a friend borrow my suit eats into the market for new suits. Used CDs and used cars eat into the market for new CDs and new cars. Bad reviews eat into the market for tickets and copies of whatever they're reviewing. Using the same logic, shouldn't we also ban lending, used sales, and negative reviews?
When you buy a DVD you're buying a license to "perform" that DVD in a particular context, and for a retail sale that means a private view in a private home.
When you buy a DVD, you're buying a piece of plastic with bits on it. Why is it anyone's business what you do with those bits?
I'm very against the indefinite extension of copyright terms, but I'm totally in agreement that the licensing of creative works should be in proportion to the likely profits to be made from them by the purchaser
Why?
Are you willing to extend this to everyone? For example, if I buy a suit to wear to a dinner party, and you buy the same suit to wear to an interview that lands you a high-paying job, is it unfair that the tailor makes the same profit from both of us: should he get a cut of your salary instead?
I contend that the movie producer, like the tailor, should be paid the same amount for selling the same product. He performs exactly the same work either way, no matter who he sells it to or what they do with it after they buy it.
All the slashdot wankery aside, this is a big problem: how do you maintain a viable production industry when their product becomes free to copy.
Easy: you stop charging for copies, and you charge for production instead. A DVD can be copied, but the labor that goes into producing a movie cannot.
It's just like how you pay someone to paint your house, instead of having him paint the house for free and then paying him each time you walk through the door. Or how you pay an accountant to do your taxes, and then you can make as many copies of the 1040 as you want, instead of having him fill out the original for free and then paying him for each copy you make. His knowledge, skill, and labor are what's valuable and scarce; copies are something you can easily make yourself, so it doesn't make sense to pay someone else to make them.
You are just completely wrong to think that five minutes of pain is somehow worse than ten years of prison. I guarantee if you asked any con if they could get waterboarded for ten minutes and be set free, they would.
Therefore, ten minutes of waterboarding is a poor deterrent, right?
I don't see how this adds up to an argument in favor of torturing criminals -- never mind the fact that torture wasn't being used as punishment, but rather as an unnecessary and counterproductive form of interrogation.
Sprint and Verizon are still CDMA so you'll have to get a really expensive world phone if you want to go back overseas
That's only if you want to use international roaming, which is crazy expensive anyway. You're better off just picking up a cheap prepaid phone once you get there.
The difference with T-Mobile and AT&T is you can pick up a cheap prepaid SIM card instead of a whole phone. You're still not going to want to use your US number unless money is no object.
ive had the service for nearly 4 years now, and had very little issue with them customer service wise. ive called about several billing issues and theyve always been corrected completely and promptly.
When I was a Sprint customer, I also called them about several billing issues, and they were also corrected completely and promptly.
Then I got tired of having to correct my bill every month, so I switched to another carrier and didn't have any more billing issues to call about. First Verizon and now T-Mobile have always managed to charge me the correct amount every month.
MiFi accepts 3G connections from handsets. The same as a cell site.
No, it doesn't accept 3G connections from handsets! Where on earth did you get that idea?
The MiFi is quite simply a wifi router that gets its internet connection from 3G instead of a cable or DSL modem.
You seem to be thinking of some kind of nano-cell device that does the opposite of what MiFi does.
You are apparently just disagreeing with me for the point of disagreeing.
That's rich, considering the load of misinformation you just dropped. It turns out the reason I'm disagreeing with you is that you're spouting off about something you don't understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the text:
Not So Silent Bob
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 14:57 — Christi Day
Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.
As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well.
Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank – as he’s been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience.
You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement.
The link is slashdotted, but here's the text...
Not So Silent Bob
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 14:57 — Christi Day
Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.
As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well.
Mr. Smith originally purchased two Southwest seats on a flight from Oakland to Burbank – as he’s been known to do when traveling on Southwest. He decided to change his plans and board an earlier flight to Burbank, which technically means flying standby. As you may know, airlines are not able to clear standby passengers until all Customers are boarded. When the time came to board Mr. Smith, we had only a single seat available for him to occupy. Our pilots are responsible for the Safety and comfort of all Customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that Mr. Smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. Our Employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated Mr. Smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 Southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience.
You've read about these situations before. Southwest instituted our Customer of Size policy more than 25 years ago. The policy requires passengers that can not fit safely and comfortably in one seat to purchase an additional seat while traveling. This policy is not unique to Southwest Airlines and it is not a revenue generator. Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies, but unique to Southwest is the refunding of the second seat purchased (if the flight does not oversell) which is greater than any revenue made (full policy can be found here). The spirit of this policy is based solely on Customer comfort and Safety. As a Company committed to serving our Customers in Safety and comfort, we feel the definitive boundary between seats is the armrest. If a Customer cannot comfortably lower the armrest and infringes on a portion of another seat, a Customer seated adjacent would be very uncomfortable and a timely exit from the aircraft in the event of an emergency might be compromised if we allow a cramped, restricted seating arrangement.
If you're going to charge the fat folks extra, you gotta give the rest of us the price break on kids' tickets.
Well, what it comes down to is they can only sell whole seats. Your 6 year old might only need half a seat, but that still means he's taking up the whole seat - they can't sell the other half seat to someone else. A fat guy might prefer to buy 1.5 seats, but that isn't an option: he has to buy 2 seats, and that second seat is being taken away from another paying customer.
On the other hand, there's a possible solution: seat the kid who isn't using half of his seat next to the fat guy who needs an extra half seat. But in order to accurately bill everyone for the fractional seats they use, the airline would have to know everyone's measurements ahead of time (not just weight, because bulk is what really matters).
A lot of people would be all for someone else setting them up with a giant content-stealing network, since they'd like to leech off of their engineering efforts just like they'd like to continue to leech off of film makers and musicians.
A lot of people would happily help pay to set up that network, just like they'd happily help pay for the production of new content -- as long as they don't have to pay to use the network after it's set up, just like they don't want to pay for access to content after someone has voluntarily produced it.
Aha! Right there is the problem. The first-class IDE is Windows-only.
Not quite... there are F# bindings for older versions of MonoDevelop, although it looks like it's missing from more recent versions due to license changes (the F# plugin was GPL, MonoDevelop is moving away from GPL).
If the Wii players want to gather in the same room and play they will find that there are very few Wii games with split-screen multiplayer capability.
Mario Kart, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros Wii... there are still plenty of simultaneous multiplayer games. Even Super Mario Galaxy has a limited 2-player mode.
Taken together, this means the Wii is by and large, a solitary experience unless the players take turns watching each other play.
This is pretty much the opposite of my experience. Also, don't discount taking turns: playing something like WarioWare or Wii Sports is still a social, multiplayer activity.
there is no ARM version of Flash. Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.
False:
Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on?
If that were true Trent Reznor wouldn't still have his app on the app store after blasting Apple pretty hard after they rejected one of the updates a while back.
You think every random developer has the same clout Trent Reznor has?
Purely as a user, what's not to like?
How about the fact that because of the restrictions Apple places on developers, you either can't get some of the popular apps that are available on other smartphones, or can only get less-functional versions?
"You want to listen to personalized music streams while you're checking your email? Sorry, there's no app for that. You want to automatically set the ringer to silent when you get within 100 feet of your office? Sorry, no app for that either. Can I interest you in fart sounds instead?"
The Droid does have a physical keyboard. The Motorola Milestone is a GSM version of the Droid, but I doubt it'll work with T-Mobile's 3G.
I switched to T-Mobile to get a G1, and as soon as my contract is up, I'm switching elsewhere. Their coverage is acceptable where I live (3G is spotty but covers most of the city), but they have zero coverage at my mom's house.
The particular arrangement of those bits happens to be pleasing to many people, and it has taken a vast amount of time and money to acheive that arrangement. If the artist(s) don't receive reasonable renumeration, it is unlikely that they will continue to arrange bits in a way that many people find to be pleasing.
This is true, but you're implicitly committing the fallacy of assuming that "reasonable remuneration" means paying for copies. He's an artist, not an intern: he should be in the business of making art (arranging those bits in a pleasing manner), not making copies (burning pre-arranged bits to disc and selling them). If arranging bits is a valuable thing to do, then he can get paid for it directly, just like people get paid for other valuable services.
The tailor can continue to make suits and profit from them regardless of the use you put them to. However, for a DVD, if the purchaser could perform that DVD to crowds and profit from it, the market for further sales, cinema showings etc., would totally disappear.
There are a few serious flaws with this argument.
First, it's not quite true. Just because I can go to someone's house and pay to watch his DVD doesn't mean I don't want a copy of my own so I can watch it at home, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather go watch it in a theater instead of someone's living room.
Second, even to the extent it is true, it misses the point by focusing on profit: if I set up free public exhibitions in my living room, that has an even worse effect on the market for cinema showings than if I charge for tickets. Yet according to your rule that "the licensing of creative works should be in proportion to the likely profits to be made from them by the purchaser", I can put on free shows without paying for a license, whereas the for-profit cinema owners have to pay extra.
Third, it can be used to justify just about any restriction on post-purchase use of any product. Letting a friend borrow my suit eats into the market for new suits. Used CDs and used cars eat into the market for new CDs and new cars. Bad reviews eat into the market for tickets and copies of whatever they're reviewing. Using the same logic, shouldn't we also ban lending, used sales, and negative reviews?
When you buy a DVD you're buying a license to "perform" that DVD in a particular context, and for a retail sale that means a private view in a private home.
When you buy a DVD, you're buying a piece of plastic with bits on it. Why is it anyone's business what you do with those bits?
I'm very against the indefinite extension of copyright terms, but I'm totally in agreement that the licensing of creative works should be in proportion to the likely profits to be made from them by the purchaser
Why?
Are you willing to extend this to everyone? For example, if I buy a suit to wear to a dinner party, and you buy the same suit to wear to an interview that lands you a high-paying job, is it unfair that the tailor makes the same profit from both of us: should he get a cut of your salary instead?
I contend that the movie producer, like the tailor, should be paid the same amount for selling the same product. He performs exactly the same work either way, no matter who he sells it to or what they do with it after they buy it.
All the slashdot wankery aside, this is a big problem: how do you maintain a viable production industry when their product becomes free to copy.
Easy: you stop charging for copies, and you charge for production instead. A DVD can be copied, but the labor that goes into producing a movie cannot.
It's just like how you pay someone to paint your house, instead of having him paint the house for free and then paying him each time you walk through the door. Or how you pay an accountant to do your taxes, and then you can make as many copies of the 1040 as you want, instead of having him fill out the original for free and then paying him for each copy you make. His knowledge, skill, and labor are what's valuable and scarce; copies are something you can easily make yourself, so it doesn't make sense to pay someone else to make them.
No technology is cheap when it's first mass produced. I came across a Computer Shopper from 1990 awhile back, 286 systems for $2000!
Indeed, these days you can get a 286 system for almost 50% less!
But 286 was a special port, and I don't think, it was capable of the features discussed: memory protection and pre-emptive multi-tasking...
Actually, I think it was. The 286 had protected mode, which Xenix used. What Xenix didn't have on 286 was decent memory paging.
I'm not excusing Microsoft — and dislike them strongly — but no Unix would run on 286, while Windows did.
XENIX ran on 286. Ironically, it was a Microsoft product.
The ideal level of theft, taxes included, is zero percent of GDP.
Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Now where are the successful examples of countries being run that way?
Then pray tell, what is the correct percentage of GDP that we should pay in taxes, and how did you arrive at that figure?
Total federal taxes paid in America are something absurd like 20% of GDP
That's not absurd. Take a look at the worldwide figures.
Anybody have experience with ALLTEL wireless and internet access?
Alltel was acquired by Verizon Wireless in 2008.
You are just completely wrong to think that five minutes of pain is somehow worse than ten years of prison. I guarantee if you asked any con if they could get waterboarded for ten minutes and be set free, they would.
Therefore, ten minutes of waterboarding is a poor deterrent, right?
I don't see how this adds up to an argument in favor of torturing criminals -- never mind the fact that torture wasn't being used as punishment, but rather as an unnecessary and counterproductive form of interrogation.
T-Mobile doesn't offer MyFaves anymore. Just "Even More" and "Even More Plus".
Sprint and Verizon are still CDMA so you'll have to get a really expensive world phone if you want to go back overseas
That's only if you want to use international roaming, which is crazy expensive anyway. You're better off just picking up a cheap prepaid phone once you get there.
The difference with T-Mobile and AT&T is you can pick up a cheap prepaid SIM card instead of a whole phone. You're still not going to want to use your US number unless money is no object.
ive had the service for nearly 4 years now, and had very little issue with them customer service wise. ive called about several billing issues and theyve always been corrected completely and promptly.
When I was a Sprint customer, I also called them about several billing issues, and they were also corrected completely and promptly.
Then I got tired of having to correct my bill every month, so I switched to another carrier and didn't have any more billing issues to call about. First Verizon and now T-Mobile have always managed to charge me the correct amount every month.
MiFi accepts 3G connections from handsets. The same as a cell site.
No, it doesn't accept 3G connections from handsets! Where on earth did you get that idea?
The MiFi is quite simply a wifi router that gets its internet connection from 3G instead of a cable or DSL modem.
You seem to be thinking of some kind of nano-cell device that does the opposite of what MiFi does.
You are apparently just disagreeing with me for the point of disagreeing.
That's rich, considering the load of misinformation you just dropped. It turns out the reason I'm disagreeing with you is that you're spouting off about something you don't understand.