And I think we were at that last resort a while ago before an 84 million dollar program had to be developed so a kid could defeat it and then brag about his accomplishments. But that's just the thing... it didn't have to be developed. There was no good reason to spend $84 million on it in the first place. Anyone who wants to waste that kind of money on censorware deserves to be publicly shamed by having it cracked in half an hour.
And for the record, A parent cannot lock a kid into a 4x8 room, they cannot stop all access to the outside world and they cannot do half the things the criminal justice system can. I don't know about AU's stand on the death penalty but I'm pretty sure a parent cannot use that either. For the record, the justice system in the vast majority of countries (including Australia) can't use the death penalty either.
And if you think the only disincentives for breaking the law are isolation and jail time, well, I hope I never drive on the same road as you, eat at a restaurant you own, etc., because there are plenty of laws that aren't enforced with those punishments, and apparently you see no reason to follow them.
No, he is a brat for making it neccesary for someone in a position of authority over him think that an 84 million dollar program was necessary in order to get him to respect his wishes. Funny how you never consider the possibility that those wishes were unnecessary or unreasonable in the first place. It's all about authority for authority's sake, right?
I mena there have always been under qualified parents and we need them to keep the criminal justice system going and provide government jobs for a lot of people. [...] But in recent times, this has gone from a few people to a lot of people and it is more common. I'm afraid there's no evidence for that. Every generation back to the ancient Greeks has complained about what a bunch of hooligans "kids today" are, but it really hasn't been getting any worse over time. It's all in your head.
I would say look around. If you think that is a stupid thing to say just look around. And if you still think that way, pull you head from the sand and look around some more. OK, I'm looking around, but I still don't see any murderers being punished with time-out. In fact, the trend has been to punish young criminals as adults more and more often. The message that sends is "if you want to be a grown-up, commit a murder".
And the laws take away things that parents cannot. Um, not really. Parents can take away plenty of things to provide an incentive to follow their rules. Beatings are the last resort of a parent who's too ignorant or lazy to do so.
I can see that you don't understand much so I won't harp on what my logic is. Uh huh. More like you don't have any logic, you're just violent.
Yea, that why we have kids killing the pizza delivery driver in Ohio to get the $40 cash he had. I hate to break it to you, but senseless, random crimes like that have been around for centuries. Beating up kids didn't prevent it.
That why we have an 84 million dollar program getting rendered useless by a brat who feels they don't need rules and is blatant enough to brag about it to everyone on the Internet. Funny how you think he's a "brat" just for showing what a waste of money this censorware was. The real brats are the ones who decided to waste all those taxpayer dollars on a program to block images of the human body, a goal which is both impractical and unnecessary.
That why we have unruly children at restaurants disturbing everyones meal. That why we have kids throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way. Gosh, you're right, none of that stuff happened back when more parents were willing to kick the shit out of their children. Congratulations, you've rewritten history.
A good world this alternative deterrents works out to be. OH Sammy, you just kill the neighbor, your in time out mister! Jesus, what a stupid thing to say. Exaggeration of that level is a sure sign that you know you have no ground to stand on.
Hitting children with an object is closer to torture than punishment.
As for "What good is a rule if there is nothing stopping you from not following it?", well, I guess we'd just better throw away all of our laws, right? Because there's no law today for which the punishment is a beating, which by your logic means they aren't being enforced at all.
But of course that's ridiculous. There are other effective deterrents besides physical pain, which don't have the side effect of teaching your kid that violence is an acceptable way to make other people comply, and most people have figured that out by now.
If you consider this a privilege-escalation bug, then I assume you've already deleted such programs as "passwd", "chfn", and "man" from your Linux system, right? After all, they run setuid root in order to let non-root users do things that normally only root can do (e.g. writing to the man page cache or the password file).
Just because you don't have access to the SecuROM source code doesn't mean it necessarily contains any exploitable bugs. It just means you can't be sure. It might very well be as safe as passwd and man.
If the drive notices that one block has a lot more writes than the average block, it can swap the contents of those two blocks internally, and then make a note of this swap. (just a simple mapping 0x000FE37 isat: 0x00A32B) Where is that note stored? Is the wear-leveling metadata itself subject to wear leveling?
After reading a few reviews, I have to agree about Halo 2... it looks pretty weak. I liked the first Halo for PC, and Halo 2 on Xbox was fun with a SmartJoy FRAG, but I'm gonna have to skip this one.
When the next vista-only killer app (game) comes out, everyone will bitch and moan about how MS is forcing them to upgrade -and then they'll upgrade. Halo 2 and Shadowrun arguably fit that role already, but the Alky Project is working to let us run them (and other Vista-only software) on XP.
Copyright is to blame in both cases. If not for copyright law (and laws like the DMCA that reinforce it), everyone would have access to all the material in existence, no matter where they lived. Google doesn't want to sell a particular file to you? No problem, buy it from someone else, or download it for free.
I just canceled my DSL from Qwest, which was over $50/mo for "up to 7 Mbps" (actually about 5.5 Mbps). Now I have 6 Mbps service from Comcast, which is $20/mo for six months and then about $45/mo, and in practice it's a bit faster than 6 Mbps, thanks to "PowerBoost".
But what laws are the theory of evolution attempting to explain? From what I've seen, Evolution is attempting to explain the origin of species and observations such as the overwhelming similarities between species. Correct. The theory of evolution, like any other theory, explains observations (whether or not those observations have spawned laws). Those observations are mainly (1) there are lots of species, (2) there are lots of similarities between life forms we see today, and (3) we've found evidence that there used to be a lot of life forms that look similar to, but not quite the same as, the ones that exist today.
It is widely accepted, and as such should be learned and taught. But it should never be presented as "incontrovertible fact". It's still just a theory and as such, always subject to being disproved. Correct. I doubt that any significant number of people really are teaching it as "incontrovertible fact", though. It has the same status as, say, the germ theory of disease, which is technically "just a theory" too, but one that only a fool could reject at this point.
Actually "folk species" is a fairly strict definition as the two subjects have to produce fertile offspring to be considered the same. If that's your definition, then we have indeed observed the birth of new "folk species".
These questions just do not keep me up at night. [...] But more fundamentally, it is really worth concocting the theory of evolution, bashing the Bible, ostracizing those who differ (with emotional, non-scientific arguments) simply in order to answer them? Concocting the theory of evolution? Yes, of course it's worth it. That's what science does, come up with theories to explain observations. If it isn't worth coming up with a theory like that, then that's the end of science.
Bashing the Bible? It only gets bashed when people try to use it as a science textbook. The fact is, it's a pretty poor resource for learning about such things as geology, cosmology, and biology. Doesn't mean it isn't good for teaching about morality, religion, or even some history, though.
Ostracizing those who differ? I assume you mean making fun of people who reject the theory of evolution in favor of something non-scientific like creationism (or "intelligent design" as it's known these days). By doing so, they prove that they don't understand science, and therefore they shouldn't be teaching science or making any decisions that require a knowledge of science. If they'd just stop trying to do that, and leave that stuff up to the people who do understand it, then they wouldn't be ostracized.
Evolution is still technically a scientific theory. A theory (scientifically speaking) is only a theory, (despite how widely accepted it is) until it is *proven* as fact (i.e.: consistently reproducible). At that point it becomes a scientific law. Incorrect. Theories and laws are different, and a theory can never become a law. It can become more and more accepted as it stands up to the test of time, but it'll still be a theory.
A law is a consistent pattern of observations. For example, when you drop something on Earth, it accelerates toward the ground at 9.8 m/sec/sec. Two objects in space will accelerate toward each other with a force dependent on their masses. Those are laws of gravity, and they became laws because they were observed so consistently that people concluded they'd never observe anything different. Notice that the laws say nothing about why it happens, only that it does happen.
A theory is an explanation for those observations. Theories of gravity attempt to explain why dropped objects move toward the Earth, and why objects in space move toward each other. A scientific theory will make predictions that can be tested. The theory can be disproved if we observe something that contradicts those predictions, but it can never really be proved - the best a theory can do is not be disproved or replaced by a better theory.
One case in point is while genetic mutations, natural selection and the like (i.e.: microevolution) have been observed in the wild as fact, never has anyone ever observed speciation of one folk species into another. That's because "folk species" (also known as a "kind" by Biblical creationists) is a loosely defined term, applied to categories of animal that already exist and have vast differences between them. Those are precisely the kind of differences that evolution predicts won't happen overnight.
I've never seen a poodle give birth to a dachshund, but does that mean they aren't related? Of course not.
The so-called "observations" of speciation reported in scientific journals typically use a less strict definition of species (like when apple maggot fly offspring eat something besides apples) I think you mean they use an objective, scientific definition of species, and such definitions are usually based on reproductive isolation, not anything as simple as choice of foods.
Those definitions are the ones that biologists use in real life, because "folk species" definitions fail to answer important questions like "are all bacteria the same species?" or "is a mule the same species as a horse or a donkey?"
If a dog ever gave birth to a cat, it would mark the very first time true speciation was observed, False.
(I know, I know, you're probably going for some "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just unaware of all the cases of speciation that have been observed, rather than assuming you're intellectually dishonest.)
I doubt it, as this version is before Woods turned it into a game (The original Crowther's version was just a simulation for his kids). Not true, RTFA! It explains that Crowther's original had puzzles and fantasy elements, intentionally changed parts of the map, and was designed with adults in mind.
When you find another OS that can legally playback these formats over an insecure channel in full res then you can start complaining about Vista Er.. what is "legally" doing in there? The main problem with Vista isn't that you can't legally play back these formats in full resolution. The problem is that you can't do it illegally either! Instead of just popping up a box that says "You may be violating the law if you continue! Are you sure you want to risk it?", Vista prevents you from even trying.
An operating system has no business enforcing any particular country's laws. It's there to run the computer. What I do with my computer is my business, and if I choose to take on the legal liability of violating the DMCA, copyright law, or some DRM license agreement, the OS should just get out of my way.
HD-DVD/Blu-Ray matters to the people that have HDTV. ... who are still a small minority. Even today, HDTV costs twice as much as SDTV for half the screen area. The general public won't care about anything HD until they can buy a set for $300 that's big enough to put in the living room.
Non-HD graphics won't be much of a liability until most people actually own HDTV sets. And that's a long way off. I'm sure you can find deals online, but at brick 'n mortar stores, HDTV is still twice the price for half the screen area as a regular TV.
When you can get a living-room-sized set for $300, then HD graphics will matter to the general public.
I think we may be talking about two different things. I'm willing to stipulate that for practical purposes, American public opinion will be mostly divided between two major parties in any election. [] To me, this is a separate from the issue of why parties like the Green and Libertarians fail to become one of those two parties at the national level. I'm not talking about public opinion being divided between the major parties here. Even if a majority of voters preferred a third party, that third party would still have trouble getting into power. In order for a third party to upset one of the major parties, a majority of voters have to either (1) believe that the candidate they vote for has a chance of winning, i.e. that a majority of their fellow voters will also vote third-party, or (2) be willing to vote against their own short-term interests.
That's the problem with this system and the basis of Duverger's law. It's quite possible that a majority of voters might prefer a third-party candidate, without realizing that they're part of a majority who feel that way. If they don't realize that enough of their fellow voters also prefer the third party candidate, then they'll conclude that their vote is better spent on the least-worst major party candidate. It's the old "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" problem. A rational voter who fears Bush, prefers Nader, but is ambivalent about Gore must still strategically vote for Gore if he thinks Gore has a better chance of defeating Bush than Nader does.
Although, since San Francisco still has strong Republican and Democratic factions, this does suggest that Duverger's Law doesn't always apply. There certainly seem to be at least 3 viable parties in play in San Francisco. It's true that there are exceptions to Duverger's law, but for the most part it holds up. As I wrote above, it has a lot to do with voters' perceptions. People can rationally vote for a third party candidate if they believe he has a chance of winning. Problem is, how do you go into a district where 98% of the votes are going to the two major candidates, and convince the voters there that a majority of their peers might actually vote for a third party in the next election?
I suspect that if a third party became truly successful, it would supplant one of the two national parties at the national level. Indeed, that's what has happened in the past. The names change, and some of the issues change, but the drawbacks of the two-party system never go away.
But how many of your own local elections (mayor, city council, school board, county sherriff, etc.) break along national party lines? Why aren't the Greens and the Libertarians doing better in local elections? Because local elections are run the same way as national elections. Duverger's law applies just as well to races for mayor or dogcatcher as it does to races for senator or president, creating polarization and forcing voters to choose one major candidate in order to stave off a victory by the other major candidate.
No, the system is stacked against third parties. See Duverger's law. We have a two-party system because the way our elections are run pushes it in that direction, not because the third parties' platforms are "poorly presented or fundamentally unrepresentative".
No - as others have pointed out, that's the opposite of what insurance is about.
Consider where this path leads. The more information we have about a person's health, family history, genome, etc., the better we can determine their risk. Eventually, with enough information, it might be possible to know exactly what any person's medical costs will be in the upcoming year. If insurers are allowed and encouraged to use that information to set premiums, then your annual premiums will be the same as your annual medical costs, plus a little extra to keep the insurer in business.
And at that point, the insurance becomes useless. If your premiums are based on your individual risk, then the only benefit you get from having insurance is spreading your costs out over the year instead of paying all at once. You may as well replace your insurance with a credit card if that's all you're getting.
Insurance provides the most benefit to the insured when everyone pays the same amount. Raising the premiums of high-risk individuals lets the insurer attract more customers by advertising lower rates for low-risk individuals, and it helps discourage risky behaviors, but it doesn't further the purpose of insurance.
Ah, the old elasticity rationalization: I only have a copy because it was free. That "old rationalization" is still around because it's still true. People will consume more of something if it's free than if it has a price attached. That's Econ 101.
While this undoubtedly is true perhaps for half the games in a collection of copies, I wouldn't be surprised that some of those would have been paid for. 20 over the 2-4 year life of a system doesn't seem unreasonable. For the size of a collection, sure. I have around 25 PS2 games myself. But I guarantee that if I had installed a mod chip and gotten into copying games, I'd have a lot more than 25 games for it! My point is not that nobody wants that many games, but rather that it's foolish to think every copied game is a potential sale lost to piracy. "Half the games in a collection" is pure speculation; from my experience I'd say 10% or less of copied material is material that the copier would've been willing to pay for.
This is crippling to foreign signals intelligence, which has never required a warrant, and should not saddled with the fundamental requirements of a warrant. Please explain how requiring a warrant would be "crippling" to any intelligence-gathering activities, in light of the fact that you can tap first and get the warrant later.
There is no need for a warrant if the parties are foreign nationals outside of the United States, and the fact that the traffic might at some point travel through equipment in the United States is incidental. For foreign intelligence, we should NOT be erring on the side of getting a warrant. That was not what FISA was ever intended for. Well, I say we should be erring on the side of getting a warrant. Since the warrants can be obtained retroactively, it won't even put a speed bump on the road to gathering information; it'll just provide some judicial oversight, in line with the Fourth Amendment.
You say we should be erring on the other side -- the side of potentially wiretapping Americans without a warrant? Convince me. Don't just state it as if your opinion is gospel.
Yes, I suspect the relatively few people with modchips use them heavily. 20 games doesn't seem unlikely. Please note my use of the phrase "games that he otherwise would have paid $50 for". Just because someone will download 20 games for free doesn't mean he would've otherwise paid full price for each one. I'll eat the free bread at a restaurant, but if it weren't free, I'd rather wait for the meal to arrive than pay for bread.
Third, the legislation in question was needed and rushed in before Congress goes on vacation because of a new ruling by a FISA judge, which had the effect of overruling the NSA's previously established powers under FISA. In other words, a judge decided in a new ruling to overturn the way things had been previously been done. My understanding is that they had only "previously been done" that way by the current administration since FISA was passed. That is, the judge didn't change precedent, he just ruled that Bush's surveillance program was illegal.
The brand new FISA judge ruling concerned the issue of when you know one end of the conversation is foreign, but you don't know where the other one is. In other words, should an unknown second party be assumed to be American or in the US for purposes of foreign intelligence? The new ruling said yes, but previous rulings had said no. What, exactly, is so bad about assuming they're American? All it means is you need to get a warrant, right? Which is something you could do easily and retroactively under the existing law.
The concern of the intelligence community was that given the current advanced state of technology and the ability to mask identities, the ruling effectively destroyed the ability of the US to wiretap ANY communication where one side was anonymous.
Maybe that's what some people here on Slashdot want, which is fine to argue. You have failed to show how the existing law would prevent the US from tapping foreign communications. Before you go supposing that anyone here wants that outcome, start by showing that it's actually a likely one.
Gaming is a very big industry (more revenue than movies), so the losses are likely substantial. Perhaps ~$1000 per modchip. You're assuming that everyone with a mod chip, on average, uses it to play twenty copied games that he otherwise would have paid $50 for? Hilarious.
I also see no discussion of how modchips are a blantant violation of copyright (derivative works) as well as being against the DMCA. That could be because they're not derivative works (unless they incorporate someone else's copyrighted code) and the DMCA is one of the worst laws ever passed.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you think the only disincentives for breaking the law are isolation and jail time, well, I hope I never drive on the same road as you, eat at a restaurant you own, etc., because there are plenty of laws that aren't enforced with those punishments, and apparently you see no reason to follow them. No, he is a brat for making it neccesary for someone in a position of authority over him think that an 84 million dollar program was necessary in order to get him to respect his wishes. Funny how you never consider the possibility that those wishes were unnecessary or unreasonable in the first place. It's all about authority for authority's sake, right? I mena there have always been under qualified parents and we need them to keep the criminal justice system going and provide government jobs for a lot of people. [...] But in recent times, this has gone from a few people to a lot of people and it is more common. I'm afraid there's no evidence for that. Every generation back to the ancient Greeks has complained about what a bunch of hooligans "kids today" are, but it really hasn't been getting any worse over time. It's all in your head. I would say look around. If you think that is a stupid thing to say just look around. And if you still think that way, pull you head from the sand and look around some more. OK, I'm looking around, but I still don't see any murderers being punished with time-out. In fact, the trend has been to punish young criminals as adults more and more often. The message that sends is "if you want to be a grown-up, commit a murder".
Hitting children with an object is closer to torture than punishment.
As for "What good is a rule if there is nothing stopping you from not following it?", well, I guess we'd just better throw away all of our laws, right? Because there's no law today for which the punishment is a beating, which by your logic means they aren't being enforced at all.
But of course that's ridiculous. There are other effective deterrents besides physical pain, which don't have the side effect of teaching your kid that violence is an acceptable way to make other people comply, and most people have figured that out by now.
If you consider this a privilege-escalation bug, then I assume you've already deleted such programs as "passwd", "chfn", and "man" from your Linux system, right? After all, they run setuid root in order to let non-root users do things that normally only root can do (e.g. writing to the man page cache or the password file).
Just because you don't have access to the SecuROM source code doesn't mean it necessarily contains any exploitable bugs. It just means you can't be sure. It might very well be as safe as passwd and man.
After reading a few reviews, I have to agree about Halo 2... it looks pretty weak. I liked the first Halo for PC, and Halo 2 on Xbox was fun with a SmartJoy FRAG, but I'm gonna have to skip this one.
Copyright is to blame in both cases. If not for copyright law (and laws like the DMCA that reinforce it), everyone would have access to all the material in existence, no matter where they lived. Google doesn't want to sell a particular file to you? No problem, buy it from someone else, or download it for free.
I just canceled my DSL from Qwest, which was over $50/mo for "up to 7 Mbps" (actually about 5.5 Mbps). Now I have 6 Mbps service from Comcast, which is $20/mo for six months and then about $45/mo, and in practice it's a bit faster than 6 Mbps, thanks to "PowerBoost".
Bashing the Bible? It only gets bashed when people try to use it as a science textbook. The fact is, it's a pretty poor resource for learning about such things as geology, cosmology, and biology. Doesn't mean it isn't good for teaching about morality, religion, or even some history, though.
Ostracizing those who differ? I assume you mean making fun of people who reject the theory of evolution in favor of something non-scientific like creationism (or "intelligent design" as it's known these days). By doing so, they prove that they don't understand science, and therefore they shouldn't be teaching science or making any decisions that require a knowledge of science. If they'd just stop trying to do that, and leave that stuff up to the people who do understand it, then they wouldn't be ostracized.
A law is a consistent pattern of observations. For example, when you drop something on Earth, it accelerates toward the ground at 9.8 m/sec/sec. Two objects in space will accelerate toward each other with a force dependent on their masses. Those are laws of gravity, and they became laws because they were observed so consistently that people concluded they'd never observe anything different. Notice that the laws say nothing about why it happens, only that it does happen.
A theory is an explanation for those observations. Theories of gravity attempt to explain why dropped objects move toward the Earth, and why objects in space move toward each other. A scientific theory will make predictions that can be tested. The theory can be disproved if we observe something that contradicts those predictions, but it can never really be proved - the best a theory can do is not be disproved or replaced by a better theory. One case in point is while genetic mutations, natural selection and the like (i.e.: microevolution) have been observed in the wild as fact, never has anyone ever observed speciation of one folk species into another. That's because "folk species" (also known as a "kind" by Biblical creationists) is a loosely defined term, applied to categories of animal that already exist and have vast differences between them. Those are precisely the kind of differences that evolution predicts won't happen overnight.
I've never seen a poodle give birth to a dachshund, but does that mean they aren't related? Of course not. The so-called "observations" of speciation reported in scientific journals typically use a less strict definition of species (like when apple maggot fly offspring eat something besides apples) I think you mean they use an objective, scientific definition of species, and such definitions are usually based on reproductive isolation, not anything as simple as choice of foods.
Those definitions are the ones that biologists use in real life, because "folk species" definitions fail to answer important questions like "are all bacteria the same species?" or "is a mule the same species as a horse or a donkey?"
(I know, I know, you're probably going for some "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just unaware of all the cases of speciation that have been observed, rather than assuming you're intellectually dishonest.)
An operating system has no business enforcing any particular country's laws. It's there to run the computer. What I do with my computer is my business, and if I choose to take on the legal liability of violating the DMCA, copyright law, or some DRM license agreement, the OS should just get out of my way.
Non-HD graphics won't be much of a liability until most people actually own HDTV sets. And that's a long way off. I'm sure you can find deals online, but at brick 'n mortar stores, HDTV is still twice the price for half the screen area as a regular TV.
When you can get a living-room-sized set for $300, then HD graphics will matter to the general public.
That's the problem with this system and the basis of Duverger's law. It's quite possible that a majority of voters might prefer a third-party candidate, without realizing that they're part of a majority who feel that way. If they don't realize that enough of their fellow voters also prefer the third party candidate, then they'll conclude that their vote is better spent on the least-worst major party candidate. It's the old "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" problem. A rational voter who fears Bush, prefers Nader, but is ambivalent about Gore must still strategically vote for Gore if he thinks Gore has a better chance of defeating Bush than Nader does. Although, since San Francisco still has strong Republican and Democratic factions, this does suggest that Duverger's Law doesn't always apply. There certainly seem to be at least 3 viable parties in play in San Francisco. It's true that there are exceptions to Duverger's law, but for the most part it holds up. As I wrote above, it has a lot to do with voters' perceptions. People can rationally vote for a third party candidate if they believe he has a chance of winning. Problem is, how do you go into a district where 98% of the votes are going to the two major candidates, and convince the voters there that a majority of their peers might actually vote for a third party in the next election?
No, the system is stacked against third parties. See Duverger's law. We have a two-party system because the way our elections are run pushes it in that direction, not because the third parties' platforms are "poorly presented or fundamentally unrepresentative".
No - as others have pointed out, that's the opposite of what insurance is about.
Consider where this path leads. The more information we have about a person's health, family history, genome, etc., the better we can determine their risk. Eventually, with enough information, it might be possible to know exactly what any person's medical costs will be in the upcoming year. If insurers are allowed and encouraged to use that information to set premiums, then your annual premiums will be the same as your annual medical costs, plus a little extra to keep the insurer in business.
And at that point, the insurance becomes useless. If your premiums are based on your individual risk, then the only benefit you get from having insurance is spreading your costs out over the year instead of paying all at once. You may as well replace your insurance with a credit card if that's all you're getting.
Insurance provides the most benefit to the insured when everyone pays the same amount. Raising the premiums of high-risk individuals lets the insurer attract more customers by advertising lower rates for low-risk individuals, and it helps discourage risky behaviors, but it doesn't further the purpose of insurance.
You say we should be erring on the other side -- the side of potentially wiretapping Americans without a warrant? Convince me. Don't just state it as if your opinion is gospel.
Maybe that's what some people here on Slashdot want, which is fine to argue. You have failed to show how the existing law would prevent the US from tapping foreign communications. Before you go supposing that anyone here wants that outcome, start by showing that it's actually a likely one.