Sure they know full well there will always be first victims. They weigh that against the reality of the government effectively "validating" what is or is not a legitimate PAC or charity. Stay tuned, even from this brief description I guarantee the organization will argue they *ARE* supporting Republican candidates, they just are supporting them in their own way. The only two ways I can see to legally and fairly prevent this is 1. Give political candidates exclusive rights to their own image. 2. Assuring organizations have less than x% administrative overhead, and don’t buy overpriced services from owned subcontractors.
Apparently this PAC really does spend, maybe not enough, money supporting Republican candidates. They just aren’t directly affiliated with the politician who’s picture is on the site.
I don't agree with them, but you have misunderstood their point of view. Word of mouth is very much a valid market force. Like I said, I see the irony and kind of hope they get why many people don't like wholly unregulated markets. But as I understand it, an individual complaining about a web site being deceptive isn’t a problem, they are more concerned with how much the Government should be allowed to enforce this opinion.
As much as I see the irony, so long as Neusner is just telling people about the site and why it should not be used, he really isn't be inconsistent. No one believes it is wrong to inform people of scams, or what you believe is a scam. The real test is keeping that attitude if this becomes common. Also ironically the person running the PAC may well not view what he is doing as a scam, any more than a marketer using an American flag on their product even when it has no government endorsement.
No it does not matter. Inherent to the idea that a Militia was properly functioning would be oversight and control by our democratic government, otherwise it is just a private mercenary army.
The idea here was NOT that militia or citizens would be empowered to be above the democratically passed laws of our nation, but rather that because the government would be dependent on the general populace for defense and law enforcement, vs. say a certain class of people, so it would be hard for the population to repress itself.
So according to you, a militia with no oversight or control would be "well-regulated". Sorry that doesn't pass any kind of test today or 300 years ago. If you reread my post you will note I am conflicting with neither definition of well-regulated. Try again.
So you think well regulated means only well trained/drilled, but in no way well tracked or recorded(licensed)? Come on. Do you feel asking people to register to vote infringes on their right to vote?
And as mentioned by others, the second amendment read in an expansionist manner, as you seem to, does not give exceptions for felons or NBC weapons. It appears as a society we do feel we have the right to regulate our militia to prevent certain obnoxious weapons, and I think the well regulated clause nicely covers that. I do not think the second amendment prevents any regulation of any arms, but rather sets limits on how much regulation. I do agree that it does not specify very well where the compromise is to be struck, then again it was a compromise in the first place.
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government..."
You should start reading it from the beginning rather than the end. Your actions as part of our militia are to be "well regulated", part of regulating "well" can easily be tracking weapons. You DO know you are likely part of the militia as defined by laws right? That same regulation is why you can't have NBC weapons, if you read closely you should note the word GUN never appears.
Just to be clear, the UN's sinister plan to reduce population consists of only:
Educating women to increase their personal economic choices, making birth control available and education men and women in their proper use so they can decide when to have children.
I am glad people like you are around to save us from this.
This sits wrong with me, if you are going to ban someone who didn't hack (modify code) on an exploit, you also need to refund the cost of the game.
I understand why exploits like this are unethical, I totally understand removing the ill-gotten gains in game, heck I would even be OK with digitally penalizing the characters. But preventing someone from using a game for playing by the rules laid out is too much. The players paid real world money for this and a digital fix is too easy.
There is no doubt the players were seeking a morally unfair advantage for themselves, but they were not directly trying to harm or remove enjoyment from others even if they did so indirectly. If the problem can be solved in game, and it can, it should be.
There is a much bigger issue at stake here about customer rights to electronic purchases.
Reasonable post, but as for your comment on sanctions, it is worth pointing out that they were so ineffective that Japan felt they had no other choice but to open yet another war with the U.S., one that many of their own commanders didn't think they could win. Pretending sanctions is no action is naive in the extreme.
What is interesting about this example was pointed out to me in a presentation about Paradigms. While it is 100% true that the photo here does not prove the truth of any of the associated statements, none the less if you came across this scene in real life and began interacting with the people in question, you would probably be money ahead assuming the statements are true rather than guessing you have no idea what is going on.
Basically Paradigms allow us to take mental shortcuts that often, but not always, result in us getting correct results sooner. It is kind of related to why we don’t really go around assuming all of reality is a lie all the time (or the non-crazy of us do). So it is good to recognize when you are using a Paradigm, but also good to recognize when they are not useful and when they are.
Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
CHOOSE
To be fair, they did choose, they think cold winters don't disprove AGW, but rather are examples to them of how such information is unknowable. It is just used as a zinger to say "show me how your AGB model predicted this". If anything it is more frustrating to me. I normally reply "show me your everything is OK model."
Bubbles exist when the market becomes disconnected from the true value (if there is such a thing!) of the asset...
I don't know much about HFT, but I am pretty sure that the HFT algos no nothing about the true value of the asset, and they are just gaming the markets.
When most of the trades in the market are traders trying to out-gaming each other, that can't be healthy.
No, or rather that is how minor bubbles occur. Large bubbles are caused by an excess of investment dollars chasing too few good investment opportunities (aka, consumption) more or less by definition. People may have been attracted to do more investing by whatever reason, but truest value of a good or service is inherently ultimately based on consumption, not speculation.
The most important thing you needed to understand about investment dollars is they *MUST* be invested in something. If they just sit around, under a mattress for example, then they lose value and you come out even worse. Even gold is no true protection against a bubble, you just get a gold bubble. More or less this is one of the key reasons all the banks got carried along with their own "scams", they really are unable to just opt out. There certainly are some investors who are better than other, or at least better understand a particular situation, but as an overall effect a bubble is a correction of investment capital to match existing demand for goods and services. That is how everyone can lose money in the same game.
To be sure, you can have too little investment capital, we just don’t have that problem right now.
The greatest danger of HFT is probably to the types of investors that are compelled to act in a predictable manner for whatever reason, large mutual funds or retirement funds are excellent examples. But overall the creation and collapsing of bubbles rapidly is probably a benefit to the economy in that more quickly adjusts investment capital.
The vast majority of new businesses fail in this country. So if you have 2 businesses in a business park. One is wildly successful and the other goes bankrupt after a couple of years. The same road runs in front of both businesses. They both have the same mail service. They both have the same internet piped into their office suites. Who is PRIMARILY responsible for the business that succeeds? Is it the government or the owner?
LOL, maybe you can answer my question. A third business is created in another country with no police, roads, utilities or public education but is run otherwise identically to the business that succeeded wildly. But doesn't succeed as they can't ship materials, get power, no one knows how to run the machines and of course have to pay off the local warlord. Is this because the business owner just didn’t try hard enough?
No one is saying the business owner didn’t succeed. The question is only do the services provided for by our taxes help business. Remember it is only the right wingers who say "Government is the Problem".
Funny you should mention this. This IS the future of work, doing things better, more efficiently and with better quality. Think custom and quality, not quantity. Do you have your smartphone for the circuits or the apps?
There is no limit in information space, no matter how many programs you have, you still can use more. There is always new technology, entertainment and etc. possible.
They key is having the backbone to stand up to the guy who owns the robotic factory and saying "my time is worth as much as yours, if your robots can build a million widgets in an hour, my hour is worth a million widgets also." Also, once robots can make robots, who cares who owns the factory, just make another one.
Well, the normal reply to this logic is "then why didn't the free market invent TCP/IP, or something better, before the government had to." Or perhaps even better "why did the free marker allow 30 years to pass once the technical know how existed" after all our country simply would not have supported government funded utilities to provide this new "internet" thing to every house. Where the government was given a direction and funding, is succeeded in in this case.
Thus many observers take away the conclusion, basic foundation research that often doesn't have an immediately known use needs to be funded by government and public university systems. Businesses, by their nature, normally don't invest in research if they can’t foresee a profitable use, and especially when they won’t be getting most of the profits from the technology for themselves (how much did IBM make from the internet vs. how much was made over all.).
Thus private public cooperation has factually made our country successful. While countries that lack public research resources typically don’t do as well.
One thing about being an actual productive "Genius" vs. just having a genius level intelligence. In order to produce genius type results often requires a manic dedication to something that doesn't improve your life in a direct way. Basically you have to dedicate yourself to a subject in such a way that even if you do get monetary/social advantages from what you produce, you can't really take advantage of them. If you did, you wouldn't really have the time to make that next breakthrough.
Sometimes, by putting such people in the right type of social situation, so called “ivory tower”, they can have a slightly more balance social life. Basically lot's of the details of keeping things running in their life falls to others.
Time to work on advanced problems is so important in this kind of situation, you don't play games or watch tv, instead you are always brainstorming on new ideas. True breakthroughs are hard and time consuming, even for the genius that finally make them.
People kill people. So why do we bother with nuclear weapon treaties? Maybe because it makes it a little too easy to kill people?
I like the people asking for citations about how guns often harm those who own them or their close relations, but then when given them wave their hands and say the numbers don't count because the people would have just killed in another way.
The simple fact is any tool that makes is easier to kill people will cause the death rate to rise, most violent deaths are not premeditated things. Anything that slows it down/makes it harder will reduce the non-premeditated killings.
We may choose specific gun laws becuase we are willing to make trade offs between freedoms and security, but to deny there is a trade off is incorrect.
Are they still lazy if they just got off their second shift?
Some of the worst career advice I ever got was from people not well off, they kept telling me that since I am young I should get a second job since it will help me get ahead. To myself I said B.S., I need ONE job that pays all my bills, preferably 40 hours, so instead of trying to get two jobs I got the one I wanted. If I had wanted two jobs, I bet I could have gotten that, it just seemed like a bad deal.
We consistently tell the lower class the absolutely worst thing we can, work harder. We need to tell them, work smarter and analyze where you need to go.
No it is not! And I say that as a fiscally conservative Californian.
Governments have a natural bias to raise taxes and run up debts. So it is reasonable to require a super-majority to do these. But the problem in California, is that we require a super-majority just to pass a budget, even if that budget is restrained and balanced. That just leads to permanent gridlock, and since we are heading off a fiscal cliff, locking the steering wheel in place is not a good idea (hows that for a car analogy).
Comfortable majority maybe (55%?), super majority, no. 66% is a deceptively large number, it means that to pass something you need in effect 1 of 3 or less people to be opposed to it. Without another mechanism in place to force decisions to be made, you can almost always cobble together an alliance to oppose anything of any contention. It will always lead to rule by obstruction, California. Of course people who want something obstructed will cheer (it is after all a clear victory for them), but still it is simple legislative obstruction.
Given a choice, I would require 55% majority to pass ANY laws that takes away people’s freedom of action (restrictive law, that includes taxes since they really are taking money from you) and allow any law to be repealed by 50%. None the less 66% is crazy, expect endless gridlock. People who think it is OK for taxes but not OK for anything else are fooling themselves, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, either 66% is a reasonably obtainable number or it isn’t.
Historically, Dark Matter meant any matter not contained in a star emitting light. It originally did not mean exotic material of any kind per se.
Now, the problem posed by Dark Matter is very real and valid. The issue is, as we get better at collecting accurate data about galaxies and better at detecting possible candidates, they all keep striking out. So, in order to match observed data, Dark Matter keeps picking up all of these exotic properties. On the one had this is progress, we are eliminating things. On the other hand, Dark Matter keeps getting stranger and stranger as we can’t yet find any way to “detect” it other than the gravitational effect.
To the best of my knowledge, Dark Matter only affect Galactic sized objects, and even then only beyond a certain size. I have been an “exotic material” skeptic for some time for a very simple reason. If that much of a Galaxy is exotic dark matter by mass, how is it possible to not be a prominent effect on local objects!
Worse yet the name is too Scifi, when the general public first hears about it they end up thinking it will be the next big thing after uranium.
Sorry I got to call BS on this. In fact we have been able to reduce Drunk Driving, domestic murders and other problems through education and social planning.
While I am totally in support of scientific research on AIDS and other diseases of mankind (I sure like money spent on that more than on bombs!), We in fact have known everything we need to greatly mitigate or even stop AIDS for years. Most of the countries that have the worst problem in many cases do because their societies didn't catch the clue train and denied the causes of AIDS. And no, I am not advocating abstinence only solutions.
Denying this is to very bad for society, education and people learning to modify their behavior IS one of our best tools to fight this epidemic at the moment! .
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they know full well there will always be first victims. They weigh that against the reality of the government effectively "validating" what is or is not a legitimate PAC or charity. Stay tuned, even from this brief description I guarantee the organization will argue they *ARE* supporting Republican candidates, they just are supporting them in their own way. The only two ways I can see to legally and fairly prevent this is 1. Give political candidates exclusive rights to their own image. 2. Assuring organizations have less than x% administrative overhead, and don’t buy overpriced services from owned subcontractors.
Apparently this PAC really does spend, maybe not enough, money supporting Republican candidates. They just aren’t directly affiliated with the politician who’s picture is on the site.
I don't agree with them, but you have misunderstood their point of view. Word of mouth is very much a valid market force. Like I said, I see the irony and kind of hope they get why many people don't like wholly unregulated markets. But as I understand it, an individual complaining about a web site being deceptive isn’t a problem, they are more concerned with how much the Government should be allowed to enforce this opinion.
As much as I see the irony, so long as Neusner is just telling people about the site and why it should not be used, he really isn't be inconsistent. No one believes it is wrong to inform people of scams, or what you believe is a scam. The real test is keeping that attitude if this becomes common. Also ironically the person running the PAC may well not view what he is doing as a scam, any more than a marketer using an American flag on their product even when it has no government endorsement.
No it does not matter. Inherent to the idea that a Militia was properly functioning would be oversight and control by our democratic government, otherwise it is just a private mercenary army.
The idea here was NOT that militia or citizens would be empowered to be above the democratically passed laws of our nation, but rather that because the government would be dependent on the general populace for defense and law enforcement, vs. say a certain class of people, so it would be hard for the population to repress itself.
So according to you, a militia with no oversight or control would be "well-regulated". Sorry that doesn't pass any kind of test today or 300 years ago. If you reread my post you will note I am conflicting with neither definition of well-regulated. Try again.
So you think well regulated means only well trained/drilled, but in no way well tracked or recorded(licensed)? Come on. Do you feel asking people to register to vote infringes on their right to vote?
And as mentioned by others, the second amendment read in an expansionist manner, as you seem to, does not give exceptions for felons or NBC weapons. It appears as a society we do feel we have the right to regulate our militia to prevent certain obnoxious weapons, and I think the well regulated clause nicely covers that. I do not think the second amendment prevents any regulation of any arms, but rather sets limits on how much regulation. I do agree that it does not specify very well where the compromise is to be struck, then again it was a compromise in the first place.
"*re-reads the Second Amendment*
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government..."
You should start reading it from the beginning rather than the end. Your actions as part of our militia are to be "well regulated", part of regulating "well" can easily be tracking weapons. You DO know you are likely part of the militia as defined by laws right? That same regulation is why you can't have NBC weapons, if you read closely you should note the word GUN never appears.
Just to be clear, the UN's sinister plan to reduce population consists of only:
Educating women to increase their personal economic choices, making birth control available and education men and women in their proper use so they can decide when to have children.
I am glad people like you are around to save us from this.
This sits wrong with me, if you are going to ban someone who didn't hack (modify code) on an exploit, you also need to refund the cost of the game.
I understand why exploits like this are unethical, I totally understand removing the ill-gotten gains in game, heck I would even be OK with digitally penalizing the characters. But preventing someone from using a game for playing by the rules laid out is too much. The players paid real world money for this and a digital fix is too easy.
There is no doubt the players were seeking a morally unfair advantage for themselves, but they were not directly trying to harm or remove enjoyment from others even if they did so indirectly. If the problem can be solved in game, and it can, it should be.
There is a much bigger issue at stake here about customer rights to electronic purchases.
Reasonable post, but as for your comment on sanctions, it is worth pointing out that they were so ineffective that Japan felt they had no other choice but to open yet another war with the U.S., one that many of their own commanders didn't think they could win. Pretending sanctions is no action is naive in the extreme.
What is interesting about this example was pointed out to me in a presentation about Paradigms. While it is 100% true that the photo here does not prove the truth of any of the associated statements, none the less if you came across this scene in real life and began interacting with the people in question, you would probably be money ahead assuming the statements are true rather than guessing you have no idea what is going on.
Basically Paradigms allow us to take mental shortcuts that often, but not always, result in us getting correct results sooner. It is kind of related to why we don’t really go around assuming all of reality is a lie all the time (or the non-crazy of us do). So it is good to recognize when you are using a Paradigm, but also good to recognize when they are not useful and when they are.
Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
CHOOSE
To be fair, they did choose, they think cold winters don't disprove AGW, but rather are examples to them of how such information is unknowable. It is just used as a zinger to say "show me how your AGB model predicted this". If anything it is more frustrating to me. I normally reply "show me your everything is OK model."
Bubbles exist when the market becomes disconnected from the true value (if there is such a thing!) of the asset...
I don't know much about HFT, but I am pretty sure that the HFT algos no nothing about the true value of the asset, and they are just gaming the markets.
When most of the trades in the market are traders trying to out-gaming each other, that can't be healthy.
No, or rather that is how minor bubbles occur. Large bubbles are caused by an excess of investment dollars chasing too few good investment opportunities (aka, consumption) more or less by definition. People may have been attracted to do more investing by whatever reason, but truest value of a good or service is inherently ultimately based on consumption, not speculation.
The most important thing you needed to understand about investment dollars is they *MUST* be invested in something. If they just sit around, under a mattress for example, then they lose value and you come out even worse. Even gold is no true protection against a bubble, you just get a gold bubble. More or less this is one of the key reasons all the banks got carried along with their own "scams", they really are unable to just opt out. There certainly are some investors who are better than other, or at least better understand a particular situation, but as an overall effect a bubble is a correction of investment capital to match existing demand for goods and services. That is how everyone can lose money in the same game.
To be sure, you can have too little investment capital, we just don’t have that problem right now.
The greatest danger of HFT is probably to the types of investors that are compelled to act in a predictable manner for whatever reason, large mutual funds or retirement funds are excellent examples. But overall the creation and collapsing of bubbles rapidly is probably a benefit to the economy in that more quickly adjusts investment capital.
Scripps is truely a troll amoung trolls. I can only sit an awe and learn from the master.
So I have a question that maybe you can answer.
The vast majority of new businesses fail in this country. So if you have 2 businesses in a business park. One is wildly successful and the other goes bankrupt after a couple of years. The same road runs in front of both businesses. They both have the same mail service. They both have the same internet piped into their office suites. Who is PRIMARILY responsible for the business that succeeds? Is it the government or the owner?
LOL, maybe you can answer my question. A third business is created in another country with no police, roads, utilities or public education but is run otherwise identically to the business that succeeded wildly. But doesn't succeed as they can't ship materials, get power, no one knows how to run the machines and of course have to pay off the local warlord. Is this because the business owner just didn’t try hard enough?
No one is saying the business owner didn’t succeed. The question is only do the services provided for by our taxes help business. Remember it is only the right wingers who say "Government is the Problem".
Funny you should mention this. This IS the future of work, doing things better, more efficiently and with better quality. Think custom and quality, not quantity. Do you have your smartphone for the circuits or the apps?
There is no limit in information space, no matter how many programs you have, you still can use more. There is always new technology, entertainment and etc. possible.
They key is having the backbone to stand up to the guy who owns the robotic factory and saying "my time is worth as much as yours, if your robots can build a million widgets in an hour, my hour is worth a million widgets also." Also, once robots can make robots, who cares who owns the factory, just make another one.
Well, the normal reply to this logic is "then why didn't the free market invent TCP/IP, or something better, before the government had to." Or perhaps even better "why did the free marker allow 30 years to pass once the technical know how existed" after all our country simply would not have supported government funded utilities to provide this new "internet" thing to every house. Where the government was given a direction and funding, is succeeded in in this case.
Thus many observers take away the conclusion, basic foundation research that often doesn't have an immediately known use needs to be funded by government and public university systems. Businesses, by their nature, normally don't invest in research if they can’t foresee a profitable use, and especially when they won’t be getting most of the profits from the technology for themselves (how much did IBM make from the internet vs. how much was made over all.).
Thus private public cooperation has factually made our country successful. While countries that lack public research resources typically don’t do as well.
One thing about being an actual productive "Genius" vs. just having a genius level intelligence. In order to produce genius type results often requires a manic dedication to something that doesn't improve your life in a direct way. Basically you have to dedicate yourself to a subject in such a way that even if you do get monetary/social advantages from what you produce, you can't really take advantage of them. If you did, you wouldn't really have the time to make that next breakthrough.
Sometimes, by putting such people in the right type of social situation, so called “ivory tower”, they can have a slightly more balance social life. Basically lot's of the details of keeping things running in their life falls to others.
Time to work on advanced problems is so important in this kind of situation, you don't play games or watch tv, instead you are always brainstorming on new ideas. True breakthroughs are hard and time consuming, even for the genius that finally make them.
People kill people. So why do we bother with nuclear weapon treaties? Maybe because it makes it a little too easy to kill people?
I like the people asking for citations about how guns often harm those who own them or their close relations, but then when given them wave their hands and say the numbers don't count because the people would have just killed in another way.
The simple fact is any tool that makes is easier to kill people will cause the death rate to rise, most violent deaths are not premeditated things. Anything that slows it down/makes it harder will reduce the non-premeditated killings.
We may choose specific gun laws becuase we are willing to make trade offs between freedoms and security, but to deny there is a trade off is incorrect.
Are they still lazy if they just got off their second shift?
Some of the worst career advice I ever got was from people not well off, they kept telling me that since I am young I should get a second job since it will help me get ahead. To myself I said B.S., I need ONE job that pays all my bills, preferably 40 hours, so instead of trying to get two jobs I got the one I wanted. If I had wanted two jobs, I bet I could have gotten that, it just seemed like a bad deal.
We consistently tell the lower class the absolutely worst thing we can, work harder. We need to tell them, work smarter and analyze where you need to go.
That's a good thing.
No it is not! And I say that as a fiscally conservative Californian.
Governments have a natural bias to raise taxes and run up debts. So it is reasonable to require a super-majority to do these. But the problem in California, is that we require a super-majority just to pass a budget, even if that budget is restrained and balanced. That just leads to permanent gridlock, and since we are heading off a fiscal cliff, locking the steering wheel in place is not a good idea (hows that for a car analogy).
Comfortable majority maybe (55%?), super majority, no. 66% is a deceptively large number, it means that to pass something you need in effect 1 of 3 or less people to be opposed to it. Without another mechanism in place to force decisions to be made, you can almost always cobble together an alliance to oppose anything of any contention. It will always lead to rule by obstruction, California. Of course people who want something obstructed will cheer (it is after all a clear victory for them), but still it is simple legislative obstruction.
Given a choice, I would require 55% majority to pass ANY laws that takes away people’s freedom of action (restrictive law, that includes taxes since they really are taking money from you) and allow any law to be repealed by 50%. None the less 66% is crazy, expect endless gridlock. People who think it is OK for taxes but not OK for anything else are fooling themselves, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, either 66% is a reasonably obtainable number or it isn’t.
Duh, how much more obvious does it get. They are self-selecting for determination.
Historically, Dark Matter meant any matter not contained in a star emitting light. It originally did not mean exotic material of any kind per se.
Now, the problem posed by Dark Matter is very real and valid. The issue is, as we get better at collecting accurate data about galaxies and better at detecting possible candidates, they all keep striking out. So, in order to match observed data, Dark Matter keeps picking up all of these exotic properties. On the one had this is progress, we are eliminating things. On the other hand, Dark Matter keeps getting stranger and stranger as we can’t yet find any way to “detect” it other than the gravitational effect.
To the best of my knowledge, Dark Matter only affect Galactic sized objects, and even then only beyond a certain size. I have been an “exotic material” skeptic for some time for a very simple reason. If that much of a Galaxy is exotic dark matter by mass, how is it possible to not be a prominent effect on local objects!
Worse yet the name is too Scifi, when the general public first hears about it they end up thinking it will be the next big thing after uranium.
"fuck you, you dirty rat bastards" in Pashto?
Sorry I got to call BS on this. In fact we have been able to reduce Drunk Driving, domestic murders and other problems through education and social planning.
While I am totally in support of scientific research on AIDS and other diseases of mankind (I sure like money spent on that more than on bombs!), We in fact have known everything we need to greatly mitigate or even stop AIDS for years. Most of the countries that have the worst problem in many cases do because their societies didn't catch the clue train and denied the causes of AIDS. And no, I am not advocating abstinence only solutions.
Denying this is to very bad for society, education and people learning to modify their behavior IS one of our best tools to fight this epidemic at the moment!
.