I have encountered your attitude before. John Wooden the former UCLA coach had a saying that might be of help to you. "Its what you learn after you know it all that counts".
Actually, there are many scientists, like myself, who are now retired and get no further public funding for their science. We do it for the pure joy of bearing true, rather than false, witness to the beauty of nature and its mathematical representation. If you think working 80 hours a week, writing papers, doing research, teaching students, giving lectures, doing field work, etc. and trying to help fellow humans understand this immensely complicated universe we live in is done for money, I would suggest to you that this certainly show how remarkably uniformed and myopic your point of view actually is. Don't, of course let it bother you or take it personally. However, I would suggest to you that you are missing out on the very best things life has to offer and that no amount of money can buy.
Science is in some ways like religion because you get to talk to God directly. However, science has a distinct advantage over religion, God actually talks back to you and reveals the secrets of the universe, if you are willing to train yourself to be able to decipher the mathematics of his language and attentive enough to pay attention for his fondness for subtle nuance.
ignoring Einstein for a moment, I would be most interested to learn more about SVD-decompositions and unsupervised machine learning. Although explaining it to me might be a little easier than a six year old, my skills do not yet reach those of a professional mathematician. Nonetheless, I would love to read any research results you might have in this area. I'm a fish taxonomist, who uses multivariate morphometrics to study evolution. PCA is an important tool in my work for species identification. I have done some work using single-plane structured light sensing to facilitate data collection and remain fascinated by the potential of spectral methods for understanding characteristics of fishes and for more automated methods of identification and reconstruction of species lineages.
Any pointers to specific literature that relate AI learning and matrix decomposition methods in general that you might suggest I read?
The wonderful, essential quality of mathematics is that it unifies all of science. Why this should be so, is one of the most interesting mysteries in all of science in my opinion.
The bored and ignorant better wake up soon to what the world of Science is telling them: humanity has little time left to solve the major ecological crises facing it.
Hopeful the one silver lining of the disaster in the Gulf is that folks might wake up, perhaps unplug their headphones and personal technofantasies to recognize the alarm bells are ringing!
Yoo hoo, iPhone users. Anyone there? The world as we know it is coming to an end. Might you be part of the solution or just another part of the cause? Please pass this message along with the hope that someone has an answer to this problem.
very early in one's scientific career, perhaps by the 4th or 5th grade, perhaps as early as the age of 2, if the life of Karl Frederich Gauss is any guide. Knowledge is added incrementally and the ability to penetrate a thicket of technicality is attenuated by how much prior training and encouragement one receives going forward.
Personally, although I found myself loving mathematics in the 4th to about 7th grade, puberty interrupted and I discovered girls. Consequently, I went into a dark phase that really left me poorly prepared for calculus for physics, chem, and math majors at UCLA. This of course, led to a further digression and missed opportunities as I pursued a career in the biological sciences. Only in the latter days of completing my Ph.D. did I begin to rekindle my recognition of the essential character of mathematics for the understanding of all of science. Now at 59, I am only beginning to achieve the level of mathematical skills that I should have taken into my Ph.D. and subsequent research. My point is not to draw attention to any special story that I have but to personalize a point that was well made in a Science cover story many years ago about science education for minority students (I am not a minority, although there aren't many Venezuelan Bohemians I suspect), the but main point can be more broadly applied to all students of science: the science pipeline is a very leaky one. Other scientists I am sure could tell a far more fascinating and compelling story. Nonetheless, there is simply no way as an individual scientist no matter how large the ego or ambition to find the time or resources to make up for the leakage, which can occur in individual careers or the sense of a loss to society or to specific subpopulations of science students and disciplines.
This bring me to my primary disagreement with the essay, in which one paragraph ends with the sentence "That base is young, optimistic, and stands ready to be mobilized.". Frankly, I am not convinced as I see many others like me suffer from the setbacks and the "leakage" at various stages of their training that are necessary to integrate the essential mathematical ideas with those required to unify the empirical science. Admittedly, when I was in school, even in the latter phases of my education computer and network technology was still in its infancy (I wrote my first computer program on punch cards). However, the dating of many of my skills is largely besides the point. There simply does not exist the capacity to meet the planetary challenges that the scientific community faces as it confronts them. The basic premise of the article is somewhat flawed because scientists, as good as many are, and there are many far greater in their contribution than I could aspire to, are not really all that much different from their much less scientifically trained counterparts in the public as a whole. There really aren't two different populations here, merely a spectrum of human understanding about what the essential scientific truths are. In this sense the essay, while drawing attention to many important issues, is conceptually flawed.
If the goals of broader science education, communication of science, and even the essential incorporation of science as a means by which we conduct civilized affairs from running governments to street cars, to day care are to be acheived, there has to be a much greater awareness of the need to create a much more capable scientific infrastructure to help plug all those "leaky pipes" in our own scientific training as well as those of our fellow scientists in virtually all subdisciplines of science (I never am really sure about those pure mathematicians as they are an inscrutable lot). Business certainly has an important role to play here as well, since our economies as well as our ecosystems are completely interwoven and it is a mistake to treat them as separate entities. Our present science infrastructure is too much like those not quite capable enough robots trying to plug the leak off the mouth of
Corporate users would be loathe to buy into a product that is vertically closed to them from top to bottom. It would simply give Apple control over their bottom line as soon as they decided to change the rules of the game.
On the other hand, consumers don't mind as long as they get the coolness factor they are looking for. Its more a status symbol than an open platform upon which to develop an independent business, unless of course you are appealing to a small segment of the business market that is directed toward providing services to a captured market (Apple customers, who are essentially locked into the Apple ecosystem).
Or it may simply mean that they step carefully when modifying the core essentials of their business, which on the face of it, doesn't seem like a bad idea, especially since 1 screw up and you might loose your entire customer base depending upon your product line and industry.
Wow, this subthread makes it pretty clear why corporate types will keep iPods at an arms length, except for personal use. Who wants to suffer having to drag a zillion zealots into their business decisions in order to placate their religion?
Yes, but it still goes through Cisco routers and switches on its way to its destinations, whatever route it may take. There are no Apple routers and switches, at least none of much consequence to the major telecommunication players. Your talking simply about the applications layer of IP and the terminal points. For these to work, they must sit on top of the lower IP layers and ultimately interface to actual hardware that says to each packet, "you go here" and "you over there", etc There is a lot of hardware in between and Cisco OWNS this market.
If they wanted to compete with Apple more directly they could do so, but I don't think that is their intent here. Ultimately, they want to drive more internet traffic, since most of this traffic (about 60%) runs on (or more accurately through) Cisco gear, they are simply entering yet another slice of the telecommunications market and say, we will own some of this too. Few companies are in a position to do this like Cisco. They can because of the strategic position of their product line with respect to the underlying architecture of the internet itself. They are simply making it clear that they intend to directly own a piece of all internet related segments so that they can provide full-spectrum products that appeal to their largest customers and to better manage control of the growth of internet as a whole. Big customers are willing to pay big prices for their gear because it allows them to maintain quality of service with respect to the underlying network. These customers can't afford to be in the position of iPhone users in NY city for example, whose phone plans are constrained by ATT trying to save money by not putting enough Cisco hardware in place to handle the traffic. Apple users simply have to put up with or turn to Android, Nokia, LG or other emerging players.
If you look at their most recent advertising campaign its about new paradigms that broadband make possible. They focus their PR campaign on video-conferencing because it catches people's imaginations, much as do Apple consumer products, but the underlying internet gear is where they make their real money. They make the bulk of their money simply by driving traffic onto their equipment. With about 37B in cash reserves they do have a lot of money to set whatever direction they want to take. At some point in the future, say when republicans are successful in allowing corporations to regulate the internet without any kind of government oversight, they would be in a position to slow Apple traffic preferentially if they saw fit, although I would doubt they would want to do that as they make more money by simply by driving internet traffic up, not by owning ever last packet via closed channel deals. They needn't care too much what consumer products ultimately create the traffic to make their money.
That reason is internet traffic. They want to drive internet traffic up and up and up. The control about 60% of the router and switch markets that provide the nodes essential for directing internet traffic. ATT, Verizon, Sprint want to build telecommunications networks, so they buy Cisco gear. So many see the internet as a consumer oriented application medium, but it is built on multiple layers, which ultimately rely on the lower levels of the network that directly interface with router and switching gear. Cisco is the 500 pound gorilla in the economics of internet plumbing. Yes there are a few smaller players, Juniper, Hwei, etc. but they do not dominate like Cisco.
Well its largely a question of scale. Sell (or let others sell) hundreds of thousands of devices that link to the internet and then make a fortune on selling the underlying high-end gear that supports all the communications. Keep in mind that Cisco makes money every time Apple sells an iPad or and iPhone. Apple and just about everybody else ultimately relies on Cisco products to get their packets moved around between customers they are selling to.
Remember, while the California gold rush got a lot of folks excited, the real money was in shovels and railroads. As far as the internet goes, you can think of Cisco as the railroad.
Cisco has many cards it can play that Apple can not. In fact they will probably make quite a bit of money off iPad sales, because they make the hardware that the Verizon's and AT&T must buy to keep up with the bandwidth demand generated by all these newer phones. Most of the money to be made on these phones is in the cost of service, not the phones themselves (unless of course Apple can convince its customers to be constantly upgrading their phones every year or two and stay locked into distribution channels such as the iTunes). By playing with a wide variety of increased bandwidth technologies Cicso is in a commanding position to eventually corner more of the iPod market if later desires by more directly influencing the cost of the plans Apple customer's need to make their phones work. By just getting into the tablet market they gain valuable ties to a host of companies that would more indirectly interact with the underlying plumbing, which Cisco by and large controls given their dominant presence in that market. It also positions them better going forward to offering more specialized services not currently provided by the telecommunications players as these devices mature and spin of new services and technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if Cisco is already positioning a lot of latent capability into their products that can be activated later as these services and technologies mature.
By better focusing on the revenue from phone plans and implementing broader more open technologies (open in the sense that customers don't have to go through a single vendor to provide as with Apple's approval process) they lay the groundwork for a much larger presence in this market than Apple would be able to support, since they are forced to rely largely on telecoms for their network. Cisco on the other hand is in a much better position to control the telecoms than Apple, since they too rely on Cisco for much of the plumbing hardware. Strategically, this is good for Cisco, since it positions themselves as a major player in ALL segments of telecommunications, not just the consumer market, where new products and competitors can easily out-buzz and out-hype each other relatively quickly.
As more and more iPad-like devices from other vendors hit the market Cisco is in a much better position to steer bandwidth growth in ways that direct customers, but particularly very large customers to its products because they will seek more highly integrated, full-spectrum solutions rather than the lucrative, but still relatively boutique approach to a business focus that Apple currently enjoys primarily as a result of its excellent marketing. While consumers are falling all over themselves to get Apple products, few corporations are probably going to be satisfied with being forced to set up classes for their thousands of employee's just to show them how to properly hold their new iPhone. Broad scale more seemless technologies that scale more broadly will be appreciated by business customers.
"I think this, more than anything else, is what causes peoples brains to go stale."
I have suspicions that brains "go stale" [cells are lost] because so many grow so infatuated with their own ideas that they tend to impose them on their conception of reality. Axons among these channels get reinforced, while those leading to other connections atrophy. When this happens, many brain cells are lost as they simply aren't being used and nutrition and ultimately, energy, always in short supply in the body because it is costly and risky to create, goes to where it is used. These people then loose the flexibility to think creatively. Brain cells, like muscle cells need exercise.
You do not exercise all of them, if your only significant ideas can be printed on a bumper sticker or a quick political slogan. To exercise them all, you need to be more "open-minded". Being wrong and then being able to learn from your mistakes, helps build new axonal pathways. Many fail to learn from their mistakes and become "conservatives" and "reactionaries", able to only respond reflexively.
Ignoring reality again and again even as it slaps you in the face: the hallmark of a true conservative
Königsberg bridge problem was solve by Euler several centuries ago (there is NO solution). If the traveling salesman problem could be shown to be solvable in polynomial time that would be a very big deal, as it would imply that other similar problems are likewise solvable.
Anyway, whatever Donald Knuth announces as important, is worth everyone's attention.
republicans are beginning to see what its like to be in the minority. I suspect it will be mostly the Chinese, who will laughing at such water-cooler jokes.
Slashdot Mirror
than you realize, but the important thing is having the wisdom to do something about it.
I have encountered your attitude before. John Wooden the former UCLA coach had a saying that might be of help to you. "Its what you learn after you know it all that counts".
Actually, there are many scientists, like myself, who are now retired and get no further public funding for their science. We do it for the pure joy of bearing true, rather than false, witness to the beauty of nature and its mathematical representation. If you think working 80 hours a week, writing papers, doing research, teaching students, giving lectures, doing field work, etc. and trying to help fellow humans understand this immensely complicated universe we live in is done for money, I would suggest to you that this certainly show how remarkably uniformed and myopic your point of view actually is. Don't, of course let it bother you or take it personally. However, I would suggest to you that you are missing out on the very best things life has to offer and that no amount of money can buy.
Science is in some ways like religion because you get to talk to God directly. However, science has a distinct advantage over religion, God actually talks back to you and reveals the secrets of the universe, if you are willing to train yourself to be able to decipher the mathematics of his language and attentive enough to pay attention for his fondness for subtle nuance.
The middle one with eignevalues on its main diagonal no?
ignoring Einstein for a moment, I would be most interested to learn more about SVD-decompositions and unsupervised machine learning. Although explaining it to me might be a little easier than a six year old, my skills do not yet reach those of a professional mathematician. Nonetheless, I would love to read any research results you might have in this area. I'm a fish taxonomist, who uses multivariate morphometrics to study evolution. PCA is an important tool in my work for species identification. I have done some work using single-plane structured light sensing to facilitate data collection and remain fascinated by the potential of spectral methods for understanding characteristics of fishes and for more automated methods of identification and reconstruction of species lineages.
Any pointers to specific literature that relate AI learning and matrix decomposition methods in general that you might suggest I read?
The wonderful, essential quality of mathematics is that it unifies all of science. Why this should be so, is one of the most interesting mysteries in all of science in my opinion.
The bored and ignorant better wake up soon to what the world of Science is telling them: humanity has little time left to solve the major ecological crises facing it.
Hopeful the one silver lining of the disaster in the Gulf is that folks might wake up, perhaps unplug their headphones and personal technofantasies to recognize the alarm bells are ringing!
Yoo hoo, iPhone users. Anyone there? The world as we know it is coming to an end. Might you be part of the solution or just another part of the cause? Please pass this message along with the hope that someone has an answer to this problem.
very early in one's scientific career, perhaps by the 4th or 5th grade, perhaps as early as the age of 2, if the life of Karl Frederich Gauss is any guide. Knowledge is added incrementally and the ability to penetrate a thicket of technicality is attenuated by how much prior training and encouragement one receives going forward.
Personally, although I found myself loving mathematics in the 4th to about 7th grade, puberty interrupted and I discovered girls. Consequently, I went into a dark phase that really left me poorly prepared for calculus for physics, chem, and math majors at UCLA. This of course, led to a further digression and missed opportunities as I pursued a career in the biological sciences. Only in the latter days of completing my Ph.D. did I begin to rekindle my recognition of the essential character of mathematics for the understanding of all of science. Now at 59, I am only beginning to achieve the level of mathematical skills that I should have taken into my Ph.D. and subsequent research. My point is not to draw attention to any special story that I have but to personalize a point that was well made in a Science cover story many years ago about science education for minority students (I am not a minority, although there aren't many Venezuelan Bohemians I suspect), the but main point can be more broadly applied to all students of science: the science pipeline is a very leaky one. Other scientists I am sure could tell a far more fascinating and compelling story. Nonetheless, there is simply no way as an individual scientist no matter how large the ego or ambition to find the time or resources to make up for the leakage, which can occur in individual careers or the sense of a loss to society or to specific subpopulations of science students and disciplines.
This bring me to my primary disagreement with the essay, in which one paragraph ends with the sentence "That base is young, optimistic, and stands ready to be mobilized.". Frankly, I am not convinced as I see many others like me suffer from the setbacks and the "leakage" at various stages of their training that are necessary to integrate the essential mathematical ideas with those required to unify the empirical science. Admittedly, when I was in school, even in the latter phases of my education computer and network technology was still in its infancy (I wrote my first computer program on punch cards). However, the dating of many of my skills is largely besides the point. There simply does not exist the capacity to meet the planetary challenges that the scientific community faces as it confronts them. The basic premise of the article is somewhat flawed because scientists, as good as many are, and there are many far greater in their contribution than I could aspire to, are not really all that much different from their much less scientifically trained counterparts in the public as a whole. There really aren't two different populations here, merely a spectrum of human understanding about what the essential scientific truths are. In this sense the essay, while drawing attention to many important issues, is conceptually flawed.
If the goals of broader science education, communication of science, and even the essential incorporation of science as a means by which we conduct civilized affairs from running governments to street cars, to day care are to be acheived, there has to be a much greater awareness of the need to create a much more capable scientific infrastructure to help plug all those "leaky pipes" in our own scientific training as well as those of our fellow scientists in virtually all subdisciplines of science (I never am really sure about those pure mathematicians as they are an inscrutable lot). Business certainly has an important role to play here as well, since our economies as well as our ecosystems are completely interwoven and it is a mistake to treat them as separate entities. Our present science infrastructure is too much like those not quite capable enough robots trying to plug the leak off the mouth of
Where have you been? Cisco bought out Tandberg last year and the EU and the US approved the sale earlier this year.
Completed the acquisition earlier this year. Its clear they will dominate business to business videoconferencing systems business.
"do you really want the DoD using the local telco's bridge?"
Why do you think the military invented the internet in the first place?
Corporate users would be loathe to buy into a product that is vertically closed to them from top to bottom. It would simply give Apple control over their bottom line as soon as they decided to change the rules of the game.
On the other hand, consumers don't mind as long as they get the coolness factor they are looking for. Its more a status symbol than an open platform upon which to develop an independent business, unless of course you are appealing to a small segment of the business market that is directed toward providing services to a captured market (Apple customers, who are essentially locked into the Apple ecosystem).
But your network plan costs you nothing right? After you purchase the phone and start using it. Thats where lots of money comes in handy.
Or it may simply mean that they step carefully when modifying the core essentials of their business, which on the face of it, doesn't seem like a bad idea, especially since 1 screw up and you might loose your entire customer base depending upon your product line and industry.
Wow, this subthread makes it pretty clear why corporate types will keep iPods at an arms length, except for personal use. Who wants to suffer having to drag a zillion zealots into their business decisions in order to placate their religion?
Yes, but it still goes through Cisco routers and switches on its way to its destinations, whatever route it may take. There are no Apple routers and switches, at least none of much consequence to the major telecommunication players. Your talking simply about the applications layer of IP and the terminal points. For these to work, they must sit on top of the lower IP layers and ultimately interface to actual hardware that says to each packet, "you go here" and "you over there", etc There is a lot of hardware in between and Cisco OWNS this market.
If they wanted to compete with Apple more directly they could do so, but I don't think that is their intent here. Ultimately, they want to drive more internet traffic, since most of this traffic (about 60%) runs on (or more accurately through) Cisco gear, they are simply entering yet another slice of the telecommunications market and say, we will own some of this too. Few companies are in a position to do this like Cisco. They can because of the strategic position of their product line with respect to the underlying architecture of the internet itself. They are simply making it clear that they intend to directly own a piece of all internet related segments so that they can provide full-spectrum products that appeal to their largest customers and to better manage control of the growth of internet as a whole. Big customers are willing to pay big prices for their gear because it allows them to maintain quality of service with respect to the underlying network. These customers can't afford to be in the position of iPhone users in NY city for example, whose phone plans are constrained by ATT trying to save money by not putting enough Cisco hardware in place to handle the traffic. Apple users simply have to put up with or turn to Android, Nokia, LG or other emerging players.
If you look at their most recent advertising campaign its about new paradigms that broadband make possible. They focus their PR campaign on video-conferencing because it catches people's imaginations, much as do Apple consumer products, but the underlying internet gear is where they make their real money. They make the bulk of their money simply by driving traffic onto their equipment. With about 37B in cash reserves they do have a lot of money to set whatever direction they want to take. At some point in the future, say when republicans are successful in allowing corporations to regulate the internet without any kind of government oversight, they would be in a position to slow Apple traffic preferentially if they saw fit, although I would doubt they would want to do that as they make more money by simply by driving internet traffic up, not by owning ever last packet via closed channel deals. They needn't care too much what consumer products ultimately create the traffic to make their money.
That reason is internet traffic. They want to drive internet traffic up and up and up. The control about 60% of the router and switch markets that provide the nodes essential for directing internet traffic. ATT, Verizon, Sprint want to build telecommunications networks, so they buy Cisco gear. So many see the internet as a consumer oriented application medium, but it is built on multiple layers, which ultimately rely on the lower levels of the network that directly interface with router and switching gear. Cisco is the 500 pound gorilla in the economics of internet plumbing. Yes there are a few smaller players, Juniper, Hwei, etc. but they do not dominate like Cisco.
Well its largely a question of scale. Sell (or let others sell) hundreds of thousands of devices that link to the internet and then make a fortune on selling the underlying high-end gear that supports all the communications. Keep in mind that Cisco makes money every time Apple sells an iPad or and iPhone. Apple and just about everybody else ultimately relies on Cisco products to get their packets moved around between customers they are selling to.
Remember, while the California gold rush got a lot of folks excited, the real money was in shovels and railroads. As far as the internet goes, you can think of Cisco as the railroad.
Cisco has many cards it can play that Apple can not. In fact they will probably make quite a bit of money off iPad sales, because they make the hardware that the Verizon's and AT&T must buy to keep up with the bandwidth demand generated by all these newer phones. Most of the money to be made on these phones is in the cost of service, not the phones themselves (unless of course Apple can convince its customers to be constantly upgrading their phones every year or two and stay locked into distribution channels such as the iTunes). By playing with a wide variety of increased bandwidth technologies Cicso is in a commanding position to eventually corner more of the iPod market if later desires by more directly influencing the cost of the plans Apple customer's need to make their phones work. By just getting into the tablet market they gain valuable ties to a host of companies that would more indirectly interact with the underlying plumbing, which Cisco by and large controls given their dominant presence in that market. It also positions them better going forward to offering more specialized services not currently provided by the telecommunications players as these devices mature and spin of new services and technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if Cisco is already positioning a lot of latent capability into their products that can be activated later as these services and technologies mature.
By better focusing on the revenue from phone plans and implementing broader more open technologies (open in the sense that customers don't have to go through a single vendor to provide as with Apple's approval process) they lay the groundwork for a much larger presence in this market than Apple would be able to support, since they are forced to rely largely on telecoms for their network. Cisco on the other hand is in a much better position to control the telecoms than Apple, since they too rely on Cisco for much of the plumbing hardware. Strategically, this is good for Cisco, since it positions themselves as a major player in ALL segments of telecommunications, not just the consumer market, where new products and competitors can easily out-buzz and out-hype each other relatively quickly.
As more and more iPad-like devices from other vendors hit the market Cisco is in a much better position to steer bandwidth growth in ways that direct customers, but particularly very large customers to its products because they will seek more highly integrated, full-spectrum solutions rather than the lucrative, but still relatively boutique approach to a business focus that Apple currently enjoys primarily as a result of its excellent marketing. While consumers are falling all over themselves to get Apple products, few corporations are probably going to be satisfied with being forced to set up classes for their thousands of employee's just to show them how to properly hold their new iPhone. Broad scale more seemless technologies that scale more broadly will be appreciated by business customers.
"I think this, more than anything else, is what causes peoples brains to go stale."
I have suspicions that brains "go stale" [cells are lost] because so many grow so infatuated with their own ideas that they tend to impose them on their conception of reality. Axons among these channels get reinforced, while those leading to other connections atrophy. When this happens, many brain cells are lost as they simply aren't being used and nutrition and ultimately, energy, always in short supply in the body because it is costly and risky to create, goes to where it is used. These people then loose the flexibility to think creatively. Brain cells, like muscle cells need exercise.
You do not exercise all of them, if your only significant ideas can be printed on a bumper sticker or a quick political slogan. To exercise them all, you need to be more "open-minded". Being wrong and then being able to learn from your mistakes, helps build new axonal pathways. Many fail to learn from their mistakes and become "conservatives" and "reactionaries", able to only respond reflexively.
Ignoring reality again and again even as it slaps you in the face: the hallmark of a true conservative
Obviously, miracle happens.
Königsberg bridge problem was solve by Euler several centuries ago (there is NO solution). If the traveling salesman problem could be shown to be solvable in polynomial time that would be a very big deal, as it would imply that other similar problems are likewise solvable.
Anyway, whatever Donald Knuth announces as important, is worth everyone's attention.
why Hally Barbour spent so much time in China raising money for republican causes.
"What the mind can conceive, the body can acheive."
I guess that explains why Rush Limbaugh is in such great shape.
republicans are beginning to see what its like to be in the minority. I suspect it will be mostly the Chinese, who will laughing at such water-cooler jokes.
being a rent boy to anti-gay crusading republicans.