While I agree that you shouldn't mod GP down because of disagreeing...I do believe GP should be modded down. He uses inflammatory and trolling language.
"This Is Disgusting And Sick"? Filthy, vile, and destructive? Timothy is irresponsible and should be fired?
This is exactly the kind of language that stops thoughtful discussion, and should be discouraged accordingly by the mods.
Whatever your opinion is of recreational drugs, this animosity toward people minding their own business in the privacy of their own home is reminiscent of those who think violent video games caused the Columbine massacre and other real-world violence. It is a simple fact that humans generally consumes large amounts of chemicals that alter the way our mind and body work, and our society generally manages to do just fine. And just like some people will be violent psychopaths who just happen to be gamers, some people will self destruct who just happen to use recreational drugs.
Would you want to be the guy who has to maintain code written by another developer who was high?
Alcohol is legal. How many programmers go to work shitface drunk?
You should ask instead, do you want to be the guy who maintains code written by another developer who uses recreational drugs in the privacy of their own home?
Uhh...the Constitution says that all spending bills must originate in the House. You can't just pass a budget in the Senate and then have the President sign it.
As living in a "lean blue" state, I chose to vote Democratic nationally. I shudder to think of the GOP getting a majority in the Senate.
Although I am also fed up with Democrats as well. That's why in local elections, I have begun voting Libertarian. They stand more of a chance locally than nationally, and everyone always says that the way to get a third party going is from the local level first, up through to the state level and then national.
I think in the future, Libertarian is going to start taking off. The reason being that there's a lot of Republicans who want to be rid of the social conservative issues and a lot of Democrats who want to be rid of fiscally liberal issues.
But the key here is that a US citizen should get due process. Even John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" guy, got due process. He was indicted by a Federal grand jury. He ACTUALLY took up arms against the United States and trained with the Taliban and was captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield (his unit even surrendered!), and he got a trial that wasn't a military commission.
Meanwhile, Awlaki never actually took up arms against the US. The most they can claim is he gave speeches that were probably protected by the First Amendment. You want to claim he is guilty of being a traitor, that he has committed treason against his country? Show the evidence in a court room (I recall something about treason in the Constitution and some other stuff about witnesses and overt acts...). You don't just get to blow up people who are not on a battlefield and not actively engaged in hostilities.
And for that matter, Alwaki's son, Abdulrahman, was a 16 year old American Citizen. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki committed no crimes and did not plot war against the US, yet he was summarily executed by drone strike. How the fuck do you defend killing a minor just because his father was an alleged terrorist who was never even tried or convicted of any crime?
For every federal tax dollar, the following states get over $1.50 back in federal aid: Kentucky, Virginia, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, New Mexico. Those are almost all red states.
For every federal tax dollar, the following states get less than $0.82 in federal aid: Colorado, New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey. Those are almost blue states.
So, please, if *you* don't want *our* help then I would be more than happy for you to send all that extra federal aid back to the government so we can start paying down our debts instead of having you Red Staters freeloading off of all the hard working Blue Staters.
The "experimental" patches weren't applied to voting machines that the people voted on. Instead, they were installed on the central tabulators, one in each of the 39 counties. I dunno about you, but I'm a little concerned about uncertified, experimental software on a machine that counts all the votes for a whole county AND has read/write access to the central database.
My concern has nothing to do with vote tampering and everything to do with the fact that software usually has bugs. That is what certification is for, to prevent buggy software from being deployed for important things like Presidential elections.
Thanks for the correction. But, how widespread were electronic voting machines prior to the 2000 election, though? I could have swore that the whole Florida fiasco was one of the primary reasons e-voting became so prominent.
These nut jobs who proclaim global warming and cite all kinds of fabricated or exaggerated "evidence" are the same nut jobs who were proclaiming a global ice age when I was growing up.
Then it's a good thing that the consensus of peer-reviewed research when you were growing up was not in favor of a global ice age.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. [...]
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
Image in the article shows that of the studies from 1965 to 1979, 62% predicted warming, only 10% predicted cooling. 28% undecided.
There's more to it than Kelo. Mr. Romney has come out saying he wants to stack SCOTUS with people who would overturn Roe vs Wade at the first opportunity. His choice would also most likely do everything they could to fight equal rights for gay Americans. For example Lawrence vs Texas; even though it was a 6-3 decision, former Justice O'Connor was in the 6, and she was replaced by Justice Alito who almost certainly would have voted with the Court's conservative bloc to make that a 5-4 decision if argued today.
And forgive me for labeling hyperbole the idea that Kelo was the "most significant civil liberty decision in the last 15-20 years". In my opinion there are greater civil liberties than just the right to property.
For example, Hamdan vs Rumsfeld and Hamdi vs Rumsfeld. Those cases were about locking people in cages without any kind of due process, which is without a doubt far more significant than merely losing some property. In both cases, Justice Ginsburg was on the side of protecting civil liberties, and our friends on the right wing of the court like Justices Scalia and Thomas (and Alito in Hamdan) decided that they were okay with the denial of basic due process rights.
I see the examples of Hamdan and Hamdi, among others I'm sure, as evidence that civil liberties barely dodged a bullet. And if Justice Ginsburg is replaced by someone like Justices Scalia or Alito, you can kiss those civil liberties goodbye.
While I'm of the mentality that we're picking from two sides of the same coin, there is one significant difference between the candidates, to me. Who they will nominate to replace Ginsburg when she retires. While Obama will almost certainly move the needle toward the center (by nominating someone from the center, which is probably to the right of Ginsburg), Romney will almost certainly pick another Scalia/Alito type, swinging the pendulum very far and resulting in what amounts to another Lochnear era.
Not quite what you were asking for, but this shorter google doc - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1 - on page 5 shows the results of the last four GOP primaries, and only the one in 2012 displays the unusual behavior. If this were really a demographics thing I would expect to see such unusual behavior from the same county in previous years, especially since Mr. Romney was involved in the 2008 primary.
The current counter-hypothesis is that urban areas are more likely to vote for Romney and urban precincts are more likely to have more people, but if this were the case I would expect to see this phenomenon favor Democrats since their strongholds are typically urban areas.
I, too, would like to see something like the 2000 general election in some of these contested counties, and more general election results overall. Especially because there were no electronic voting machines or central tabulators during that election, which are the hypothesized methods for committing this type of fraud. This kind of information is supposed to be publicly available. Feeling ambitious, mate?
Someone with more information about the paper will have to chime in here but it does look like typical, sleezy, last minute, mud slinging American politics.
Not to throw a monkey wrench into your partisan analysis, but there is nothing "last minute" about this. The Ron Paul folks noticed this about eight months ago.
But that's not the way this law was initially designed. Look at overzeetop's post above. These laws were originally designed to fight people who were reproducing copyrighted material commercially for profit. This guy has no profit motive and was not distributing commercially. While not violating the letter of the law, the maximum fine sure violates the spirit of the law.
If Congress wasn't at the beck and call of lobbyists, they would surely pass a new law that sets new statutory limits on noncommercial infringement.
Even if fraud is not perpetrated using these machines, they are going to fuck up at some statistically significant rate. Think papers jamming, touch screen calibration errors, etc.
And of course there's the eight people in Clay County, Kentucky, who are serving hard time for tricking people with electronic voting machines. One was even a judge!
The county had new voting machines that year that required people to push two buttons after making their choices — one to review choices and the second to record them.
That created opportunity for a scam in which corrupt precinct officers duped people into thinking they had voted after pressing the first button, then switched the votes, according to trial testimony.
Not because they're international, but because they're election monitors. Not generally the types of people that we would expect to attempt to influence elections. After all, if you heard that Syria was barring international election monitors within 100 feet of polling places, would you give them the same benefit of the doubt?
I'm not a conspiracy guy either but I must admit that is pretty compelling. I would like to see those graphs, minus precincts that used electronic voting machines. If they show the expected "ringing" oscillations when removing the influence of voting machines, then that's pretty damning...
Trying to make sure I understand your logic. Company Y says they will only use patents defensively. Company X makes no such claim. When company X sues company Y first, it's ok, but if company Y countersues only company X after having been sued first, it's bad?
They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
Question for you. Is the value of a cross-licensed patent equal to $0? Because otherwise, you would need to factor in the value of cross-licensed patents when determining the FRAND rate.
Besides that, people in a classroom are sitting down, so I don't see him being in their way. Climbing some stairs and watching people play mahjong is not getting in their way. If he is pushing his way into a private area and refuses to leave when asked, then yeah the guy deserves a trespassing charge.
Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way.
I watched one of his videos. Typically, people notice him and move in *his* direction. Others appear to intentionally go out of their way to swat at him (wouldn't that be assault?) Another time a guy started walking away, only to turn around and swat at him. One time he sat down at a table with someone else. Another time he was video taping someone through a window. A few times he was looking into someone's parked car from beside it, which is hardly "in their way".
Not a single time did he intentionally get in anyone's way. Not a single time did he block anyone's line of sight, until they intentionally turned to face him. Sounds to me like you're just making shit up and didn't bother to watch the videos to make sure your claims could withstand 5 minutes of verification.
I think you're trying to see through primary motivators, which is causing you to do an almost-sort-of-"ends justify the means"-kind-of thing. You have to realize that while selfishness may lie underneath a primary motivator if you dig deeply enough, selfishness isn't by itself enough for sufficient justification, which makes selfishness a secondary motivator. You also have to accept the theory that there are multiple motivators, and that they are not necessarily orthogonal (i.e. one could consciously be aware of selfishness as a secondary motivator that lies underneath a related primary motivator)
Consider the case of holding the door open for someone. Helping others makes you happy, right? And yet you don't hold the door for *everyone*. You probably weigh several factors: how much help does this person need, how far from the door they are, how many people are queued up to go through the door, how much of a rush you are in, etc. If selfishness-through-happiness were a true primary motivator, you would hold the door until no one was left. Yet the truth is you likely have no real primary motivator for holding the door, and instead you have multiple secondary motivators that act in concert for sufficient justification. For instance, you may hold the door for an elderly woman carrying a bag (additional secondary motivator based on target's need), but leave the middle-aged gentleman behind her to fend for himself (lacks aforementioned secondary motivator)
Personally, when I see someone in need, I feel driven and compelled to help them. I cannot really explain why, but I do know that there is a very shallow level of processing going on when I make such decisions. It is like a hunger which wants to be fed, a thirst which wants to be quenched. When you are hungry or thirsty, do you contemplate exactly why you feel this way, or do you merely accept the biological drive and then seek to satisfy it?
You may be able to ex-post-facto analyze the behavior and trace a path to a selfish root, but in the heat of the moment - when the decision is being made - the selfish root itself is not driving the behavior. I guess the essence of my argument is that if you are consciously unaware of selfish motivations or intentionally suppress selfishness as a primary motivator through some form of training, then any ascription to selfishness is an academic exercise and not reflective of the true decision making process that goes on in the brain. Selfish motivators may be present during the process, but they are not always sufficient to explain the resulting behavior - hence the analysis and deep level of processing sometimes necessary to uncover such motivators.
"The unlucky are nothing more than a frame of reference for the lucky. You are unlucky, so I may know that I am not. Unfortunately the lucky never realizes they are lucky until it's too late. Take yourself for instance; yesterday you were better off than you are off today but it took today for you to realize it. But today has arrived and it's too late. You see?"
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that you shouldn't mod GP down because of disagreeing...I do believe GP should be modded down. He uses inflammatory and trolling language.
"This Is Disgusting And Sick"? Filthy, vile, and destructive? Timothy is irresponsible and should be fired?
This is exactly the kind of language that stops thoughtful discussion, and should be discouraged accordingly by the mods.
Whatever your opinion is of recreational drugs, this animosity toward people minding their own business in the privacy of their own home is reminiscent of those who think violent video games caused the Columbine massacre and other real-world violence. It is a simple fact that humans generally consumes large amounts of chemicals that alter the way our mind and body work, and our society generally manages to do just fine. And just like some people will be violent psychopaths who just happen to be gamers, some people will self destruct who just happen to use recreational drugs.
Would you want to be the guy who has to maintain code written by another developer who was high?
Alcohol is legal. How many programmers go to work shitface drunk?
You should ask instead, do you want to be the guy who maintains code written by another developer who uses recreational drugs in the privacy of their own home?
In fact, the whole point of the patent is to give a limited term monopoly.
In exchange for making the invention public. One would assume that making the invention public isn't intended to prevent competition altogether.
Uhh...the Constitution says that all spending bills must originate in the House. You can't just pass a budget in the Senate and then have the President sign it.
As living in a "lean blue" state, I chose to vote Democratic nationally. I shudder to think of the GOP getting a majority in the Senate.
Although I am also fed up with Democrats as well. That's why in local elections, I have begun voting Libertarian. They stand more of a chance locally than nationally, and everyone always says that the way to get a third party going is from the local level first, up through to the state level and then national.
I think in the future, Libertarian is going to start taking off. The reason being that there's a lot of Republicans who want to be rid of the social conservative issues and a lot of Democrats who want to be rid of fiscally liberal issues.
But the key here is that a US citizen should get due process. Even John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" guy, got due process. He was indicted by a Federal grand jury. He ACTUALLY took up arms against the United States and trained with the Taliban and was captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield (his unit even surrendered!), and he got a trial that wasn't a military commission.
Meanwhile, Awlaki never actually took up arms against the US. The most they can claim is he gave speeches that were probably protected by the First Amendment. You want to claim he is guilty of being a traitor, that he has committed treason against his country? Show the evidence in a court room (I recall something about treason in the Constitution and some other stuff about witnesses and overt acts...). You don't just get to blow up people who are not on a battlefield and not actively engaged in hostilities.
And for that matter, Alwaki's son, Abdulrahman, was a 16 year old American Citizen. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki committed no crimes and did not plot war against the US, yet he was summarily executed by drone strike. How the fuck do you defend killing a minor just because his father was an alleged terrorist who was never even tried or convicted of any crime?
So all you Blue Staters, don't come to me for help because I'll slam the door right in your fucking face.
I'll bite, just because this one is too sweet to pass up.
I'll have you know that "you Red Staters" are subsidized by "us Blue Staters". Without us, you are well and truly fucked.
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/
For every federal tax dollar, the following states get over $1.50 back in federal aid: Kentucky, Virginia, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, New Mexico. Those are almost all red states.
For every federal tax dollar, the following states get less than $0.82 in federal aid: Colorado, New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey. Those are almost blue states.
So, please, if *you* don't want *our* help then I would be more than happy for you to send all that extra federal aid back to the government so we can start paying down our debts instead of having you Red Staters freeloading off of all the hard working Blue Staters.
The "experimental" patches weren't applied to voting machines that the people voted on. Instead, they were installed on the central tabulators, one in each of the 39 counties. I dunno about you, but I'm a little concerned about uncertified, experimental software on a machine that counts all the votes for a whole county AND has read/write access to the central database.
My concern has nothing to do with vote tampering and everything to do with the fact that software usually has bugs. That is what certification is for, to prevent buggy software from being deployed for important things like Presidential elections.
Thanks for the correction. But, how widespread were electronic voting machines prior to the 2000 election, though? I could have swore that the whole Florida fiasco was one of the primary reasons e-voting became so prominent.
These nut jobs who proclaim global warming and cite all kinds of fabricated or exaggerated "evidence" are the same nut jobs who were proclaiming a global ice age when I was growing up.
Then it's a good thing that the consensus of peer-reviewed research when you were growing up was not in favor of a global ice age.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-basic.htm
Image in the article shows that of the studies from 1965 to 1979, 62% predicted warming, only 10% predicted cooling. 28% undecided.
There's more to it than Kelo. Mr. Romney has come out saying he wants to stack SCOTUS with people who would overturn Roe vs Wade at the first opportunity. His choice would also most likely do everything they could to fight equal rights for gay Americans. For example Lawrence vs Texas; even though it was a 6-3 decision, former Justice O'Connor was in the 6, and she was replaced by Justice Alito who almost certainly would have voted with the Court's conservative bloc to make that a 5-4 decision if argued today.
And forgive me for labeling hyperbole the idea that Kelo was the "most significant civil liberty decision in the last 15-20 years". In my opinion there are greater civil liberties than just the right to property.
For example, Hamdan vs Rumsfeld and Hamdi vs Rumsfeld. Those cases were about locking people in cages without any kind of due process, which is without a doubt far more significant than merely losing some property. In both cases, Justice Ginsburg was on the side of protecting civil liberties, and our friends on the right wing of the court like Justices Scalia and Thomas (and Alito in Hamdan) decided that they were okay with the denial of basic due process rights.
I see the examples of Hamdan and Hamdi, among others I'm sure, as evidence that civil liberties barely dodged a bullet. And if Justice Ginsburg is replaced by someone like Justices Scalia or Alito, you can kiss those civil liberties goodbye.
While I'm of the mentality that we're picking from two sides of the same coin, there is one significant difference between the candidates, to me. Who they will nominate to replace Ginsburg when she retires. While Obama will almost certainly move the needle toward the center (by nominating someone from the center, which is probably to the right of Ginsburg), Romney will almost certainly pick another Scalia/Alito type, swinging the pendulum very far and resulting in what amounts to another Lochnear era.
Not quite what you were asking for, but this shorter google doc - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1 - on page 5 shows the results of the last four GOP primaries, and only the one in 2012 displays the unusual behavior. If this were really a demographics thing I would expect to see such unusual behavior from the same county in previous years, especially since Mr. Romney was involved in the 2008 primary.
And while it's a little harder to tease out, this post - http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html - which has been reposted in a lot of places, alleges that the same effect has been seen in non-primaries, specifically the Barber vs. Kelly special election to replace Mrs. Giffords.
The current counter-hypothesis is that urban areas are more likely to vote for Romney and urban precincts are more likely to have more people, but if this were the case I would expect to see this phenomenon favor Democrats since their strongholds are typically urban areas.
I, too, would like to see something like the 2000 general election in some of these contested counties, and more general election results overall. Especially because there were no electronic voting machines or central tabulators during that election, which are the hypothesized methods for committing this type of fraud. This kind of information is supposed to be publicly available. Feeling ambitious, mate?
Someone with more information about the paper will have to chime in here but it does look like typical, sleezy, last minute, mud slinging American politics.
Not to throw a monkey wrench into your partisan analysis, but there is nothing "last minute" about this. The Ron Paul folks noticed this about eight months ago.
http://www.dailypaul.com/220841/proof-of-election-fraud-algorithm-discovered
But that's not the way this law was initially designed. Look at overzeetop's post above. These laws were originally designed to fight people who were reproducing copyrighted material commercially for profit. This guy has no profit motive and was not distributing commercially. While not violating the letter of the law, the maximum fine sure violates the spirit of the law.
If Congress wasn't at the beck and call of lobbyists, they would surely pass a new law that sets new statutory limits on noncommercial infringement.
You're exactly right.
Even if fraud is not perpetrated using these machines, they are going to fuck up at some statistically significant rate. Think papers jamming, touch screen calibration errors, etc.
And of course there's the eight people in Clay County, Kentucky, who are serving hard time for tricking people with electronic voting machines. One was even a judge!
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/03/26/1197075/jury-convicts-all-8-defendants.html
Not because they're international, but because they're election monitors. Not generally the types of people that we would expect to attempt to influence elections. After all, if you heard that Syria was barring international election monitors within 100 feet of polling places, would you give them the same benefit of the doubt?
I'm not a conspiracy guy either but I must admit that is pretty compelling. I would like to see those graphs, minus precincts that used electronic voting machines. If they show the expected "ringing" oscillations when removing the influence of voting machines, then that's pretty damning...
Trying to make sure I understand your logic. Company Y says they will only use patents defensively. Company X makes no such claim. When company X sues company Y first, it's ok, but if company Y countersues only company X after having been sued first, it's bad?
They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
Question for you. Is the value of a cross-licensed patent equal to $0? Because otherwise, you would need to factor in the value of cross-licensed patents when determining the FRAND rate.
Well, Apple could always do what EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER DOES and cross-license their patents in order to get a lower royalty rate.
Here's the video I watched. I didn't listen with any audio, so I have little clue what's going on. But I did not see any of what you say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bT1ZfRtrJc
Besides that, people in a classroom are sitting down, so I don't see him being in their way. Climbing some stairs and watching people play mahjong is not getting in their way. If he is pushing his way into a private area and refuses to leave when asked, then yeah the guy deserves a trespassing charge.
Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way.
I watched one of his videos. Typically, people notice him and move in *his* direction. Others appear to intentionally go out of their way to swat at him (wouldn't that be assault?) Another time a guy started walking away, only to turn around and swat at him. One time he sat down at a table with someone else. Another time he was video taping someone through a window. A few times he was looking into someone's parked car from beside it, which is hardly "in their way".
Not a single time did he intentionally get in anyone's way. Not a single time did he block anyone's line of sight, until they intentionally turned to face him. Sounds to me like you're just making shit up and didn't bother to watch the videos to make sure your claims could withstand 5 minutes of verification.
I think you're trying to see through primary motivators, which is causing you to do an almost-sort-of-"ends justify the means"-kind-of thing. You have to realize that while selfishness may lie underneath a primary motivator if you dig deeply enough, selfishness isn't by itself enough for sufficient justification, which makes selfishness a secondary motivator. You also have to accept the theory that there are multiple motivators, and that they are not necessarily orthogonal (i.e. one could consciously be aware of selfishness as a secondary motivator that lies underneath a related primary motivator)
Consider the case of holding the door open for someone. Helping others makes you happy, right? And yet you don't hold the door for *everyone*. You probably weigh several factors: how much help does this person need, how far from the door they are, how many people are queued up to go through the door, how much of a rush you are in, etc. If selfishness-through-happiness were a true primary motivator, you would hold the door until no one was left. Yet the truth is you likely have no real primary motivator for holding the door, and instead you have multiple secondary motivators that act in concert for sufficient justification. For instance, you may hold the door for an elderly woman carrying a bag (additional secondary motivator based on target's need), but leave the middle-aged gentleman behind her to fend for himself (lacks aforementioned secondary motivator)
Personally, when I see someone in need, I feel driven and compelled to help them. I cannot really explain why, but I do know that there is a very shallow level of processing going on when I make such decisions. It is like a hunger which wants to be fed, a thirst which wants to be quenched. When you are hungry or thirsty, do you contemplate exactly why you feel this way, or do you merely accept the biological drive and then seek to satisfy it?
You may be able to ex-post-facto analyze the behavior and trace a path to a selfish root, but in the heat of the moment - when the decision is being made - the selfish root itself is not driving the behavior. I guess the essence of my argument is that if you are consciously unaware of selfish motivations or intentionally suppress selfishness as a primary motivator through some form of training, then any ascription to selfishness is an academic exercise and not reflective of the true decision making process that goes on in the brain. Selfish motivators may be present during the process, but they are not always sufficient to explain the resulting behavior - hence the analysis and deep level of processing sometimes necessary to uncover such motivators.
"The unlucky are nothing more than a frame of reference for the lucky. You are unlucky, so I may know that I am not. Unfortunately the lucky never realizes they are lucky until it's too late. Take yourself for instance; yesterday you were better off than you are off today but it took today for you to realize it. But today has arrived and it's too late. You see?"
- The Rabbi, "Lucky Number Slevin"