> Why didn't his local cops tell the FBI to go pound sand?
Actually, having chatted with some people who lived in the UK, I am not surprised. Frankly, they seem to civil to tell anyone to pound sand. A friend was relating a story about a loud party that the police came to deal with. In this country, these things tend to end with the police acting like a bunch of violent douchebags itching for a fight, with lots of threats and chest pounding.
There it was more like: "Say old chap, I am from the noise commission, you really can't be making so much noise after 11 pm". "what are you going to do about it" "Well we would like it if you would turn it down" "No" "Fine then, well I am writing that down, next time you want to have a party like this you wont be able to" "Why Not" "well because its against the law to make so much noise after 11".
No police comming in the door, no people being arrested, nobody using violence to stop... noise.
It made the place sound so civil that I almost want to move there.
Also... what is a p***k anyway? They really should translate their damned slurs into English.
Unless they stole copies of the Quran to burn, they are, their books. Say what you want about hate speech or whatnot, its their paper, if they want to burn it, its their business. If some little pissant group wants to buy some book to burn.... why should anyone else care?
Frankly, if anything, they should burn bibles and distribute the Quran. Few things are as capable of turning a person off to a religion as reading its holy scriptures! You want hate speech and intolerance? Shit, just open one of these books up! There is plenty to go around in most of them.
As an atheist, I would like to join a group to fund the printing and dissemination of the bible, quran, and book of morman, because getting people to read them would go a long way towards abolishing religion.
Right, I fully admit that, and meant to imply so. I do question the utility of enforcing many of the laws that are enforced, but thats another topic.
However, thats not really the question. The question is, are they so useful, and gain so much for society as a whole, that they warrant mandating that all of our infrastructure be back-doored to enable that purpose? A back door potentially exposes everyone to abuse, including offical abuse or simply the change of policy/law to make whats abuse today not legally abuse tomorrow.
Now, maybe thats still worth it... but... with programs like "red phone" for android, anyone who can afford a smart phone can effectively thwart wiretaps. Anyone who works with people for whom privacy is worth 5k per phone, could have had this level of security a few years ago.
Of course, there are even anonymous cell phones that can be purchased for cash, and disposed of and changed at will. Again, anyone who can afford a little inconvenience and thinks ahead can render it useless.
So, is it still worth trying to backdoor everyones infrastructure when its becoming nearly trivial and consumer grade to get around it?
Not being a blackberry user, I never cared enough to look into the technical details. Very good point.... excellent even!
Personally, I am counting down the days (17) until I can get a discount upgrading to a droid from my LG Decoy, best phone I ever owned until the snazzy built in bluetooth piggy back stopped working. Seriously, as much as a I want a droid, I would buy almost any phone if it had a bluetooth headset that clipped on the back and didn't look like the little plastic piece that holds it in was so small it would break from normal use (like mine did; shortly before it started refusing to talk to the headset, even when charged via the cradle)
Any time you build a back door, you weaken security. End of story.
The "legal intercept" (aka Wire Tap) functionality on phone switches was used, rather recently, in Athens, by an unknown party, to tap the lines of a number of non profit group leaders, and government officials. It was only discovered after it had been in operation for a while, and was discovered entirely by accident.
That said, I really don't see where governments have such legitimate cases for wiretapping. I mean, sure, I can see their case for wanting to tap, or having cause to tap, certain individuals. However, I don't see how that need translates into a need to force the entire infrastructure to be designed such that they can do it.
Whats the REAL damage of them not being able to do this when they have a case for it? Some criminals get away? Some are harder to catch and require more work? So what? I don't see how that need should usurp the entire populations security for the occasional need to tap someones phone.
I know we can dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios where they might need it.... but imagination land can justify many many things... and movie plots threats do not make for good public policy (as evidenced by the TSA)
I think you are missing part of the competition argument.
Once you sterilize a medium, there is no competition. That means anything that you toss in there (assuming the medium contains everything that it needs) can grow like gangbusters. Now... if you sterilize the wort and pitch yeast... you are putting WAY more yeast in, than anything else. The yeast takes over, and uses up all the sugar before anything else ever has a chance.
Sure bacteria can live with yeast, but, its like... bringing 1000 immigrants into a town of 2000 people vs a city of 1 million. In the first case, you are changing the town overnight. In the second case, it would be a shock if anyone noticed. So, the beer is pitched with a high concentration of yeast, in hope that any immigrant bacteria wont be able to take enough of a hold to change the culture (pun intended).
As the yeast starts growing and taking over within hours, it changes the environment quickly, making it hard for other organisms, especially ones not pitched at a rate of a million or so cells per gallon (I forget the actual rates, but I thought it was somewhere around there) just don't have a chance before the sugar is gone and oxygen replaced with CO2, Alcohol added etc.
Now all that said, don't hops have some antibiotic properties? Isn't it entirely possible that the antibiotics were an advantage because... the increased the success rate of beer making? With natural water being too dangerous to drink.... it seems like beer would be a precious resource, and anything that prevented grain from being wasted, was probably quite valued.
You have evidence of that? I am not actually aware of any incidents where this was shown to be the case... and many incidents where information was given up without torture.
Generally speaking, torture is used to produce confessions and convictions no matter what, not to produce truth. Thats how its been used for a long time now, its what the techniques were developed to produce.
SO far the only "evidence" to the contrary has been by the Dick Cheney's vague "trust us this works" statement that he conveniently couldn't elaborate on.
I actually wonder if nudity being such a big deal isn't the primary cause of it being such a re-watched event.
This sort of stuff always reminds me the few weeks I spent lounging around French Beaches. Everyone would ask "did you go to the nude beaches". What "nude" beaches? You go to the city beach and women walk around topless, and men wear nearly transparent speedos.
After a few days though, I realized something. I looked over down the beach and I saw a family, 3 generations of women, toddler, mother, and grandmother, all topless on the beach.... and I realzied, they grew up with this, they have done this all their lives... it was ME who was the strange one for even taking notice!
Then of course I came home, and everyone asked about the "nude beaches" and all I could think was, they just need to go there for themselves and see.
I'm not so sure he's bang on with his advertising technique. Who can honestly remember the authors of all the cracks they use? I can think of a handful of old Star Wars games I downloaded cracks for, and I definately remember someone posting their name in the readme file on who to give props for the cracks for, but... nope, drawing a blank now.
I exclusively run linux you insensitive clod! I havn't downloaded a crack for a program in about 6 years... and the last time I did it was a trojaned copy that my virus scanner didn't catch (and that was the end of my last windows machine).
So no hope that the person who did this gave the info to Wikileaks? That would definitely be the best of all possible worlds here.
That would be the only silver lining that I could hope for here. You can't really blame other countries for spying, I am sure just as many (if not many more) USB drives were filled up with secrets by people on american payrolls, so its hard to feel bad for the US Military on this one. When you choose to play the game, sometimes you get played. I only really care about innocent bystanders.
So, really unless this was going to wikileaks, I don't care. If it was, then I applaud it.
There is one ray of hope though:
"A dozen determined computer programmers can, if they find a vulnerability to exploit, threaten the United States's global logistics network, steal its operational plans, blind its intelligence capabilities or hinder its ability to deliver weapons on target," he wrote.
Thats practically music to my ears. Talk about validating my statements that the military is utterly useless and kept around only because people are convinced that they actually do something for us.
It was said by one of my religion teachers in HS. I can't remember which one. However, the idea of either of them stoned is hilarious for entirely different reasons.
One because he was the kind of tight wound ass who would give you an essay asking you about a moral issue, and then mark you wrong if your essay disagreed with his philosophy. He would write little comments (in red ink of course) like "What about natural law?" and pissed a few students off leading prayer in class that Roe V Wade would be over turned (I was fuming, but a good friend of mine actually stood up and turned his desk around in protest). He even told a jewish friend of mine (in class) that he felt sorry for him because he didn't know the love of Jesus!
The other because... she was so easy going, I have to wonder if she wasn't stoned half the time. I got so much practice comming up with wild positions and defending them in essays just to see how far I could push it, and she would just write things like "Good point".
I much prefer putting a label on afterwards. Else, what do you do when you run out of one color tube and need a tube right now? You may have 100 tubes of the wrong color, do you not use a workable tube due to it being pre-colored? Can a color blind person be a nurse now? (does it matter what type?)
Then it still works when we are trying an experimental procedure and need a tube for something that they never came up with a color for. Also, I doubt color would be enough, what if I need seperate IVs for different reasons? Sometimes it comes down to not even an incompatibility within the patient but, two drugs can't be mixed in the tube because they react. (no examples off the top of my head, but I have heard of it happening)
Overall though, this isn't a bad solution, I could see it working.
Of course... you know where this will die... "Hello Staples" "Yes I have a question about this model of label maker that you sell" "Yup I know it, go ahead" "Is it FDA approved?" "Excuse me?" "Is it FDA approved?" "I don't see any information on that here, you may need to ask the company". "Ok, well which of your label makers do you know is FDA approved" "Approved for what?"....
I actually agree completely then. I came to the same sorts of conclusions about government after reading articles on object inheritance. Or rather, implementation inheritance vs interface inheritance. It seems easy on the surface to implement a solution and then tell everyone to use it... but such approaches tend to suffer from being inflexible when dealing with real world uses.
Far better to tell everyone how to interface, and what information is required in both directions to ensure that things are working, and then let the people who have to interface with you implement their own solution.
So essentially, let the hospitals solve the problem, but have the FDA mandate that they solve it:) Sounds good to me.
Well now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not saying the FDA shouldn't come up with a solution... just that, until they do, this isn't rocket science, the FDA doesn't NEED to solve it.... they can, and probably should... but in the mean time... is it that we care about peoples health? or do we care about compliance with regulations?
Because if we care about peoples health, we should solve the problem. If we care only about regulations and whether or not we can be sued... well... then wait for the FDA.
Admittedly, I know that the latter is more the speed at many institutions. We came down to the wire when it came to getting mobile devices encrypted, and likely wouldn't have done it at all if it wasn't for regulations like HIPA.
I guess it all depends on where you want to solve the problem. An FDA mandate would take research and years and political fighting. Simple labeling can be implemented at the hospital level, with no FDA requirements. No years of waiting, it could be solved, today.
Then if the FDA solves it, all the better. In the mean time, maybe it saves a few lives.
Actually, harder than you might think. One of my coworker tells the story of when our company sat down the heads of several major hospitals to discuss.... bed pans.
The reason: each hospital in the network buys its own bed pans, from different vendors. It was realized that they would actually save a million or two a year by just, agreeing to buy one standard bed pan from one company together.
These big shots sat around for a couple of hours, and left the room with no decision. In fact, still to this day, they purchase bed pans separately.
Instead of saving millions, they wasted several thousand dollars "worth" of these highly paid executives time, and called it a day.
Seriously... this problem doesn't need the FDA, it needs the guy who runs our data center who makes them label every single cable.
Or the manager from neteng who goes in to inspect a switch, and if the cables are messy, he grabs diagonal cutters, cuts all the ends off in place, and makes them recable the whole thing.... actually... that might not translate as well....
With the exception of Faux News, most TV news shows seem to transcend any notion of "liberal vs conservative". They are "pro-market share", if anything. If they could get away with having some guy perform an abortion, live on camera, and then eat the emryo.... they would do it if they thought you would watch it, and could get enough advertisers to sponsor it.
Street walking, meth addicted, whores have more boundary limits than the people who bring you the news.
This is why everything is about sound bites, catchy phrases, and vitriolic rants. This is why they will never support or oppose anything that will piss too many people off, even if its right.
Frankly, I think Al Franken said it best, the media has no liberal bias. There are a few issues yes. Most journalists have been to college, have lived in or around cities, and thus, have met gay people and know that there is no "gay agenda" that they need to worry about. Aside from that, and a small sampling of other issues, they are not terribly "liberal".
In the end, most people will either love a firebrand or love to hate him. Either way, eyeballs mean dollars... so the people get what they want. Its sort of asking a kid what he wants for diner, and being surprized when he wants soda and candy every night.
Actually, the smokable variety came first. Its been refined through breeding over the years... but...
it was in fact a French company that engineered (I don't know if it was through genetic engineering or breeding, or a bit of both) the "low THC" variety, and then pushed for international laws defining "hemp".
The real problem is NOT that most varieties can be smoked, its that some people can't mind their own business as to what other people do, and insist on asking the government to put a stop to the behavior that they don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why didn't his local cops tell the FBI to go pound sand?
Actually, having chatted with some people who lived in the UK, I am not surprised. Frankly, they seem to civil to tell anyone to pound sand. A friend was relating a story about a loud party that the police came to deal with. In this country, these things tend to end with the police acting like a bunch of violent douchebags itching for a fight, with lots of threats and chest pounding.
There it was more like: "Say old chap, I am from the noise commission, you really can't be making so much noise after 11 pm".
"what are you going to do about it"
"Well we would like it if you would turn it down"
"No"
"Fine then, well I am writing that down, next time you want to have a party like this you wont be able to"
"Why Not"
"well because its against the law to make so much noise after 11".
No police comming in the door, no people being arrested, nobody using violence to stop... noise.
It made the place sound so civil that I almost want to move there.
Also... what is a p***k anyway? They really should translate their damned slurs into English.
-Steve
So what?
Unless they stole copies of the Quran to burn, they are, their books. Say what you want about hate speech or whatnot, its their paper, if they want to burn it, its their business. If some little pissant group wants to buy some book to burn.... why should anyone else care?
Frankly, if anything, they should burn bibles and distribute the Quran. Few things are as capable of turning a person off to a religion as reading its holy scriptures! You want hate speech and intolerance? Shit, just open one of these books up! There is plenty to go around in most of them.
As an atheist, I would like to join a group to fund the printing and dissemination of the bible, quran, and book of morman, because getting people to read them would go a long way towards abolishing religion.
-Steve
Right, I fully admit that, and meant to imply so. I do question the utility of enforcing many of the laws that are enforced, but thats another topic.
However, thats not really the question. The question is, are they so useful, and gain so much for society as a whole, that they warrant mandating that all of our infrastructure be back-doored to enable that purpose? A back door potentially exposes everyone to abuse, including offical abuse or simply the change of policy/law to make whats abuse today not legally abuse tomorrow.
Now, maybe thats still worth it... but... with programs like "red phone" for android, anyone who can afford a smart phone can effectively thwart wiretaps. Anyone who works with people for whom privacy is worth 5k per phone, could have had this level of security a few years ago.
Of course, there are even anonymous cell phones that can be purchased for cash, and disposed of and changed at will. Again, anyone who can afford a little inconvenience and thinks ahead can render it useless.
So, is it still worth trying to backdoor everyones infrastructure when its becoming nearly trivial and consumer grade to get around it?
-Steve
Not being a blackberry user, I never cared enough to look into the technical details. Very good point.... excellent even!
Personally, I am counting down the days (17) until I can get a discount upgrading to a droid from my LG Decoy, best phone I ever owned until the snazzy built in bluetooth piggy back stopped working. Seriously, as much as a I want a droid, I would buy almost any phone if it had a bluetooth headset that clipped on the back and didn't look like the little plastic piece that holds it in was so small it would break from normal use (like mine did; shortly before it started refusing to talk to the headset, even when charged via the cradle)
-Steve
Yup, and how unsafe that really is.
Any time you build a back door, you weaken security. End of story.
The "legal intercept" (aka Wire Tap) functionality on phone switches was used, rather recently, in Athens, by an unknown party, to tap the lines of a number of non profit group leaders, and government officials. It was only discovered after it had been in operation for a while, and was discovered entirely by accident.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-athens-affair/0
That said, I really don't see where governments have such legitimate cases for wiretapping. I mean, sure, I can see their case for wanting to tap, or having cause to tap, certain individuals. However, I don't see how that need translates into a need to force the entire infrastructure to be designed such that they can do it.
Whats the REAL damage of them not being able to do this when they have a case for it? Some criminals get away? Some are harder to catch and require more work? So what? I don't see how that need should usurp the entire populations security for the occasional need to tap someones phone.
I know we can dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios where they might need it.... but imagination land can justify many many things... and movie plots threats do not make for good public policy (as evidenced by the TSA)
-Steve
I think you are missing part of the competition argument.
Once you sterilize a medium, there is no competition. That means anything that you toss in there (assuming the medium contains everything that it needs) can grow like gangbusters. Now... if you sterilize the wort and pitch yeast... you are putting WAY more yeast in, than anything else. The yeast takes over, and uses up all the sugar before anything else ever has a chance.
Sure bacteria can live with yeast, but, its like... bringing 1000 immigrants into a town of 2000 people vs a city of 1 million. In the first case, you are changing the town overnight. In the second case, it would be a shock if anyone noticed. So, the beer is pitched with a high concentration of yeast, in hope that any immigrant bacteria wont be able to take enough of a hold to change the culture (pun intended).
As the yeast starts growing and taking over within hours, it changes the environment quickly, making it hard for other organisms, especially ones not pitched at a rate of a million or so cells per gallon (I forget the actual rates, but I thought it was somewhere around there) just don't have a chance before the sugar is gone and oxygen replaced with CO2, Alcohol added etc.
Now all that said, don't hops have some antibiotic properties? Isn't it entirely possible that the antibiotics were an advantage because... the increased the success rate of beer making? With natural water being too dangerous to drink.... it seems like beer would be a precious resource, and anything that prevented grain from being wasted, was probably quite valued.
-Steve
You have evidence of that? I am not actually aware of any incidents where this was shown to be the case... and many incidents where information was given up without torture.
Generally speaking, torture is used to produce confessions and convictions no matter what, not to produce truth. Thats how its been used for a long time now, its what the techniques were developed to produce.
SO far the only "evidence" to the contrary has been by the Dick Cheney's vague "trust us this works" statement that he conveniently couldn't elaborate on.
-Steve
You must run into some extremely confused and unhappy trojans and viruses.
I actually wonder if nudity being such a big deal isn't the primary cause of it being such a re-watched event.
This sort of stuff always reminds me the few weeks I spent lounging around French Beaches. Everyone would ask "did you go to the nude beaches". What "nude" beaches? You go to the city beach and women walk around topless, and men wear nearly transparent speedos.
After a few days though, I realized something. I looked over down the beach and I saw a family, 3 generations of women, toddler, mother, and grandmother, all topless on the beach.... and I realzied, they grew up with this, they have done this all their lives... it was ME who was the strange one for even taking notice!
Then of course I came home, and everyone asked about the "nude beaches" and all I could think was, they just need to go there for themselves and see.
-Steve
I exclusively run linux you insensitive clod! I havn't downloaded a crack for a program in about 6 years... and the last time I did it was a trojaned copy that my virus scanner didn't catch (and that was the end of my last windows machine).
-Steve
So no hope that the person who did this gave the info to Wikileaks? That would definitely be the best of all possible worlds here.
That would be the only silver lining that I could hope for here. You can't really blame other countries for spying, I am sure just as many (if not many more) USB drives were filled up with secrets by people on american payrolls, so its hard to feel bad for the US Military on this one. When you choose to play the game, sometimes you get played. I only really care about innocent bystanders.
So, really unless this was going to wikileaks, I don't care. If it was, then I applaud it.
There is one ray of hope though:
Thats practically music to my ears. Talk about validating my statements that the military is utterly useless and kept around only because people are convinced that they actually do something for us.
-Steve
You know whats funny about that....
It was said by one of my religion teachers in HS. I can't remember which one. However, the idea of either of them stoned is hilarious for entirely different reasons.
One because he was the kind of tight wound ass who would give you an essay asking you about a moral issue, and then mark you wrong if your essay disagreed with his philosophy. He would write little comments (in red ink of course) like "What about natural law?" and pissed a few students off leading prayer in class that Roe V Wade would be over turned (I was fuming, but a good friend of mine actually stood up and turned his desk around in protest). He even told a jewish friend of mine (in class) that he felt sorry for him because he didn't know the love of Jesus!
The other because... she was so easy going, I have to wonder if she wasn't stoned half the time. I got so much practice comming up with wild positions and defending them in essays just to see how far I could push it, and she would just write things like "Good point".
-Steve
I much prefer putting a label on afterwards. Else, what do you do when you run out of one color tube and need a tube right now? You may have 100 tubes of the wrong color, do you not use a workable tube due to it being pre-colored? Can a color blind person be a nurse now? (does it matter what type?)
Then it still works when we are trying an experimental procedure and need a tube for something that they never came up with a color for. Also, I doubt color would be enough, what if I need seperate IVs for different reasons? Sometimes it comes down to not even an incompatibility within the patient but, two drugs can't be mixed in the tube because they react. (no examples off the top of my head, but I have heard of it happening)
Overall though, this isn't a bad solution, I could see it working.
-Steve
Of course... you know where this will die... ....
"Hello Staples"
"Yes I have a question about this model of label maker that you sell"
"Yup I know it, go ahead"
"Is it FDA approved?"
"Excuse me?"
"Is it FDA approved?"
"I don't see any information on that here, you may need to ask the company".
"Ok, well which of your label makers do you know is FDA approved"
"Approved for what?"
-Steve
En Française, s'il vous plait!
Ahh ok, I read you very wrong then. Mea Culpa.
I actually agree completely then. I came to the same sorts of conclusions about government after reading articles on object inheritance. Or rather, implementation inheritance vs interface inheritance. It seems easy on the surface to implement a solution and then tell everyone to use it... but such approaches tend to suffer from being inflexible when dealing with real world uses.
Far better to tell everyone how to interface, and what information is required in both directions to ensure that things are working, and then let the people who have to interface with you implement their own solution.
So essentially, let the hospitals solve the problem, but have the FDA mandate that they solve it :) Sounds good to me.
-Steve
Well now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not saying the FDA shouldn't come up with a solution... just that, until they do, this isn't rocket science, the FDA doesn't NEED to solve it.... they can, and probably should... but in the mean time... is it that we care about peoples health? or do we care about compliance with regulations?
Because if we care about peoples health, we should solve the problem. If we care only about regulations and whether or not we can be sued... well... then wait for the FDA.
Admittedly, I know that the latter is more the speed at many institutions. We came down to the wire when it came to getting mobile devices encrypted, and likely wouldn't have done it at all if it wasn't for regulations like HIPA.
-Steve
Oui, je sais.
I guess it all depends on where you want to solve the problem. An FDA mandate would take research and years and political fighting. Simple labeling can be implemented at the hospital level, with no FDA requirements. No years of waiting, it could be solved, today.
Then if the FDA solves it, all the better. In the mean time, maybe it saves a few lives.
-Steve
Actually, harder than you might think. One of my coworker tells the story of when our company sat down the heads of several major hospitals to discuss.... bed pans.
The reason: each hospital in the network buys its own bed pans, from different vendors. It was realized that they would actually save a million or two a year by just, agreeing to buy one standard bed pan from one company together.
These big shots sat around for a couple of hours, and left the room with no decision. In fact, still to this day, they purchase bed pans separately.
Instead of saving millions, they wasted several thousand dollars "worth" of these highly paid executives time, and called it a day.
-Steve
Or... the obvious one.... label the tubes!
Seriously... this problem doesn't need the FDA, it needs the guy who runs our data center who makes them label every single cable.
Or the manager from neteng who goes in to inspect a switch, and if the cables are messy, he grabs diagonal cutters, cuts all the ends off in place, and makes them recable the whole thing.... actually... that might not translate as well....
-Steve
With the exception of Faux News, most TV news shows seem to transcend any notion of "liberal vs conservative". They are "pro-market share", if anything. If they could get away with having some guy perform an abortion, live on camera, and then eat the emryo.... they would do it if they thought you would watch it, and could get enough advertisers to sponsor it.
Street walking, meth addicted, whores have more boundary limits than the people who bring you the news.
This is why everything is about sound bites, catchy phrases, and vitriolic rants. This is why they will never support or oppose anything that will piss too many people off, even if its right.
Frankly, I think Al Franken said it best, the media has no liberal bias. There are a few issues yes. Most journalists have been to college, have lived in or around cities, and thus, have met gay people and know that there is no "gay agenda" that they need to worry about. Aside from that, and a small sampling of other issues, they are not terribly "liberal".
In the end, most people will either love a firebrand or love to hate him. Either way, eyeballs mean dollars... so the people get what they want. Its sort of asking a kid what he wants for diner, and being surprized when he wants soda and candy every night.
-Steve
And here I thought Google was already an acronym for "Government Owned and Operated Gathering for Law Enforcement"
Actually, the smokable variety came first. Its been refined through breeding over the years... but...
it was in fact a French company that engineered (I don't know if it was through genetic engineering or breeding, or a bit of both) the "low THC" variety, and then pushed for international laws defining "hemp".
The real problem is NOT that most varieties can be smoked, its that some people can't mind their own business as to what other people do, and insist on asking the government to put a stop to the behavior that they don't like.
-Steve
I heard it said once that when you point a finger at someone else, you point 3 back at yourself.
-Steve