Steve Gagne

If individuals can act through corporations in ways that protect the individual from liability concerning the actions of that corporation, then it is inconsistent to assert that corporate assets should be treated with respect to individual property rights. You cannot have personal property without personal liability. You cannot at once claim that corporate money is personal property but that corporate debt is not personal liability. If a man has the freedom to dispose of corporate money at his whim, he must also with his entire personal financials be liable for any debt incurred by that corporation. Incorporation is a modern wonder and leads to much business creation, but strictly speaking - I believe it is unethical. Christopher Christopher Merlin and I have crossed swords before on this topic -- I found his argument that I am some kind of an idiot really convincing -- so I have to say that simply, I tend to agree with you. Reason why? A [limited liability] corporation is created by an act of a governmental authority, so corporate contributions to political campaigns means government-authorized interference in the electoral process. Within that context, restrictions on corporate contributions make sense. If we don't need the restrictions, why don't we just have government thugs tell us who to vote for, and beat us to death if we don't? Oh, that's right. We don't need to. We got Diebold rigging the freakin' elections by reprogramming the voting machines. The vote turns out the way they're bought anyway.

Actually, Peter, there is a historical record that describes an anarcho-capitalist society that survived for over 200 years, from c.1200 B.C.E. to c.1000 B.C.E. We know this society by the name of Ancient Israel, and the record of the rise and fall of this society is recorded in the Holy Bible, specifically in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and First & Second Samuel. Don't give me any anti-theistic crap about contradictions or magical stories; the archaeological evidence for these historical records may be thin, but in no wise contradicts them. You know full well that what falsehoods you may think you have found are totally irrelevant to the truth, if that is what you are actually seeking, so if you were to actually read it with an eye to the truth rather than trying to discredit your source, you might actually learn something from it.

I can't think of anything Sellers did that wasn't great. My sister and I still get the giggles about the scene at a hotel. A small dog comes up next to Sellers (Clouseau? I don't remember). Another man walks up to the counter, and seeing the small dog says, "Does your dog bite?" Sellers responds "Non!" So the other man bends down to pet the dog. The dog goes berserk, practically tearing the man's arm off. The man screams, "I thought you said your dog doesn't bite!!!" A bemused Sellers calmly responds, "That is not my dog."

Because Christian teachings very specifically reject materialism. A very famous example from the Gospels: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24 [Note: Also Luke 16:13] Now, there are writers who called themselves Christian who wrote favorably of capitalism, Max Weber being a famous example. Weber's views came out the Protestant Reformation, which did a great deal to create an individualistic, materialist version of Christianity that did tremendous good for the Western world. In its origins, however, Christianity is a collectivist, anti-capitalist philosophy. Christianity does not, as a matter of principle, "reject materialism" per se, but "transience" (as opposed to "the eternal"). [Note: or the "instance" as opposed to the "universal".] As far as your Bible quote goes: man, that NIV is such a crummy translation. (Not many out there much better, though.) A more complete quote of that scene might read You see, there is not only a claim made on the disciples' devotions, but also a direct appeal to their own inherent greed, much in the sense of a quid pro quo, i.e., a trade. But there are conditions. One of which is they recognize that they must approach it in an attitude of prayer, i.e., on their knees, much as does a camel which must pass through "The Eye of the Needle", the then-current colloquial name of a particularly low-clearance gate in the north wall of Jerusalem. But note that the passage begins by stating the man fell to his knees -- he already inherently "knew" and "did" what was "required", but never even realized it. Sad and painful. Further, I suppose you've never heard of the hermeneutics of divine irony. Look at Luke 16: "Make friends by means of unrighteous Mammon, so that, when it fails, you may be welcomed into their eternal habitations...They have Moses and the prophets -- let them listen to them. If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not believe, even if one should rise from the dead." Then consider that the poor rich dude who was told to give everything away was looking for the wrong thing. He was looking for a materialistic action of transient ritual obligation like unto the hypocritical Pharasites, instead of the permanent spiritual value of eliminating hypocrisy, so Jesus gave him the (ahem) "appropriate" answer. As is recorded elsewhere Although presented as revelation, much of the wisdom in these passages can be derived by one's own independent thinking, and its artistic forms can be used to summarize -- IOW revelation does not need rational explanation per se, although one's understanding of it does. But to dispute over the words rather than the thoughts is pretty foolish. So to answer Bob's concern, no, Christianity is not directly incompatible with Capitalism (though many people's applications of each can be).

Amazon.Com is an American firm. Where else in the world would such an item be marketed online? Ba'al Chatzaf ??? The "novelty" of this ad totally escapes me. (Still have several packages of 'em, along w/the hardware, leftover from my days as a 3rd day pastor.) Funny comments, though.

Okay, I see why this is confusing to me. I don't use the term "set" as a strictly mathematical concept (and, and despite his background, I'm not sure Bob Kolker does either), but as a term to mean "any mental grouping of instances of pre-existing percepts or concepts". It is thus the basic unit of rational thought, and I suppose it is near-identical to your usage of the term "class". But I can see why, if you regard it as solely a term limited to a specific field, you would regard its usage as irrelevant here. As I stated earlier, to me the only distinction is connotative, and actually speaks to your concern about the categotization process. "Sets", the term with the merely descriptive connotation, can carry some sense of a seeming "randomness" concerning the collecting of percepts and concepts together, i.e., the integration process has not yet gotten to the stage of objective testing of integratives. Thus neither null sets nor single-instance sets can be excluded at this point. "Classes", on the other hand, seem to carry the normative connotation that some sort of objective testing and validation must have occurred before the conceptual unit is considered. So, does that require multiple instances? I don't know. We ARE talking about slightly different stages in the process, but still, the same multi-iterative process: perceive, isolate, identify, integrate, test, validate, iterate, act, a.k.a. concept formation, a.k.a. learning, a.k.a. induction. So at what point do you see a "class" being formed, and why?

Chris, GS -- When Bob used the term "sets", I saw his point pretty clearly. (And I'm happy to be living on the Class-M planet Dirt.) In earlier discussions I've pointed to "sets" of perceptions and experiences, probability, repeatability, and testability, as being the basis of learning and concept formation. A "set" is any envelope which one uses to integrate his percepts, as is "class". Beyond a slight difference in connotation ("set" would be descriptive; "class" would be normative), I do not understand the point of the discussion. Validity is not even part of either definition. I see this discussion of "set" vs. "class" as being a distinction without a difference. So is this just a dispute about words? If not, please clarify. Grax. steve

Yes, but you still have to do your research, and check fundamentals. Last year, I got this "hot tip" concerning a uranium company. When I researched the fundamentals, I found that they were a money-burning machine, had no finds, were refusing to develop their properties in colorado and wyoming (selling them off instead), were insisting on continuing mining operations in texas where they hadn't found a single gram of uranium since they started seven years ago, and were partnering with an australian company (to give u.s. citizen presence) for a really low-yield unprofitable mine in new mexico. A total money-loser from day one. There's plenty of those in water, lithium, vanadium, oil, and gold companies too. So you've got to be careful, know what to look for, and know how to find it. P.S.Edit: Of course, that "hot tip" may yet turn out to be right, if the government decides to put in some sort of "anti-dog-eat-dog rule" in the energy sector. [sarcasm]I'm sure we would all want to profit from that.[/sarcasm]

Brant XOM may be a good bet (not yet sure myself on that), but some other things ought to be taken into consideration: It takes 4-5 barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil. (Thus Saudi Arabia halted grain agriculture 2 years ago to bolster their declining oil production.) Ninety-seven percent of fresh water is locked up in polar ice caps; the remaining 3% is being overtaxed and underprotected. There are near-drought conditions in both developed and developing oil production regions. So fresh water demand is going to skyrocket in the next ten years. It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to perform sea water desalinization -- we'll need 500 power plants immediately, and 1200 in the next ten years to power the needed desalinization -- so energy needs are going to skyrocket as well. (Water needs cheap energy; energy needs cheap water.) This means that companies involved in water purification and distribution are a pretty sure bet, as well as companies providing non-petroleum-based energy sources. The latter includes the usual round up of suspects (coal, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal), but it should be noted that the technological focus for the near term is an outgrowth of the hybrid/electric automobile, i.e., battery power. Right now, lithium-ion technology is the economic technology, which has made portable electronics a viable industry. But with the aging of the national auto fleet and its replacement by hybrid/electric vehicles, each vehicle requiring more than 1000 times as much lithium as a portable electronic device, the worlds supplies of lithium (currently controlled by the Chinese) could easily be consumed, or curtailed by protectionism. A newer battery technology, lithium-vanadium stands to become the next viable portable energy alternative, but again, much of the world's vanadium supplies are controlled by the Chinese. So, moves in companies involved in vanadium and other "technology metals" should also be good investments. I'm still researching these things, so I don't have many company names to recommend yet, but I am looking for the fundamentals in a few companies: one is a water pump part manufacturer, two are oil producers in North Dakota ("The Bakken"), three are mining concerns concentrating in Indonesia, Malawi, and Greenland, and one is a battery manufacturer. I'm also trying to find out what happened to the Green River Valley. Under contract from the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior), EGL Resources had developed an in-situ drilling technology, with no strip mining, completely pollution-free, that far outstripped the capabilities of the techniques previously developed by Royal Dutch Shell. EGL was ready for their independent in-situ shale oil drilling operation over 4 years ago, and Congress was supposed to help get the demo project up to the point of a limited commercial operation by this past year. But EGL sold out to IDT in February of 2008 and I haven't heard of anything else from them since. President Obama even mentioned it once in one of his speeches back in March 2009, but that was quickly stifled.

Chris -- Happy New Year to you, and to all on OL. steve

Exactly how many people here are complaining about Xray's responses? And exactly how many people here are continuing to sanction the inanities? Just remember, she could be arguing in her spare time.

Actually, this is in the "finest tradition" of 19th century journalism. Journalists frequently "cleaned up" the language and delivery of inept populist politicians, making them appear to sound like statesman, at the expense of literal accuracy. Even now, there are at least four "original" copies of the Gettysburg Address, none of which agree with one another, let alone with what was published in the newspapers.

Jay -- Though much of my personal path has led in the opposite direction of yours, I always welcome one who can think independently and clearly. And please, do not denigrate your CompSci background as "limited" to technology. I believe you will find that your own understanding of information theory will stand you in good stead as you learn and share about some big topics around here, such as truth-value and certainty, learning, induction, concept formation, conceptual hierarchies, and the like. And, since you've also been reading NB's books, you may even discover that you already understand more about philosophy and psychology than you ever suspected. So welcome, I look forward to engaging. Vty Steve

Photos of Iranian Protests

Somehow I want to add "anymore" as the last word.

I was in Macy's today... I saw a bunch of women walking around in burkas...doing Christmas shopping.....

And as a side issue, does subjectivity even exist?

OOPS. It seems the text IS at the linked page, but it lacks the introduction that is in the book download. Sorry, Michael. steve

Michael -- Interesting. Your link doesn't point directly to it, what it shows is a page dedicated to defending the 9 people who wrote it from French government prosecution (for supposed "terrorism"). Here is the link for the PDF file for printing the book itself. Strange little concoction, the first 7 pages consist of "we're mad as hell and we won't take it anymore" (with appropriate connotations from "Network"), then it switches gears to being the supposed "new communist manifesto", with this comment: Now, I was listening up to that point, but with that, I really have to stop. Someone else is going to have to do the heavy lifting on this one. steve

forwarded to me from my best friend:

What does any of this bickering have to do with Bill's original question about 'the current status of the work in progress by Thomas and Kelley, "The Logical Structure of Objectivism?"'

No. Apparently you missed the part where I said that one can only get so far "by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand." Rearden and Wyatt were not resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that they didn't understand. No, I got the part about the resentful attitude &c. It's just that I haven't engaged with Robert in any venue where he has acted that way toward me. That's why I asked if you two had a history. Where did he actually act that way? Where & how was he resentful, dismissive, rejecting misunderstood complex concepts, resisting education, and so on? I'm not opposed to experimentation. OK. It's just that an objective sentence diagram of your statement in English would show that you had said: [GODMODE ON] Is that how you intended to play? Is that what you intended to say? If so, how is that a statement that is "not opposed to experimentation"? And if not, what was your intention? (Embedded Game Cheat -- GODMODE allows you infinite do-overs) Are you saying that you think that Robert is a trailblazer in the visual arts -- that he's discovering things that no one has known or done before? Naaah. What he is doing is creating art by his own vision, which no one else could or can do for him, and having the balls to actually put it out there and let the market decide what to do about it. A little different than my becoming an Ellsworth Toohey-style armchair critic and stating what I think of the quality of his art. Of course if I did that latter thing, I wouldn't be speculating on his attitudes or education, just on the quality of his work, stating whether I intended to buy any of it. (You gotta admit, his take on jackson pollock is hilarious.) So, how would you respond if someone who was not sensitive to the effects of music said that you and everyone else who claims that music evokes strong emotions and has meaningful content are lying and engaged in a sham? What would you say to someone who claimed that the idea of pretending that music has deep meaning is a lie or an arbitrary assertion fabricated by someone in order subjugate the minds of others? In this discussion, it appears to me that you have missed several references to key expressions, at least once with Robert, and twice with me. And because of the ensuing misunderstanding, I now find you are misapplying my words to a wrong situation. (IOW, the answer to your question is "Not Applicable.") Perhaps -- shall I taunt you again -- for not checking the links first, or shall I unrepentantly rail at you for your craumzoyl attitude? I didn't say that Robert was an ignorant fool. I said that he's not very knowledgeable of visual art and music. OK, I still don't know what your objective basis is for that statement. "Not knowledgeable" and "ignorant" are pretty close synonyms. And if someone insists upon forcefully expressing an opinion without an objective basis, I'm willing to venture a guess here that you would consider that person a "fool". So "ignorant fool" is really just the simplest form of expressing what is, after all, your own opinion. It still sounds to me like a taunt I might hear on Friday Night Smackdown. "Them's fightin' words, boy." I've said nothing about producing "proper art." I've simply said that Robert's art and his comments reveal that there is much that he doesn't know about art. Earlier, you had said I can certainly understand why you would object to someone throwing that kind of garbage in your face, and further, can envision it occurring with a supercilious sneer, and his expecting you to "deal with it". But I did not see this comment posted here and do not understand where you are getting it from. Is this a direct quote from him that I missed from somewhere, or are you just imputing this attitude to him, as I did to you with the "ignorant fool" statement? But beyond that, you damn his work with faint praise ("It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) "), then claim that you are not doing so, saying But you now insist that this is not a condemnation of his work, but state that he, Robert, the "ignorant fool" is not capable of producing art according to your ideas because he doesn't know what these rules for proper art are, nor does he have any basis or capability for learning these rules. No, the point is that Robert's criteria for judging what qualifies or fails to qualify as art are not objective, consistent or informed. So your point is not that you demand he go back to school, which is what you had actually talked about, but that he start using objective criteria for his judgments. Good. You're finally getting around to the point. En buenahora. Please elaborate. My point has nothing to do with telling Robert how to go about producing art. I'm not being critical of his art, but of his ideas, of his methods of classification, and of his qualifications to comment on the subjects that he's commenting on. My primary criticism is that his standard of judging what qualifies as art is highly subjective. His personal emotions are his standard, and yet he rejects the idea of others' emotions serving as their standard. Why is so upsetting to you that I expect people in Objectivist forums who discuss art to have objective, consistent, and informed standards for determining what is or isn't art? J Jonathan, it may not have been your intent to try to tell Robert what to do, but I would be hard put to prove that assertion by the content of your earlier posts. I would like to know what "ideas" and "methods of classification" he has used that you have judged invalid, where and how he expressed such, and what "qualifications" you demand of a creative artist. Then I would be interested in knowing what superior "ideas" and "methods of classification" you use, as well as your qualifications as a non-artist to judge the work of a creative artist. It doesn't upset me in the least for a general expectation of objectivity to obtain here; what I find peculiar is the demand coming from someone who is not yet demonstrating it himself.

My point is that he should consider studying art. See, my view is that art is a lot like any other field. One doesn't become very knowledgeable of it simply by drawing, just as one doesn't become very knowledgeable of, say, physics by mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own. There's only so far one can get by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand. "I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning. If I were to read your comments in the context of say, Atlas Shrugged, what I would be hearing you say is that Hank Rearden needed to go study chemistry and that Ellis Wyatt needed to go study geology. You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own." No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation. (Anyone who tries to pull a bunch of atheist-chic on me right now for that last comment is debating the wrong questions.*) This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind. BTW, do you two have a history? I ask because I can't find any evidence for the type of Luddite attitudes ("while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand" or ones that aren't "a very effective approach to learning") that you impute to Robert (anonrobt, not Bob, Ba'al Chatzaf). It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) [how magnanimous of you], but of recognizing -- by looking at his art and reading his opinions -- that he's lacking a lot of knowledge on the subject, and that he appears to be very resistant to learning. J Again with the ad hominem attack, the paradigm being (1) Robert is an ignorant fool & I am not (2) Ignorant fools are incapable of producing proper art, therefore (3) Robert should do whatever I tell him. And in the form you show, of course the second premise is superfluous; your real message consists of statements 1 & 3. If you are going to appraise and analyze his art, fine. But I don't see where you get off making presumptions about his level of learning, stating them as if they were indisputable facts, and using that as an excuse to tell him how to go about producing his own artworks. Your actions and assertions are not rational.* But what o' that. steve *Comment edited with a machete.

No, I'm talking like someone who has enough knowledge and professional experience in a wide variety of the arts to know that you don't know very much about what you're talking about. It's fascinating, though. May I ask why you're so passionate about publicly opining about the subjects of music and visual art, yet at the same time you have no real interest in actually learning anything about them? J Jonathan Check the links in Robert's signature. He's not studying art, but creating it. You may not like his art, but your ad hominem attacks betray not his ignorance but your own. "I may not know art, but I know what I like!" steve

Bob -- As far as art goes, I'm no expert on anyone's music but my own; on the other hand, I had several years of classical western music theory in school (as well as self-training in other areas), so I think I can consider the question. The root starts not in the field of music per se, but in the wider scientific field of acoustics. First of all, we have a limitation on the frequencies we can hear, dictated by size and structure of the cochlea of the inner ear. The cochlea of each ear, small snail-shaped structures typically measured in units that are a function of the fibonacci series, are filled with cilia -- tiny hairs -- that isolate different sound wave frequencies. The cilia then transfer the stimulus to the auditory nerves, to be sent to the brain for processing. The detectable frequency range can differ from person to person, but typically is about 15Hz, about 4 octaves below middle 'C', to about 16kHz, about 6 octaves above middle 'C'. This effectively limits the frequencies that can be used to constitute music to that 10-octave range*; historically, the range is 4 octaves: middle 'C' +/- 2 octaves. Secondly, every tool we use is an extension of a basic human capability. The basic human capability of making sound, our voice, has a typical range of about 2 octaves* when properly trained. Historically, most musical instruments, as extensions of that capacity to make sound, have likewise been limited to an approximate 2-octave range. But they don't all cover the exact same range, much as human voices can belong to, for instance, a contrabass, bass, baritone, tenor, contralto, alto, mezzosoprano, or soprano range. These ranges, or "voicings", both vocal and instrumental, are typically mapped into the historic 4-octave range. Both voices and instruments also bring a quality to their sound known as "timbre", which is the musical term for describing what set of acoustical characteristics are associated with a tone or "note". The first of these characteristics is known as the "envelope", and the second is known as the "waveform". The envelope describes the "attack" -- how quickly & how high the energy level of the note is at the beginning, and the "attenuation" -- how quickly the energy level decreases until the note stops. The waveform of a pure tone under ideal conditions is a represented by a smooth-curved sine wave, but other waveforms are possible, e.g. sharp-angled sawtooth-waves and square-waves. Waveforms can also be altered by being compounded with sound waves of secondary and tertiary notes -- produced naturally by the sound source -- called "overtones". As our sense of touch can perceive sensations that are pleasurable due to their consonance with one another, likewise our sense of hearing can perceive sounds -- notes -- that are pleasurable for the same reason, if not in the same manner. This consonance is determined by the mathematecal relationships of the frequencies being perceived, and the fibonacci dividers measuring the cochlea. These relationships give rise to the assorted tone-sequences, or "scales" in use in music, be they pentatonic, diatonic, modal, or quarter-tone scales. Whereas the mathematical consonance of these tones can be pleasureable, the mathematical dissonance can give the perception of an unpleasurable sound, or "noise". As frequencies may be consonant or dissonant among themselves, likewise with different timbres. Their combinations can be pleasureable, or they can be noise as well. But that concerns only the biological/acoustical themes of a single sound or combination of simultaneous sounds ("chord") rather than answering your biological/musical question. The experience of music does not usually consist of a single acoustic incident, a single note or chord, but of sequences of such within the time domain, interrupted by changes and silences within the voicing(s). These sequences are defined by the patterns of notes ("melodies" and "counterpoints"), patterns of chords ("progressions"), and the timing of accents, changes, noises, and silences ("rhythms"). These patterns are defined and altered by the musician, and can be layered to create levels of complexity limited only by the imagination and creativity of the creator. In its simplest form, music may be made using rhythm. A simple recognizeable pattern of tapping (or banging) on anything has already met the O-ist requirement of being "integrated", whether it is "auto-validating", i.e., recognizeable the first time it is heard, or merely "validated", i.e., recognizeable due to repetition. Note that if there is no recognizeable pattern, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise. In a more-commonly accepted form, music may be made using a melody. A single recognizeable pattern of notes with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise. In its mature form, music may be made using counterpoint and chord progressions. A single recognizeable countermelody and/or chord progression with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note that if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise. But no matter how well or poorly created, every piece of music, or "song" has one of five basic structures: steady, rising, falling, rising then falling, or falling then rising. IOW there are only 5 songs in the whole world. Mozart could write all five; Jimmy Page three or four; Bach three; Bernstein two; most other composers only have one song. But everyone understands all of them. What allows each person to "connect" with a piece of music, is not so much its technical musical-acoustic characteristics, but what life experiences the person has during his exposure to the music. From this point, the neurological connection is best described as conjecture, projected from behavioural studies and their presumptive relationship to underlying neurological processes. The difference between auto-validating vs. validated rhythms/themes/progressions appears to be related to studies in the field of experimental psychology, specifically, the relationship between "prepared" vs. "unprepared" learning. In prepared learning, a subject appears to respond to iconic stimuli, in that an/the appropriate response is isolated with a single iteration of the SIR paradigm (with feedback loop). Whereas normal learning requires multiple iterations, as well as responding to external reinforcement for successive approximations of the desired outcome. This would suggest that the feedback loop substitutes for the external exposure, and is pre-existing within the individual, performing the iconic function as predicted by Jung's theory of archetypes. But as this is not a subject-specific phenomenon, it can be presumed to be a common if not universal condition, and thus probably being of biological origin rather than a socially conditioned response. IOW, the music you hear in your head is real, it's always been there, everybody knows it, and always has. Damn I'm getting tired. Better quit here. steve *I know there are individuals for whom these limitations don't apply. So what. They aren't relevant here.