macvirt

Heh, why do you think so many of them spent so much time stating how much experience they had built up with Spore and Sims Both for gameplay orientation and technicalities and even online play and DRM. Look, the fans of the previous SC games are NOT the market target here. They are potentially handy for marketing purposes. Enablers of word of mouth. But they are not necessary, if it comes to it. Today it is just cheaper, easier and more financially worthwhile to cater to leisure and casual gameplay targets, delivering a shell game where the supplementation by means of DLC is rapidly becoming the actual revenue stream. "Core" users are not interesting. Making a deep / complete / immersive game is not interesting for EA. It is not necessary, and rewards less.

Folks, it is not a beta. It's a demo round. It saves them from making a demo available which could be used as a means toward pirated copies. But back on topic, as much as I engaged it with the clear perception of "this is not the successor to SimCity 4 but a new game designed for the trends of today" I just find it lacking. But that is me, I prefer deep gameplay. Puzzles where I have to keep track of intrinsic balances between variables to watch for. Immersive gameplay, not casual easy gameplay. SimCity 2013 is just not for me. It is quick fun, easy, will amuse plenty people. It's just another move away from the gameplay that would keep me up at night. Not to mention that the amount of DLC and Third Party content to give it what it lacks for me is staggering. Regional architecture styles for example, or special buildings, transit functionality, terraforming, DLC with a region of large maps, and so forth. On top of what is relatively pricy for the gameplay it offers for my style of gameplay. No, sorry.

Not going to happen. EA's directives are clear. Remember the fear of piracy. Do not expect logic or actual research in to DRM.

That is an accurate theory on the Electoral College as it is taught since decades. Unfortunately there is that difference between the theory on an instrument and the use of it in practice, not to mention that when the construct was put together it was not simply with the thought of balance between state and federal, but with a strong component of a mindset touched by the conviction that the "masses" should not be directly capable of altering the balance between mandates given. It was an interesting compromise between ideas pushing movement which were still ahead of their time and the existing concerns of the division of wealth and power in those days. Accurate to a degree, but with an admittedly high component of personal perspective - I'm simply someone who tends to believe in the potential of man in the sense that the glass is half full. I've seen a great many cases and societal changes elsewhere, where that tendency towards excess (of which populism is one example) can be buffered against. Primarily by means of instruments that provide balance between the individual and group perspectives. There is one caveat there of interest however, most countries which are in either temporary imbalance or have issues creating such a balance are countries where cultural perspective is directly linked with a very structurally limited arena of information sources. In simple terms, the less information sources available over time the smaller the potential for a society to create such a balance, and the higher the potential for a society to become ignorant of the benefits of multiple information sources. Not to mention how such societies tend to be remarkably easy to steer for popular opinion and direction of cultural development. Considering that, look at how this has played out over the decades in the US since media became the prime information network and how those became centralised in to less than a handful of pillars (in effective servitude of selective interests). Still, as I mentioned before, I do think that education which is geared not just to skill specific development but even more so to general development of knowledge as well as skills of acquiring knowledge is quite capable of dealing with the cycles of democracy and its excesses on the curve. Nobody can ever give any guarantees for any possible future. We're dealing with the human species here, a species which comes with a built in element of chaos Still, what we can see in our history is that we tend to repeat experiences both on an individual and group level instigated by both circumstances and choices. Even figuring out general trends in that regard can be of major benefit. Consider for example the lessons of overstretching an empire without regard for control over resources and the various economic bottlenecks that come with such a situation. A little bit of historic insight would not have put the US in the current position for rare earth minerals - as but one example. Not to mention military examples such as Afghanistan today. Or how instigating social disorder in zones of economic interest never comes without a distinct set of consequences over time. The details always vary, and there is always a difference of scale (basically because everything human is subject to a lot of things, but we should not forget the variable of globalisation - which has been with us since we left the caves and our populations started to grow in a world with limited space and resources. Actually, it is much older than that, and has even been subject to conflict internal and course change. The US did have a time before the FED, and did have a time where it got rid of it (incidentally, it is worth looking up how that particular recession was created and by whom, and who popped up where to reinstigate the FED again). The system of declaration of debt as the foundation for wealth without complete or even partial foundation in ownership began right there. The mindset which was cultivated to indeed give rise to the kind of advisors (and their interests) who coached Reagan and others to go all out, began right there. It is a classic textbook case of (in the sociological sense) perverse relations of selective interests acquiring power through declaration of debt. You are correct, the excess created by Reagan is terrible. I do wonder though sometimes, whether it is not worse even that so many people actually believe that what he did was great for the country. It's remarkable, as a symbol his presidency cannot be touched by any other light than that of propaganda. It has certainly given new perspective to the syndrome of "I want to believe". Apologies, I should have clarified there. There is a distinction between education that delivers skilled workers for professions and education geared towards that ànd general development of perspective, knowledge and the ability to manage and differentiate between sources of information. Definately, we teach people ever more. But increasingly specific to skillsets required for functions. Less so for anything beyond that. Which is understandable, considering the costs of education - but still. It is remarkable to see how few highly educated and skilled people tend to not question the information they are fed of relevance to the choices they make as individuals and as members of groups (family units, polity units, and so forth). If they did, the US as a country would not have - to give one example - this structurally limited set of information distribution pillars. I mean no disrespect, but foreigners tend to have a much broader perspective on the rest of the world. Ofcourse, people are individuals, that speaks for itself, but how did the US as country and people react to an imposed necessity of war on a basis of incorrect and even false information, not once, but several times? Opinion was shaped, with very little structural counterweight (ofcourse, a bunch of wisdom years after the facts, but that tends to be too late). Or take the topic of economical development, how was it possible that the US was unable to figure out the consequences of the recent bailouts for the middle class and small to medium businesses - again because opinion was shaped without much question. That is how the political system has grown to function over time. That is however not how it started out. We cannot simply look at this trend from inside the political arena, because that too is subject to being part of a larger cultural element. Which is only logical, it is part of the chosen forms of organisation of the culture developed by its people. The same way the short term view became an instrument of economic forces in other arenas, the same way the general trend has influenced politics. As politics became an instrument of unintended (upon creation of chosen form) use, it became a limited instrument under terms of objectives set by selective interests and no longer general interests. The most visible example is the shift of politicans to take pride in what they voted for, to what they voted against. Remarkable evolution that, and one which incidentally runs parallel to the growth of lobbyism and selective representation based on economic weight. True, information overload. But that is where diversity is key. Diversity is not simply a case of how many information points there are, but also a case of how people deal with them and each other in interaction. The less means to information or discussion of it, the smaller the ability to deal with large amounts of information. This is not a case of political science, it's a case of the human sciences. We probably should not have split those up in to the seperated fields they are today. Political science, economics, sociology, psychology, history, etc. - all necessary but extremely limited for practical use when seperated. It's funny though, having spent these past few years on the European mainland there is something that became quite visible. People tend to whine and steam about politics like everywhere else, but both on general topics as well as before and during election times they do listen to political scientists The level of discussions visible, the diversity of them and the abundance of information points for discussion is simply incomparable to the situation in the US. Then again, this is something people tend to have internalised on a cultural level over time. There are exceptions, absolutely, and where there is pressure there is excess. Still, it is a completely different perspective in this regard than that which dominates stateside. Europe has its issues (though it is rare to find anything stateside which gives an accurate insight into what those actually are), but overall there is a greater diversity than in the US. When in our history have conservative and/or administrative forces in any division of power ever provided any foundation towards evolution of change through facing and dealing with challenges on a cultural and societal level? Never. We've had plenty of countries, nations, cultures and polities that have tried to utilise that element of power, or even have hoped for it to manage in face of challenges. The trouble is that it is by default a reactive and vested interest specific element. It functions often enough very well for continuity of status quo. But what if the status quo is clear to not be in the general interest of a country or people ... That is the crux of the matter, as some people say "something has got to give". But all forces at work are geared for either selective interests only or continuity of status quo "as is". The penultimate question of "who benefits" immediately springs to mind. Unfortunately it is not the country or its people. These continue to face the consequences of that inability to proactively engage as required. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying americans are averse to that, far from. The drive of people is quite simply amazing. But what matters all that energy when that drive is constrained by walls that do not budge. Bureaucracy is not a force suitable for challenges. It is a force suitable for continuity - at best. Betting on that in times where growth is required, would be betting on the wrong horse I agree that a bureaucracy tends to provide continuity in the absence of governance - but it never does that forever, nor is it prone to anything but conservative reactive action (if any action at all).

That is the biggest irony of all really, what I referred to as the "potential of the country and its people". It's basically a choice between mindsets of say Kissinger and Dulles versus Roosevelt and Wallace. It could be the strongest people and nation of all, a guide for prosperity and liberty alike on the foundations of leading by example. Instead it somehow has elected to function as a mere empire. And empires always fall and burn both their own people and ideas with it. And let's be honest, given our human history how many such potentials have we had to offset our tendencies towards barbarism? It just seems to me as a waste. That internecine wrangling is only a distraction, it solely serves to keep people busy on a level away from actual participation in making decisions for the general interest. It's painful to see.

OK, you're going to have to try writing in plainer English. I'm finding it rather difficult to comprehend what you're trying to say. This is what I think I've gathered of your points, correct me if I'm wrong/feel free to expand: - the US government is controlled by lobbyists and politicians must always appease them if they want to remain in office - everyone who has ever been in power in the US has worked to minimize the economic success of the middle class, in direct contrast to the rest of the developed world which encourages middle class development - the electoral college will never be abolished because its existence helps lobbyists (how?) - there is a lack of toughness in the US and that will be our downfall That's the key stuff I've got, anything else? Lobbyism is an instrument, it is not in control, it's simply something that has become an industry in its own right utilised to serve limited purpose in such ways that - for practical purposes - subvert the functioning of government (to a degree that it increasingly fails to serve the purpose of representing the people that give the government a mandate to manage the general interests). The Electoral College has changed from an instrument to buffer against "the masses voting with their noses and emotions" to an instrument that buffers against people voting for the general interests of society as a whole. Changing it, or removing it, does not serve the selective interests that require that "buffer" use of it to guard against movements or ideas that prioritise general interests. The issue there has become the question of what can channel more motive power to decide the matter: general or selective interest. In the US, it is selective / special interests which dominates opinion shaping and decision making. Ergo, the Electoral College is not going away. Which is a shame, because regardless of us being potentially silly or even harmful we human beings tend to be able quite well to think for ourselves. As individuals, and as groups. In contrast to for example Europe, the concept of the family unit is still incredibly strong in the US, it is one of those things that serves to balance the individual and group view, and thus the short term and long term views. Today, with our - at least theoretical - potential for access to and use of information (that in previous centuries was much more limited) and our - at least theoretical - potential for education we are able to function as a decision making society to navigate our decisions. There is no real need for an Electoral College to "buffer" against the "madness of the masses". Unfortunately, the balance of power is such that this buffer is considered required. In a way it is a vote of lack of confidence of those who wield power against those whom they really should serve. It is a situation very much unlike anywhere else in the world. The US harbours a division of power that - while spreading - tends to not exist in such forms anywhere else. Networks of dependancies and participation, where what we commonly consider the division of power (trias politica) has come to be in servitude of economics of those networks. Sure, plenty countries have their collusions between legality and illegality, that exists everywhere. And plenty countries and cultures have their issues with wealth buying power. This is however different from the institutionalised forms it has taken in the US. For foreigners it is hard to understand how this is tolerated, most americans I know have little idea of how power is distributed in the US. It's quite the field for sociologists and economists alike, but also a field which tends to suck people in with wierd ideas of conspiracy theories and more such debunking emberassments. It is a simple reality of division of power, where instruments such as lobbyism, media, governance and such are in servitude of selective wealth. It is not unlike the UK's hierarchy of power prior to the Boer and 1st World War. It's just that most other countries don't really have something similar. By the way, I would not say that Americans lack toughness. Far from. We're all human beings, we all have the same potential. For making a stand, for making decisions, for suffering as well as pain and greatness. We're only limited by that which we ultimately allow ourselves. For Americans in that regard there are challenges, absolutely. What people does not have its own challenges, at any time in history. But having challenges to face does not diminish that people. Not even failing them does, as long as the people take on the challenges. The only thing that diminishes the potential and ability of a people is not taking on challenges. If there were anything "lacking" americans today, it would be the will and ability to offset available information streams to those generally not available, and to engage in deeper debate rather than mere discussion. But let's be honest, that is hardly something unique to americans The general question for americans is more like "how do we balance the selective interests among us and the general interests of us all". The US has changed from a country and people who said "no" against the madness of the old world, to a country which has reinvigorated and enhanced that madness of the old world. In spite of its founding ideas, in spite of its own people, it has become exactly that which it turned away from: an empire created to serve the select few at the expense of the many and the potential of the individual. The longer the country remains unable to face its challenges the harder it becomes to move away from that. Which is a must, if only because history shows us how violent and terrible the road of imperialism is for people, and how utterly unavoidable and terrible the fall is. The irony is that most of the world looks to the US for principles, ideas and spirit alike as a potential guardian against the behavioral excess that only spreads pain and poverty through the ideas and means of that "old world" the US was created to turn away from. The reality unfortunately increasingly is that the US is worse than that old world has ever been. Wouldn't it make sense to move away from that road before the consequences hit home? The reality of today is that increasingly the world moves away from the US, because all they see is that which they themselves have already know to only cause pain.

Of course not, that is what democracy rewards, going with the winds of public opinion. That is partly how it is supposed to be operating. People vote for politicians, those people have an opinion, they want to see that opinion represented in the government. If a lot of people in the entire country have the same opinion, it means that also a lot of politicians who voice this opinion get elected and thus do something with that opinion. After all, that is just scoring points with your voter base and paving the way for any reelections. I don't think it is a problem innately connected to the idea of democracy. I do feel there are problems related to the form of implementation of the idea and the functioning of the requirements for the stability of implementation. The Electoral College for example is an instrument that serves as buffer against the potential excesses of, well, let's call it "people voting with their emotions". At least in principle, in practice it is increasingly becoming an instrument that guards against general tendencies on the level of society itself. Look at our own reactions today, the notion that "this is how it is supposed to happen" is widespread, commonly accepted and only very few people actually raise an eyebrow over it. We have to ask ourselves though whether it is really too much to ask of politicians, and ourselves, to look beyond short term fixations and keep our eyes on both the road and the horizon. This is one of those trends I referred to earlier, increasingly our worldview (as society, as groups and even as individuals) has grown to focus more on the short term prospects than anything else. It is understandable, but if history shows us anything it is that such trends only lead to repeating the same mistakes with ever increasing excess. And that is where we find one of the biggest culprits underneath these trends: most of us don't know our history, or don't even know how to look for information that serves to balance the short term (gain) view with that of a more broad perspective. The key elements there are how we as members of society are taught to think, and educated to inform ourselves. We rarely question or do any digging for ourselves. Regardless of whether we are politicians or common citizens. The nett result is that increasingly we are unable to look beyond the "here" and "now", and increasingly unable to use our own abilities to navigate information, discussions and debate alike. A few hundred years ago there was a mindset of segregation between classes of people, something the founding fathers found to diminish the potential of both individuals and groups alike. The mindset of a) inequality and b) the necessity to maintain inequality. A popular expression among the division of power in those days was "we keep them poor, you keep them dumb". After the independance there was a strong vision of moving away from that. Unfortunately since the second world war it has resurfaced in an evolved form of "you keep them in debt, we keep them dumb enough to only be skilled for limited work and you keep them angry or afraid". Information and education offsets the potential of such a mindset to dominate. When people have the means and the aptitude to think for themselves the societal structures tend to keep them balanced between the individual short term view and the group (family and upwards) long term view. That is a requirement for democracy to function in a sustainable manner. It is never going to be perfect, and will always have its issues, but it is a sharp difference from how democracy in the US functions today: as a means to channel control over resources by maintaining a strict view on the short term. Somehow that shift has taken place, we'd all do well by reversing course in this regard.

This has nothing to do with Al Qaida in any way or form. That is just dumb propaganda / reporting, not journalism. The situation in Mali is complex, with variables from consequences of colonialism for demographics to economics and beyond to interactions with the consequences of political and economic shifts on the african continent. There are elements of religion as well as belief, but for the most part those are merely abused for propaganda purposes and little else. By the way, the decisions on the moving of gold deposits has nothing to do with that situation in Mali It is part of a growing trend of seperation from the UK from both Europe and the US (the UK is once again the country with the most tangible and intangible goodwill in international political and financial relations - a position the US lost under the first Bush) experimenting with the potential to once again become an independant empire seperate from the US (strengthened by the changes in Commonwealth organisation and financial structuring as well as the strong growth among and strong position in strategic resources reserves among several Commonwealth members). Ironic incident, the US "reminding" the Brits that it "would be best" to stay in the EU. But in extension of that trend the growing seperation from most of the economic zones of the world away from the US. European mainland for example, but also the ASEAN countries as well as the - with the aid of China - growing strength of both the south american and african economies. For the agreements between France and Germany as the central powers of the EU it is just that, part of historic agreements. It's a geopolitical shift that gives way to such policy changes, nothing else. That revolutions and riots tend to foster their own economics, usually in terms of hard resources, is a completely different phenomenon. One very unfortunate, but hardly new in our human history.

Folks please, you are not supposed to use your brains. You are supposed to blindly buy and then shout how amazing it is everywhere you go.

There are individual as well as subgroup specific elements of racism involved yes, but it is a complex issue on that level considering the presence of elements like economic as well as organisational dogma (we cannot really use the word doctrine any more these days, as these matters have grown so far out of proportion that in terms of social and organisational dynamic they have become very similar to religious constructs), along with an enormous amount of networking games (political function dependancies and job / lobby distribution has in terms of networking become very similar to internet affiliate marketing - no joke) and the unfortunate but usual personal scheming and maneuvering. A big factor often overlooked though is that of cultivated mindset, and the factor of network dependancies. The irony is that the absolute majority of political posturing and maneuvering comes forth out of an absolute ignorance on the questions of integrity and dependancy. The democrats suffer less of this than the republicans, but most politicians have very little idea of, well, what joe the plumber would call "being the puppets". It's this shift that has taken place from politics as master of instrumentation (for societal, cultural purposes and so forth) to politics having become an instrument itself. One in service of something which the division of powers was never created to deal with: economics. Under the Reagan administration this trend stabilised itself and culminated in a transition of the state where economics was becoming a 4th power (to the traditional historic trias politica) to a state where the trias politica instruments have effectively become instruments in servitude of economics. The nett result for the politics is that it is a theatre of operations strictly for brokering the now limited resources / power politics can engage in. By default that denies politics as element of society the ability to a) participate in that society and b) the ability to refuse to be wielded like any other instrument. That last part is visible in the distinct rise of political maneuvering on a group level by prioritisation of dogma and deal. We often think that was always the case, but it is not that hard to see how this has changed. Practical example, go over the records on both congres and senate on a seat basis and see how the paradigm has shifted from the hallmark being who voted for what towards who voted against what. In a practical sense, US politics has become something very close to real estate brokers. Where the brokers primary dependancy is being dependant on those with ownership and the primary focus is to become one of those with ownership. Just not along the ways of how we tend to think, with home owners as those with ownership. But with economic forces as those with the real ownership because this is where the control is over debt. And those who accept declarations of debt are the ones who create and own wealth. Debt is shared, real wealth however can not be shared, because it is only debt that is declared. This is the unfortunate reality of american financial organisation, the state does not have that function. The state can only declare debt to private institutes. By default that makes the state a dependant broker. The political situation today is just a logical culmination of the trend in dealing with that reality. It has taken its time, over distractions like world wars and the necessary economic crises (to channel control over debt), but it has become internalised on every level of organisation of the country. State, society, everywhere. That is really something to think about, that part of "the paradigm has shifted from the hallmark being who voted for what towards who voted against what". It is symptomatic of entrepreneurial engineering (a form of social engineering common to commercial internal dynamics). Those engaged in horizontal process management within enterprises will immediately see the parallels here. What was a political process of participation and selection has become something very close to a workforce section representation within an enterprise. To put it bluntly, lots of posturing and games, lots of contra focus, very little vision and extremely little room for actual practical intents - because the constraints of the function of that sort of representation is after all not to represent or "govern", but to channel and coach as the decision processes lie somewhere completely different. That is the state of congres, regardless of democrats or republicans. It is often observed that orchestration of politics has been transformed from the political - country level to that of political - internal level. Most foreigners tend to have very little issue in figuring out where politics is done in the US, and it is not in politics - that simply has become an extension of what elsewhere is known as lobby mechanisms. The added extra in the US is that there is this enormously strong component of "network dependancy" (often and increasingly to a point of "belief" without question, aka "faith"). It is hard to find a politician who does not vote the way the wind blows, because they are orchestrated to function by dependancies. They are quite simply put not independant. Independance is not even a case of wealth any more, not since the days of Eisenhower. It is a case of affiliation and what doors that opens or closes. It's a dependancy pyramid. The party which manages "their" pyramid the best tends to be the one that controls the house. This is really worthy of study by political and economic studies in the US, yet for some strange reason no institute ventures there. Foreign universities do, usually as part of studies commissioned by enterprises who need various levels of faciliation. The funny irony is that on the topics where it matters the republicans have nothing to gain by being a stumbling block to Obama. The republican network dependancies have everything to gain by the fruits of labour from Obama's circle of advisors. Their views on high finance for example, and the foundations they put in place for Obama politicy are directly in line with republic network requirements. But this is that sore point in the US where we see that extremes are never good. The republicans themselves have fallen victim to this "too far" shift from "dependancy pyramid" to "this is a matter of belief". Sad example in that regard is the deliberate tainting of the "obamacare" debate by the use of the "socialism" stamp. Let's not forget, in the cold war the US was the imperial expansive power, the Soviets were reactionary and reactive - the "socialism" verdict was an instrument of polarisation in servitude of selective policy. Cooperative farming for example was invented by Americans, funny detail there - the current Chinese president actually spent time decades ago in the US to learn from the US on these matters But, the stamp is used, it has become ingrained in culture as "bad". To a point where it is not even an ideological debate anymore, it has been degraded to a division of good versus evil, dark versus light, good american versus anti american. Incidentally, if this is a trend which continues it is only going to be 2 to 3 more presidencies until we start to see structural use of this instrumentation of "if you are not with us, you are anti american" to an extent worse than the Hoover days, rivalling the excesses of the days of Nazi germany (then again, let's be honest, the ones who support this trend are still the same people as those who sponsored the nazi reign so this should really not be a surprise). Either way, propaganda is used to a point where the purpose is to disallow debate. Force noses to turn, prevent the ability for choice, by embedding people in dependancies. Textbook affiliate marketing really, to get something you have to repeat and spread the message - regardless of what the message is. That the US is one of the handful of countries which has no proper healthcare system, becomes by default a non debate case. Because of that stamp applied. Yes, there is a lot of discussion everywhere, but a little analysis shows that only very, very little of that is actual debate. Most of what seems to be discussion is simply forms and variances on that affiliate marketing syndrome. It is in many ways wierd, because even while losing its principles and its dream the US has as a country and a culture always managed to adapt itself to challenges it faced over time. The US is utterly unable to face challenges of an internal evolutionary nature. It often puzzles outsiders (who admittedly have it easy, because looking in from the outside is always easier than trying to look over the edge of the trench on to the actual battlefield). The reality is that the US has transformed itself to a state geared for dealing with external challenges in service of strictly selective dependancies. Which is understandable, considering historic choices and effective points of influence and power, the trouble however is that if a country is ran as a business it should be understood that the stability of internal structure should never be taken for granted. It's akin to the "belief" of having an automagically self fixing home market. It does not exist. Any business learns to deal with that. The real problem is just that the country ran as a business does not serve the country as a whole. As such significant parts and elements of that country are being ignored as well as taken for granted. The natural result is instability. And the higher up you go, the less of that remains visible. Until a bigger shark shows up, as many an enterprise has learned. Yes, the time for that philosophical argument has passed. Unfortunately the actual tough are those who make sure they can align with the shark. The rest is not going anywhere.

Removal of the Electoral College would be an equivalent of socio-political evolution of the country towards a cultural orientation which would completely undermine the ability of special interest networks to utilise the country as a resource in servitude of those networks. It is never going to happen, at least not without a second civil war. That may sound harsh, but this is the realpolitik of the country. Not even the prospects of the lower treshold of popular voting mechanics for (ab)use by such forms of organisation is an argument for consideration in that regard, not with a history of popular votes tending to turn out elements of governance that are not as open to collaboration with or dependancy on such networks. Then again, let's be honest - a bit of irony of american history - one president who ever did not fall prey to that was JFK, and he kinda "stole" the election and the other one got distracted by a global conflict. Anyhow, it is just never going to happen. I agree that the concept and implementation of the Electoral College is obsolete, even in these days where ineducation and misinformation is almost institutionalised and absolutely culturally internalised the circumstances of origins of it are simply no longer the same. In spite of the issues today for a popular vote mechanism there are elements present today which can balance the shortcomings. The problem is just that the mentality which gave rise to the Electoral College resurged in the years following the second world war and has become so vested in the interdependancies of economic thinking that a turning away from it is quite simply no longer possible. The people, that old concept tied with certain inalienable rights, has changed from idea to variable, in a mindset and system solely rooted in the worldview of a resources determined paradigm of human organisation. Simply put, a mindset that in many ways has reverted to well before the days of the birth of the republic, a time where resistance to old ideas like classes and categories of people as means in servitude gave rise to the ideas culminating in that birth. To be blunt, in spite of founding principles and the challenges taken it is sad to see that this grand idea has become subverted through economic thinking to reorient itself, shifting it away from its seperation of "people in servitude" to "people as means", which is - when you think of it - just about the same (and perhaps even worse). In many (non-american) economic studies one specific point of debate is the question where the insistance comes from to structurally limit the economic prowess and ownership capacity of the middle class as economic engine of society. Even Obama in that regard, or perhaps especially, after all a president is only as useful to a people / country / business as those who create the foundations for his policies. It is interesting to observe that in this regard all sides of political coins orient themselves the same way, with but two presidential exceptions in this and the previous century. The irony is that this trend has developed in parallel to that of the republic as an imperial power, virtually replicating the means and ways of that "old world" the republic was created to seperate itself from. What is painful is how this is increasingly separating the american people from the rest of the world. Something of a trend which in history is directly linked to the rather violent demise of empires. But hey, let's all continue to believe that it was the economic principles beneath this wonderful instrument of the american dream which gave us such an age of prosperity, and not the resource / conflict management oriented principles and means of resurgant imperialism In our modern days that should worry us though, simply because the underlying requirements of those principles and means are no longer being met. Consider for example the complete demise of the ability to control acces and use of resources globally by the US, something which has shifted radically to China (in just a decade of very smart and subtle foreign and economic policy executions). How can we possibly except something like the Electoral College to become even but a theoretical point of debate on the levels of power in the light of such fundamental challenges for continuity of the big business that is the republic. The founding fathers had some interesting ideas about that intricate balance between people, government and history. Something about an idea of every once a while resetting the scales and upsetting the balance and the institutions that grow. Today however that is something which would immediately be classes as subversion and anti-american sentiment. An unfortunate consequence of an extreme focus on symbols rather than principles in the historic education of the people.

If I may ask, where does the center park come from? Is that a bat, or clever use of park tiles?

Heh, yes and no. On a general level we can state that the first is our generic perspective that functions as both a means and excuse for cultural motivation, the trouble is that while this is culturally internalised (we do not question the idea / conviction, it has become part of our cultural orientation and "knowledge") it largely comes from a lack of available perspectives in information sourcing (media as instrument of economic, political and social organisation tends to dominate - on a cultural level - the information sources practically available to people. If you repeat a certain message long enough using means that people like, embedded in cultural development over time (shaping the cultural perception, for example through movies) people "grow up" with that chosen message. It is simply the cultural application of indoctrination. The result of that is that the first statement displays a perspective of no participation in the rise of an enemy (a perspective of innocence if you will), the second recognises the dependancies we as a society pose for the necessity of enemies in our social / political / cultural organisation. These dependancies are a phenomenon directly linked with empire building. Countries do have their own sorts of mess and issues, obviously, but only empires or countries with imperial ambitions engage in those dependancies. By choice. For the US it is a road that began when an industrialist saw the potential in a situation and utilised politicians and other means to instigate the blowing up of the Maine. Admittedly the country did have a long period where it was virtually divided by whether to replicate that which its people had turned away from (the practices of the empires of the old world), ultimately though the case of the Philipenes sealed the deal. A bit of irony in that regard, the only place where the changes in approach have not yielded desired results still is Cuba. And well, we have to be honest, just like the empire before the US, the British, it is not like we have not seen the continuation of this approach in our recent times. The Bush administrations should pop out to even the most oblivious internet visitor Not that they were the exception to the rule, far from. Who still remembers who trained Noriega? Bin Laden? Khomeini? What media question the motives behind using them? For the US it simply does not matter anymore. Von Clausewitz probably is turning in his grave wishing to write another book War as extension of politics surpassed by politics as extension of economics - with war a simple low level instrument of it. In terms of historic perspective, that is actually quite a substantial shift in empire patterns. Not even the Romans went that far. Yes, for the Romans the military was an economic entity as much as it is today for the US, and they had their times of fanaticism guided by quite simple lack of perspective and information (purposefully guided by both senate and emperors alike). But with the exception of Julius Caesar they did not go as far as politics in servitude of economics with the first instrument of war, that actually spooked them on a cultural level. Soldiers in Rome were variables of military and economic roles within society. They were not currency for profits of selective interests only. As sad as it is, under the guise of an enormous mount of dream building and marketing, the soldier today is the currency of private profit.

I've been experimenting with GLR since recently, but running in to a bit of a snag. I need to get a GLR network across a sunken highway network. Now I do have a tileset to cross the actual highway, the snag however occurs once that highway is sunken. I can't find a set of tiles that let you bridge the slope. Not sure how to word it correctly, but with the rail and road options there are ways to connect the road/rail over highway tile to the upper edge of the slope next to the sunken highway. I can't seem to find the same for GLR however.

There is a difference between "we did not have it coming" and "we create enemies", it may be subtle at first glance but it is rather of interest for determining the reality of our world view. Solving that challenge requires breaking away from the mentality and methods that have created the circumstances and conditions. In simple terms, there is no "dealing" with those enemies effectively without solving the case of their creation. The mindset that we are given today of adaptation to different circumstances (on the field, in our societal organisation, our political choices, etc) is one of servitude. It is not one of security or even safeguarding. It is ironic that every study NATO/OTAN has commissioned on these "new" challenges tend to come up with the same analysis: to deal with the challenges and adapt both militarily and in other fashions we should stop creating the conditions for these challenges to arise. Any other approach only serves selective interests (arms, energy) as opposed to general interests (cultural, society, political). The hinge point as always is economics.

Build a space elevator and the cost of getting anything up in space will hardly be anything. No more expensive chemical rockets to get our new satellites up. And all we need is materials that are strong enough, stuff they are trying to build this very moment. With a little luck we will have Space Elevators up and running in 50 years. Also, why would you build a prison on the moon. If there is something cost inefficient its that. Better to have a bunch of pioneers build the first lunar colonies. Depends actually on the prison population If you have a thousand convicts in a country a year it's an idea, like the Dutch did prior to the Boer wars. If you have millions of them, like the US, yeah then it is not exactly feasible. If we ever do send people to the moon for colonisation though, I am willing to bet that after the technical requirements we send the undesired there. Political activists and the likes. Our human history shows quite clearly we do that almost reflexively, even before we send prisoners.

Not for long. Those rules are changing. Mixed use (commercial/residential) is the norm in NYC, and becoming the norm in forward thinking cities. You're starting to see more zoning like this around transit stations in other American cities. Dallas/FW comes to mind. It might be hard for the developers to pull off. I just don't like my cities to have the land uses separated from each other, and no other option is available. It's just not realistic. Interesting, here in Europe we're actually moving away from that trend. We had that from around the late '70's in the previous century to about the early 2000's, but with the increase in demographic pressure it too often became a convoluted mess (environmental issues, but also excesses due to cultural stress trends, etc).

Oh come on, its not that bad. Up until the second world war we civilized the way we engaged in warfare. Even today, we try to keep the impact as small as possible. It are our enemies that force the excesses on us by hiding behind civilians. Um, not really. The historic impression of earlier warfare prior to the second world war being civilised is a bit of a misconception. First of all we should note the relative scale in terms of popular sizes, demographic spread, economic development, etc. But even more importantly just about every type of wars we engaged in as a species were detrimental to each of these factors, particularly civilian populations - the idea of even trying to figure out what type of warfare is a bit hmmm, but alright, let's have a look at history. Let's see if we actually had civil or civilian friendly wars. Napoleontic warfare? American Civil War? The Boer war? The lining up of thousands of men in an organised manner for the purpose of determining engagements on a chosen field of battle while behind those periodic and selective fronts the civilian populations suffered every consequence of warfare ranging from economic impact via organised burning of crops and villages even firebombing of cities and so forth. Right. Not to mention the organised looting and both civil, cultural and financial bleeding instruments like reparations and such (let's be honest, most of our "modern wars" are the direct results of the horrid and detrimental reparation concepts that came with these types of warfare). Or should we look at WWI where this type of warfare resulted in an industrialised manner of killing which in spite of hardly being the first of its kind left horrid marks on environment, cultures and entire populations alike. Medieval warfare? Where class segregation involved the doctrine of "living off the land" (which meant starving entire populations of food and other means of life), organised denial of use of resources (land, people, etc) by means of incorporating concepts into campaign planning which we now call "scorced earth". A quick example, the depopulation and deforestations alike during the English / French conflicts in Normandy (around the time of that poor girl getting visions and being put to "good" use for PR), where entire cities were wiped off the map, where the natural landscape was so transformed that it took nearly a hundred years for cultivation to once again reach reasonable levels of productivity for local farming and resource harvesting. Yeah. Days where people in spite of cities being hotbeds of epidemics and civil violence sought shelter because staying outside of the cities meant rape and killing which on a relative scale of casualties to population left no significant difference to - for example - the firebombing of dresden. Incidentally, people seeking shelter in cities in those days is rather significant, since cities in those centuries tended to not keep their populations due to such factors as disease. Cities were instruments of economics, but they had to regularly import new populations via subsidies and taxation instruments, it was not till much later in our history that cities did not actually have to recycle populations. Either way, another example, look at the cost in civilian casualties during the Papal campaigns in France agains the Cathar. Genocide on a scale and with such a success rate of which the instigators behind the recent conflict between Hutu's and Tutsi's in Ruanda would be jealous of. The Roman days? Where a commonly used instrument of pacification was to execute every second woman and every third man? Do we remember what became of Carthago (delenda est)? Or the Roman campaigns in what today is Israel? Or the punishment campaigns by Roman legions stationed in controlled territory if a legion on a foreign campaign lost a battle? Heck, let's look at Caesar's campagn in Gaule, which pretty much depopulated entire providences (and really, not by simply driving out the local populations as refugees). Or shall we look at China in those days, where ethnic cleansing was an instrument of conflict resolution between warlords, or where the construction of fortifications was done on foundations of the corpses of slaves taken from the populations of both opposing and local domains. Or the African continent where mass slaughter was just as organised even in varying tribal formats to a point where it became practice in both the west and south/east regions to kill every man and child followed by institutionalised rape of the woman in order to ensure ownership of the lands for the future (incidentally, something the predecessors to both Massai and Kikuyu referred to as "perfectly fine" because that is what lions do when they take over a pride). The sad truth is that the scale of violence has always been relative to population pressure in any given area we try to look at in order to find civilian friendly or even civil warfare. Alexander the Great was very astute in his dealings with local nobles and royal families, he also saw the point of attempting to merge his own and babylon's populations in a friendly manner, but beyond that he failed to see the point of not using local populations up to the burning point as a means of resources of any kind. What we call the Pashtun these days was pretty much depopulated by the guy. The only reasons we *think* that WWII is a changing point is because a) it is our most current reference to vaste warfare in perspective to that which we consider ancient history - the generations of WWII are after all still with us, and our media today keep that era fresh in mind and b) we forget that technology has always been with us, even industrialised forms of killing but we fail to offset events to points of scale of whichever days in history we look at. Either way, the idea of a debate of which war is worse. All war is equally detrimental. It's only in the abstract that we can try to make comparisons, and even then we have to be damn careful not to forget the human element in every variable. And yes, the relative scale of it all. When what is the Netherlands today had a population of a few dozen tribes totalling up to around 300.000 people it may not seem like much by our current modern scales that some 50.000 were killed by Romans while another 50.000 plus were driven northwards as refugees - but look at the scale. Yes, we've had bombing campaigns in modern times where more were killed with fancy machines, but it is still a third of a country that got wiped. That the Romans did it with swords, spears and horses does not change the gruesomeness or the results. Even the variable of time / speed in relative terms to the globalisation curve is no different. By the way, hiding behind civilians in our modern times is hardly an invention of "our enemies" To be brutally honest, we deliberately and consciously created our enemies - for reasons of economics, politics but also other more subtle concepts like continuity and control. The British Empire was a master at divida et imperia for example, only to be outclassed later in history by the US. The first Chinese emperor applied the same concepts as well though, except to his own population and not foreign ones. What or who are our enemies today really? Should it not suffice to say that history shows us that man is his own enemy, and that as such we should put man's actions and motivations at every point in time under a microscope in order to at least try and prevent us constantly falling prey to the same psychopathy present in human behavioural dynamics? No really, who are our enemies today? For the past 250 years or so we have utilised the concept of "enemy" as a derivative instrument of empire building. The French did it, the British did it, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Bantu, and so forth. It's only in the 20th century that we saw the presence of this fall "back" (so to speak) from multiple countries to just the US engaging in the use of that instrumentation. Communism? Please do not take it the wrong way, but Americans really do not know half their own correct and untainted history in these matters. Terrorism? A phenomenon we created, where again most people have no idea why or how we did that because it is "not done" for the few remaining media networks to report on unpleasant matters. Islam? Because we the West created margin trends among them - after usually setting those countries back a few centuries in development because strategic interests required this - in order to use these as a means of continuity for dominance? It does not matter where we look. There is no such thing as "enemies" other than ourselves. Collectively, on a species level, we suffer from conditional and conditioned weaknesses that make us vulnerable to the creation of concepts of enemy for the sake of power. It is ironic, because while there were lands to discover and continents to claim there is a certain plausability in the idea of establishing dominion, but not when we pretty much "have" the "world" - and all that remains is a petty struggle for resources which with our current technology we really would not have to bother with if we simply reaped it from the skies. Trouble is, that is just not in the interests of maintaining dominion. We today create our enemies, because it serves our interests. I honestly can not think of any "enemy" since the second world war which we have not deliberately and consciously created or aided in its rise for the safeguarding of our interests, from the economic to the political all the way even to the cultural and organisation of our societies. It is sad that we have come that far, sunk that deep. Maybe it would be nice if people in some places actually had access to means and methods for information other than propaganda constructs. And the inclination to make the effort. But alright, bread and games right? At least that is not an invention of us in the West

Lunarian or Selenite would be the correct demonyms. Yeah, but you know perfectly well that a pejorative term is preferred if it is an "us and them" scenario. Colonists on the moon are likely to be a privileged few unless we get cheaper transportation at which point it might well become a prison. Well, to be fair, Down Under did not turn out that badly, for a prison dump

And this is different from today .. how? We in the west still engage in conflicts utilising those doctrines as instruments of power. Politics, economics, military, cultural. It is only because of the length of the cold war conflict that we have a measure of civil wealth that has enabled us to offload most of the negative consequences of such practices on those we engage on. That is actually done a lot, in muslim countries, we are just never informed of it in media. Take the case of Bin Laden, disavowed on all ends of islamic clergy, accompanied by active engagement in challenging Al Quaida's religious instrumentation, and so forth. Keep in mind that our media tend to present the politics in a heavy religeous cloak. We don't seperate matters, as is done in most of the rest of the world. Not that we in christianity do not have our own house cleaning to do, I should add It's not like we stopped falling prey to excess in the past, on the contrary.

Weird product is a relative term, however. To my mother, "selling short" would be a weird product. To me, it would just be another investment method. One definition of weird financial products: draining money from the economy without contributing or producing anything. That is actually a historic quote, though I doubt many people know it or can even place the historic timeframe. From the same person who came up with the gem of "buy when there's blood in the streets, even if the blood is your own".

Good observation. I'm European, but I've lived on just about every continent during my life. It is absolutely dumbfounding how completely integrated censorship is with cultural and economic organisaton in the United States. It's amazing, but did you know that in European countries but also in other places people actually study the American media aggregation history to understand cultural deficiency trends - and how to prevent such trends? And yes, in some places (like China) for the purposes of social organisation management. A totalitarian country which studies America's incorporated media systems for the purposes of further evolving control structures, really, think about that for a bit ..

Well, of course. That is one of the tenets of freedom we have all come to recognize. I suggest you stay out of Islamic states. Considering the frequency people tend to confuse the uniquely distinct concepts like belief, faith and religion topics like these tend to be without hope. To offset a common misconception right there, it is actually Islam which has an incredibly strict set of rules for tolerance of other religions, particularly those that came from Abraham, back in the day. Unlike particularly Christianity, which recognises only the relation to Judaism and attaches a set of values to it - by means of 2 or 3 Papal briefs. For the most part Christianity has incorporated over the centuries into its dogma a strict intolerance for other religions coupled with the duty to convert non-believers. In simple terms, Islam requires the believer to respect and recognises not only the Abrahamic religions but also extends that to any other religion, recognising the presence of a multitude ways to god. While Christianity incorporates the sacrosanct status of Christian dogma and disallows any other potential way to god. Go figure. Incidentally, these differences are why it is so ludicrously easy to settle arguments using theological debate in the Middle East, because it is a process which there requires (both by secular and religious law) study and exchange. We Christians actually reserve that right of study to the clergy only, and even today the church disallows non-priests that instrument of exchange. But, yes, theology. Politics and economics are an entirely different story alltogether. For the most part, because we the west have dictated so. Let's be honest, aside of the drama of crusades, we were the ones to draw arbitrary straight lines on a map, we were the ones who played chess with countries, we were the ones who invented realpolitik and applied it. The world today is the world we created. We turned islamic countries today into the mess it often is - but not always, and certainly not everywhere. I'm dead serious there, whether it is the Iran case or that of Afghanistan or even the existance of Al Qaida, it's our creation. I should add that if you do not want your world view to be shattered, I strongly recommend to not do any research in these matters. Particularly as an American. Not that it wouldn't upset the random deranged terrorist either, for him to find out where he actually comes from But honestly, be careful. Our world of comfort is much different than merely subjective. We're only human after all. Never confuse the actions of men with those of institutes of organised religion. Overall, we christians have a history of deliberate abuse of both belief and religion for the purposes of both dogma and societal forms of power. We also have an amazing history of intolerance coupled with rewarding those of us who do unleash all sorts of madness on other belief systems. Even today in our modern times, the present frustrations, violence and bloodshed from people of this or that belief system pales in comparison to how we christians have institutionalised such matters over time. See, we humans tend to make our deductions on the basis of information we receive. Not only do we rarely seek out our own information, we tend to receive our information better if it is filtered according to value of information for the group dynamic of which we are a part. This is why - for example - we in the west tend to hear little to nothing about peace protests in muslim countries, or support protests for western journalists when the one-out-of-a-million madmen doesn't know his own religion enough to get sucked in to statements of burn this or that comic artist or journalist. We in the west tend to deliberately confuse belief with the interests of politics and economics (just even look at how the concept and word "faith" is used in media and politics alike). Not a surprise, we have done so ever since that smart Roman emperor put a convention together to put together a christianity for the deliberate purpose of utilising belief as a means of and to power on every level of society. We tend to never hear on the news of citizens in Dar Es Salaam making a massive stand against a deranged preacher trying to seed hate, nor do we ever hear of the efforts of people on Pemba to ensure that no single belief system is taught at local schools. Twisted isn't it. As I said, we should never confuse our perception of matters with the realities on a human level. Nor can we in any way or form try to put ourselves on a moral ladder. Some simple research would make us fall damn hard, and long, from our desired convictions. Yes, there is madness and the threat of the uninformed everywhere, just like everywhere there are those that will use anything and anyone for the purpose of power. Before we in the west can make any sort of statement like in the post above, we should take an informed look in the mirror of history - past and present. That threat of the uninformed, it is a double edged blade.

It is not, but if the US defaults? The side effects of that could be quite nasty. The most important one would of course the fact that it would also bankrupt the political system. Everyone knows that the US is not even close to having to default, so would it suddenly happen, than it will be the result of Washington and the decision makers who screwed up big time. Also, their debts are not insignificant. A default might be a serious shocker to a lot of people who are expecting money from the US. Nasty? Really? Look at it from a perspective of governance. Since the reaffirmation of the FED, the policies attached to what became known as the Marshall plan and later the use of the World Bank and IMF als instruments of policy, there are not that many governments who would not welcome a way out of the established dependancies on the US financial policies excercised. Simply put, nobody will mind a way out of what is commonly described as the "hostage principles" that are in place. Not even if that means a credit crunch, or an outright devaluation of virtual monetary value. Particularly if done in a controlled manner. EU countries have a few centuries worth of historic experiences with such concepts Most of the 3d World debt deposits are part of those vast blocks of virtual monetary value floating around, they are really not going to mind getting rid of the control instruments attached to even just the interest payments for those. China? It would face substantial losses in strategic investments in developing countries yes, it would also have to write off several degrees of security investments in monetary funds in the EU (but also in Russia and the Middle East), but it would gain an absolute and de facto financial control over strategic financial interests of the members of Nafta (which includes the US). It would also force the policy instruments of the IMF and the World Bank to be decoupled from the current controlling participant member country, the US. East Asia, but also the Pacific would find itself scrambling to switch monetary couplings from the dollar back to a more diversified (and healthier) system of coupled currencies. Australia, now that would face some dire challenges, but it does have a position of luxury as a resource provider to those economic zones where labour is still linked to economic growth (for example China, but also many developing countries - unlike the US). To be honest, the most tangible consequence would be that of the bankrupcy of the current participatory networks present in the divided US. Political system is just one aspect, symptom even, of this. Another element is media, but also mainstream US finance, and so forth. The irony is that the US would have to recreate an internal market directly tied to both internal consumption and production. Much like Germany for example after the second World War and the policies imposed by the Allies (with, let's be honest, great succes for that country). To be blunt, it would end up proverbially killing everything in terms of institutions and organisations, even cultural traits over time, of those elements that control the country today. At great cost yes, especially because so many industries in the US are subservient to that. Look at how funds are divided through the use of both state and federal government by economic organisations and enterprises. Even the military has become an economic entity to degrees far far worse than modern day Egypt or historic predecessors as for example Rome after Augustus. The question that really should be asked is whether it is worth trying to adapt a system through governance which has historically demonstrated to have become nothing more than an extension of economics, which unfortunately directly means special / selective interests. There are good reasons why through massive and painful experimentation human organisation has come up with the idea of balance of power. In our modern times, politics is prevented from recognising that economics has become the 4th power next to the original trias politica constructs. Direct result of that is that this 4th power can by default only be in service of special interests in cycles of competition. With the direct consequence that on this scale, anything connected becomes - just like in business, what this really is - a resource, and is treated as such. The various Bush administrations for example were nothing short of pyramid schemes utilising a country as a motive resource. The Reagan administrations carried the same methods of directive organisation. To be honest, there has not been an exception to this since well before Eisenhower. What is sad, is not that people still believe the marketing, it's that what was once a dream for an entire world (the US was that example and inspiration until it chose to engage on the path of imperialism with blowing up the Maine) has become just that: marketing. Look, defaulting will bring great costs, and turmoil, that should be clear. But this is not something that can still be done on a national level. For that the interdependancies between economic zones have become too intrinsically linked (notable exception: china, which prioritises a resource economy model much like that which enabled the first growth spurt of the US, which sadly has been forgotten long since and ditched in favour of credit constructs which do not really create tangible value at all, just debt - and debt is a control instrument in finance) so any such course change would have to take place on a supranational level. But it can be done. It has been done, just in different times where the "world" was merely "smaller". But not in the format of simple defaulting, but in the format of adjusting the value of those monetary volumes which are not directly backed by or linked to actual tangible elements of value. And there lies the problem, those monetary reserves and blocks floating around, they are instruments of policy. Yes, things would get shaken up, but there are definite and clear productive results of such a course change, particularly for global prospects over long term. The trouble is that it would a) remove the ability to create wealth from declarations of debt and b) remove the basic of the political and economic balance of power as it exists in todays post WWII and Cold War world. Defaulting is an escape card, which carries the risk of tainting the deck. But as I said, there are better ways of solving the structural issues. It is however a moot debate until that day where the country as a whole can shake itself apart from being stuck with tainted mirrors from this or that side and the traps of ideology. Human dynamics should never be put in fancy theory vulnerable to "I want to believe" and other syndromes. It should be taken "as is", step by step, with mechanisms attached to offset the pitfalls of human behaviour. It should just not be put to use as a means of economics / politics / selective interests / etc.

Computing power is not the issue, as pointed out elsewhere. But indeed, the expansion pack roadmap is directly connected to any feature changes or additions (as well as content, obviously). And agreed, right now any information available is marketing information (with the notable exceptions of information on functions part of EA policies and directives for the studios it owns - which includes Maxis), that is absolutely no reliable basis on which to make any decision. It's much more healthy to wait until release, or even until more details become available on moddability restrictions and DLC options, and then to make a personal decision based on whether it does something for you as a player, or not. Taking in to account that we just can't make any comparisons between SC4 and SC2013. Both are products of their own time, both have a completely different and distinct focus for customer groups, and so forth. It's not that long until March folks.