What would you expect to be the likely result, if Palestinians were to cease bombing and shooting rockets into Israel, and if Palestinians, Arabs and Iranians were to decide that they would allow Israel to continue to exist, and that they would willingly live in peace with it and with its citizens?
Your second quote, above, describes my country, also. Furthermore, it can be regarded, in a way, as describing the world, generally.
Therefore, Americans recognize that there is a distinction between Muslims that are violent enemies of the USA (and non-Muslims, generally), and Muslims that are not such enemies. And we are inclined to be very careful, to avoid confusing these two.
Unfortunately, those Muslims who are violent enemies of the USA (and non-Muslims, generally), explain that this is so, because they are Muslims. Furthermore, they can provide references to their scriptures, which support their proposition - that being Muslim, requires that they be (even violent) enemies to non-Muslims.
(This is unlike Judaic and Christian scriptures, since in the case of the former, any scriptural requirements to behave violently toward non-Jews, are apparently specific [e.g. - a requirement to conquer the inhabitants of Canaan, following the Exodus, refers specifically to that time, place and circumstance], while there are no scriptural requirements at all, to the effect that Christians should be enemies of non-Christians.)
Because there are a great many persons, who explain that being Muslim, requires being an (even violent) enemy of non-Muslims, it is very difficult to explain, and maintain, a distinction between those Muslims who are enemies of non-Muslims, and those who are not - especially when, among the former group, there are persons who actually perpetrate such violence, while others explain that doing so, is righteous Muslim behavior.
The principal purpose of the invasion of Iraq, according to my understanding, was to eliminate Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a resource for Muslim "terrorists," inasmuch as the USA had noticed that it was in a war against them (following several decades of intermittent and usually distant attacks, but eventually, the destruction of a national landmark and populated office building in New York City). Other benefits of removing Saddam Hussein, might include eliminating some source of anger and frustration, among Middle-Eastern inhabitants, by establishing a tradition of representative government, in the region, and freeing the people of Iraq from cruel despotism. What remains of the Iraq war, is cleaning up the mess and restoring some stability, which is difficult, but obligatory.
A description of the Muslim enemies of the USA, as "terrorists," has been ridiculed as alluding merely to a tactic of war, rather than identifying a specific enemy. As I have described, identifying the specific enemy is difficult, since there is considerable reluctance to identify them as "Muslims" (inasmuch as acknowledging that many Muslims are not recognizable enemies), even though they identify themselves as Muslims, and moreover, as true Islam, and they can be persuasive in supporting this identification of themselves.
The article, by Robert Spencer, contains more than two dozen links, to sources (including a bunch of recognizably "mainstream media," and several others that are unfamilar to me, but seem reputable enough) for the information in the article.
I recognize no basis for your assertion that the article lacks credibility inasmuch as having been published by a website that also publishes the writings of Ann Coulter. The Spencer article is apparently well supported by identified, reputable sources; a description of its author is included at the bottom of the page; there is no reference to Ann Coulter, or AIPAC, anywhere in the article.
The publishing website is apparently owned and operated by David Horowitz, who is a prolific writer, himself, and does not, as far as I know, claim to be a spokesman for any organizations, or ideas, but his own. That the website may receive donations from AIPAC (I'll accept your word that it does), or that it publishes the writings of other authors (including Ann Coulter), has no recognizable relevance to the credibility of the Spencer article.
There was an amnesty, for illegal immigrants, in the 1980's. The result has been a huge increase in illegal immigration, and it is reasonably expected that, if there were another amnesty, the result would be the same; people would immigrate, illegally, and then wait for the next amnesty.
It is my understanding that the USA admits a very large number of legal immigrants - perhaps even more than any other nation in the world - and especially including refugees. However, it is reasonable for the particulars of allowable immigration (including numbers, skills and such), to be considered and legislated by Congress, in accordance with a regard for their likely effect upon the nation, and the subject continues to be very much a topic of discussion, among legislators and among citizens, generally.
One further problem with illegal immigration, is that it tends to make difficult, legal immigration, since the pressures - caused by illegal immigrants - on resources (including immigration personnel), result in lesser availability of them, for dealing with legal immigration. Among other things, this tends to inspire resentment among those who would immigrate legally (or have already done so), since they must often wait many years, for the process of admitting them, to be completed, and they tend to wonder why they should suffer through all that, when others simply disregard immigration laws and enter the country, illegally, and then some people advocate that this is perfectly acceptable. It's somewhat analogous to politely waiting one's turn, in a cafeteria line, or something, and then some guy comes along, barges into the line, gets his food, they run out of food, and then people say, "What are you complaining about; shouldn't that guy be allowed to eat?"
I have had a similar problem, as that which you describe. Running LFS in high priority, seems to have been effective in dealing with it. Suggestion:
Open Notepad and type: start /high lfs.exe
Save this file as LFS.bat, in your LFS main directory (where lfs.exe is)
Create a shortcut to this batch file, and use it as your shortcut to start LFS
It seems to me that Flymike is willing to be personally generous and charitable, while even recognizing that it is not his prerogative to legislate U.S. immigration law, by himself, nor to ignore it.
You, however, perhaps have the prerogative to make your house open to the public. I am inclined to propose that you "let me know how that works out for you," but my actual expectation is that if you DID make your house open to the public, you would not likely be able to use your computer (in order to provide me with the requested information, much less to play LFS), nor your bed, bathroom, food and kitchen appliances or most other living space; I expect that the first news that I would get, on the subject, would be that you had moved out of that house, to find one of your own (since it would seemingly be inappropriate for you to have kicked everybody out, inasmuch as having regarded them as unwelcome).
I notice that Flymike is a resident of California, which is a State that (among others) has been profoundly affected by financial, civic and infrastructure burdens, resulting from illegal immigration. And your comparitive lack of "ignorance" on the subject is the result of what?
I wasn't aware that the U.S. economy was "****ed" (although we do suffer from widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of "Constitutional government," and a consequent inclination of governmental agents to overspend money).
This seems, to me, to be political ideology without definition (especially, the part about "slave labor").
The majority of "illegal Mexicans" are neither forced to work, nor even to be present in the USA. They agree to work for wages below the legal minimum, because they enjoy a benefit of doing so, and because their employers enjoy a benefit of their doing so, and perhaps also because it is not practicable for them to assert a formalized claim that they are owed employment according to legal standards, since legal standards specify that they are not permitted to be employed at all (or even to be present).
I am not familar with the idiom "proper cock," so I'm not sure if its meaning is literally good or bad; I'm guessing that you simply intend to be sanctimonious.
WRT "health care," it is expensive. The burden of providing it (often, free-of-charge) to many millions of illegal immigrants, has caused profound problems for legal residents (including long waits for, or unavailability of, medical treatments and additional expense for treatments and for medical insurance, as well as the complete closure of several hospitals and other medical facilities).
I think that you're overgeneralizing about "religion." Certainly, there are "religious" persons who are afraid to to consider ideas that may threaten those that they already have (this applies to some scientists, also, and I would expect that it may apply to particular atheists). However, there are many persons who are devoutly religious and also very curious about many things; and historically, religious scholars have often been at the forefront of naturalist and other philosophical considerations. The Age of Reason, and the Scientific Method, came out of a Christian culture, and these were not at all exclusively the product of atheists. Many great scientists of history, proceeded with their investigations, due to their "religious" belief in a rational and intelligible Creator God that designed nature according to rational and intelligible Laws of Nature that could be found and described.
Not exactly. Photosynthesis (and there are some animals that do it, too, btw) uses light energy to convert carbon dioxide and water, into glucose (a simple sugar). So, photosynthesis starts with physical material and ends with physical material; it's just the configuration of the physical material, that changes.
What is significant about photosynthesis, is that it represents an ability to use light as the energy source for the chemical reaction; we (and other chemosynthesizers) get our energy to do chemical reactions, from other physical materials (usually, breaking the carbon-to-carbon bonds in glucose, to release the energy that the plants used to form the bonds, and that originally came as sunlight).
I suppose that the energy that holds a chemical compound together, can be regarded as a component of the chemical compound - in which case, you're right, in a way (also, E=MC^2 suggests that glucose may be "heavier" than the the equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide and water parts from which it was constructed, due to the added energy, although I don't know if this is so). I just thought that I should add some clarification.
It is pretty amazing to think that (almost) all the energy that drives life, started as sunlight (there are organisms at the bottom of the food chain, in the deep ocean, that use hydrogen sulfide, coming out of deep-sea vents, as their original life-energy source). It is also pretty amazing to think that all the various materials that constitute life (and everything else) almost entirely started as clouds of hydrogen, that collected into stars and was then fused into larger elements, then got scattered into space as the star exploded, eventually to form new stars and planets (with the larger elements included in them).
Recent technology (including the development of antibiotics, somewhat reliable contraception and abortifacient drugs and surgical abortion), has mitigated, but not eliminated, some causes for concerns that seem likely to have informed traditional articles of sexual morality.
Also, marriage is a societal institution. Societal institutions are established, maintained and supported, because they are regarded as being beneficial to all citizens, generally. Marriage essentially represents a formal, certified and recorded, public promise, between a man and a woman - in front of witnesses and a magistrate - to stay together (a "marriage" also represents the execution of that promise, the actual staying together). Such an established permanence of association, between man and woman, is societally beneficial, because it provides reason for confidence that their children (which are a naturally expected consequence of intimate associations, generally, between the sexes) will be provided, by their parents (so that others don't have to bear that burden) with sustenance (in accordance with the characteristic necessity of human children, to receive such sustenance, in order to survive), and with moral education (in accordance with the characteristic tendency of children, to grow up and become the neighbors of other citizens, who would like assurance that their new neighbor will not be a threat, or even a nuisance).
Since children are not a generally expected consequence of intimate association between homosexuals, therefore establishing and supporting permanence of these associations, would not represent the same societal benefit that is the case with traditional "marriage," notwithstanding that it may please the participating individuals, to engage in such associations and even to make public declarations of love and commitment to their relationships.
Some heterosexual marriages do not result in children. Presumably, they are granted in accordance with the traditional standard, without intrusive inquiry into the intent or reproductive capabilities of the applicants.
I don't know the reasons for prohibitions of polygamy; they may include concerns about jealousy among marital partners, and implied lack of available sexual partners for others, and perhaps societal stresses that may result from this. I have read some stuff about China's "one-child law," and the apparent preference for a male child, and concern about the resulting consequences of such an imbalance among the sexes, such that there will likely be a lot of male children who grow up to find a lack of available women.
BTW, it has been asserted that an alleged 10% homosexual fraction of a population, is exaggerated, and that 1-3% would, instead, be accurate.
It's worth noting that Mosaic law was the system of civil laws for the Hebrew civilization, notwithstanding that they are often characterized simply as "religious." Many of them are recognizably reasonable and beneficial ideas.
I would interpret it as more of a matter of extra-long fingers (good for holding on to tree branches), rather than short thumb. In any case, apes are quite capable with their hands (and feet).
Giant Squid is OK, IFF it uses an H-shifter (and the waving of tentacles, is realistically simulated). But no piranhas, since their inclusion would obviously be blasphemous (please keep in mind that LFS is a racing simulator).
I understand what you are proposing. My point was that the shape of a monkey's (or ape's) foot is likely determined by a very complex set of genes (representing specific nucleotide sequences in DNA), and it is unlikely that mutations (each, a generally random change in a nucleotide sequence - including additions, deletions and substitutions of one or more nucleotides) would occur in a humanoid, so as virtually to duplicate/restore that set of genes and cause a humanoid foot to evolve into, again, a monkey (this time, ape) foot. It is quite conceivable that a humanoid could evolve into a tree-dweller, with a form of foot that was adapted to that way of life, but not likely the exact same type of foot as had been the earlier adaptation.
So, rather than that monkey-like feet evolved into humanoid feet, and then evolved again, and exactly back into monkey-like feet, it is instead more likely that apes simply retain their monkey-like feet, and human feet have evolved from these.
The alternative is not entirely far-fetched, since the hands of humans and apes, and the feet of apes, are pretty similar, and a perhaps-not-greatly-complex set of mutations (or even a single mutation; I don't know the specific details of what would be required) in some basic developmental genes could result in something like a hand growing on the end of a leg, which is similar to what seems to be the case with apes and monkeys (although I don't actually know the precise bone anatomy of an ape's, or monkey's, lower limb).
I would add, however, that the example pertaining to feet, is just one obvious example of what may be many similarities between monkeys and apes, and differences from humans.
Suffice it to say that I don't know exactly why apes and early humanoids are placed in the evolutionary relationship that they are (with the former preceding the latter, rather than vice-versa). I had quite a difficult time coming up with a reasonable explanation, to address your proposition, from the knowledge that I have (lucky for me, you had mentioned thumbs, and that eventually suggested an approach), but there are biologists and anthropologists that have much more knowledge than I have, and I expect that a better explanation can be found.
They do. They have thumbs with fine control - enough to grasp a small insect, among the hair of another ape, and remove it (which "grooming" is a common social behavior). You can Google for images, or go visit a zoo, in order to convince yourself about the form and abilities of ape-thumbs.
Chimpanzees, at least, are also capable of making simple tools (including, at least, stripping the leaves and branches off a stick, and using it to collect insects). Their lesser (compared to humans) technological abilities are perhaps the result of a smaller brain (including abstraction and language areas), rather than a lack of physical abilities such as manual dexterity.
That's not surprising. Muscular coordination is a skill that must be developed through experience. Note how clumsy small children can be.
P.S. - I don't know how to do the multiple-quote thing, either. I just click on "quote" and then split the quote into sections and copy/paste the quote and unquote prefixes/suffixes, in order to quote each section, separately. I think that the "multi-quote" button is for quoting multiple posts; maybe you just click it for every post that you want to quote, and then "quote" the last one, and all are included in your edit window. But you still have to split them and so on, as I described (Edit: yup; I checked it, and that's how it works).
I agree that it's not at all a stupid idea, but instead, quite a thoughtful one.
First, however, apes do have opposable thumbs (and opposable big toes, also; using one's feet only for walking, rather than also for grasping, as would be useful for a tree-dweller, is arguably better served by the human form of foot).
Anyway, figuring out evolutionary relationships, can be difficult, and the conclusions are often uncertain (and have, in some cases, been notably revised, as new knowledge - especially, increased understanding of genetics - has become available). The scientific approach to your hypothesis, would be to design an experiment to test it (what would you expect to find, if you were correct or, especially, if you were incorrect?). I'm really not sure what would be an appropriate experiment. However, it seems unlikely that apes would have feet similar to monkeys, if their ancestors had human-like feet; mammals apparently returned to the sea, as whales, but these do not have fish-tails.
But you are certainly correct that what you call "devolution" occurs, notwithstanding the popular belief that "evolution" tends toward greater complexity ("more evolved" organisms; actually, all organisms are equally evolved, inasmuch as having successfully adapted to their circumstances). Examples can be found, especially, among some parasitic organisms, which have adapted to their use of the host's processes, and so have discarded their own, similar, abilities that they no longer need and that would require energy for them to maintain.
Reportedly, Darwin disliked the term "evolution," since he regarded it as falsely implying a directionality to the process that he described ("evolution" would literally translate as "turning outward" or "unfolding," as if connoting the inevitable blossoming of a flower).
Not monkeys; African Great Apes (orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees). And the idea is not quite that humans are descended FROM these, but that humans, and these, are both descended from a common ancestor, and that humans have a more recent common ancestor, with these, than with other organisms.
The similarities (same nucleotide sequences) in DNA, between humans and chimpanzees, are in the high 90's percent (I forget the precise number), compared with similarities in DNA, between humans and dandelions, of 79% (I'll take your word for that) - indicating that humans have a more recent common ancestor, with chimpanzees, than with dandelions.
Carbon dating is generally only possible for previously living material, and its half-life would be too short, anyway, for geological dating. Potassium-argon is the usual geological method.
Here is a link to a description of the method used to measure the age of a material, by measuring the extent of radioactive decay of a component of the material:
My understanding was that this was basically what you were advocating.
The answer depends upon what you mean by "force their beliefs upon others." Violating other adults, by physical force, is not behavior that is permissible, since it is inconsistent with a condition of civilization. Advocating one's ideas, is permissible.
No; I don't equate them. However, I do recognize that religion may be a source of morality, so that religious education may be an example of moral education.
And religious parents can teach their children morals, with invoking a deity.
The law provides guidelines for people's behavior, based upon its suppositions about the requirements of the society, which suppositions may or may not be based on any supreme being and, in any case, are likely to be based upon axiomatic beliefs.
What is not nice about the law, is that it is sometimes arrogant, having been intended to act to satisfy people's desires, rather than merely to act as their agency of self-defense (and in either case, acting violently, since that is intrinsically characteristic of law and government).
As I tried to explain, children are a special case; they have no ability to choose their beliefs, until they have some beliefs to inform the choice. Also, there is of course a difference between asking religious people to do something, and forcibly compelling them to do it.
I tend to expect that you teach your children to understand the world, as you understand it, just as other parents - religious or otherwise - generally do. I am pleased that your understanding of the world, includes an understanding that people eventually must make up their own minds; I think that parents generally tend, eventually, to recognize this - some, sooner than others. How they behave in the meanwhile, or after, is best subject to evaluation, with regard to their specific behaviors. I don't suppose that there is any ideal parenting technique that would be justifiably enforcible.
I here define "violence" as "the use of force, to compel another person's compliance with one's own will."
This is what government's job is. Government, by conceptual definition, is that which is the source of Law, and such law is a statement, by government, of its conditional intent to commit violence. Quoting George Washington:
"Government is not Reason; government is not Eloquence. Government is FORCE - which, like Fire, is a dangerous servant, and a fearsome master."
So, governmental suppression of religion is not something that may or may not "lead to violence;" it is violence - just as armed robbery is a violent crime, whether or not the robber actually shoots his victim for failure to hand over the money, and as rape is a violent crime, whether or not the rapist actually stabs his victim with the knife held to her throat, for failure to comply with his will.
I tend to agree - if, by "deny others the freedom," you mean "commit acts of violence."
However...
Somebody has to, I daresay. Children are a peculiar consideration. They begin life, seeming to have their base instincts, but not wisdom or moral judgement; these are things that they have to learn - through force (you may have a difficult time, explaining to a young child, why he shouldn't be beating up his baby sister, sticking his fingers in the electrical outlet, or carelessly running into the street - better just to grab him), and through example.
Any intellectual conclusions that children are likely to come to, are likely to be based upon principles that they have already "absorbed" (as Dawkins described it, in his letter, linked in post #89, here), and regard as axiomatic - which may perhaps be characterized as "having beliefs forced upon them."
Anyway, if parents don't do it, then who would you have do it? Government? Do you expect that a government is likely to have greater concern for the well-being of a child, than the ones who created it and perhaps hold it more dear than their own lives?
There are exceptions, of course.
Well, while I may sympathize with your disapproval of particular beliefs to which particular children are indoctrinated, I am inclined to suggest that one man's "brainwashing" may be another man's "education."
I would certainly agree that violence should be outlawed. Fraud and harrassment may be similarly characterized. I don't know the details of "pressures" by Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses; so, particular behaviors would have to be evaluated. A government is ethically justified as being an agency of violence, for the purpose of being a common agent for the self-defense its citizens. However, I would certainly reject any proposition that, if a particular belief is arguably less credible, or less useful, than such beliefs as may be held by a majority of the community (e.g. - religion vs. science), then it should be forcibly suppressed as if harmful to "the truth." Political freedom begins with the freedom to have one's own thoughts, however disagreeable they may be, to others; violent behavior is justifiably suppressed by force.
would need to be clearly defined, in order to be properly considered. Literally, it seems to mean "wrongful use of the mind," which is a pretty nebulous idea, absent specification.
Well, I'll describe, another way, then, what I have in mind:
The most basic description of "reasoning" that I have encountered, is supposing truth inasmuch as there being one or more reasons for such a supposition. If one extends this backwards, one would suppose that, for the reasons to be reliably true (and thus a reliable basis for the conclusion), they must also be supported with their own reasons, and on and on. This is to say that, to infer a truth, by reason, there must be a truth to infer it from, and a truth to infer that from.
Eventually, however far back one wishes to extend this, one must suppose that either there is some foundational reason - some truth that constitutes the starting point for the whole sequence of reasoned conclusions - or there is not. If there is not, then all the reasoned conclusions, that constitute supporting reasons for subsequent conclusions, etc., are unfounded, and there is no reliable basis for the ultimate, reasoned conclusion. If there is a starting truth, upon which is based one's system of reasoning, then it is - since being the starting point - not based upon a previous reason, but instead, simply stipulated as being true. Again referring to Descartes, he found that the only intrinsic truth that he recognized, was "I think, therefore I am," which does not seem to be useful for most purposes. Instead, the starting truth is not intrinsically true, it is simply presumed to be true. Such a presumed truth is what I have called an axiom.
In practice, such a presumed truth may include that one's sensory impressions are accurate, and that the meaning that one attributes to them, is accurate (how do you know that the set of photons, that has stimulated your visual apparatus, means "a tree," or whatever?). These, it seems to me, are "absorbed" (as Dawkins characterized them, in his letter, referenced in post #89, in this thread) axioms of language and perception.
So, let's suppose that you know that a thing is true, and you are quite confident about that, since you saw it, yourself; this is your system of reasoning (quite simple, in this case; you have supposed truth, and you have a reason for supposing that it is true: the reason being your own observation). This depends upon a presumption that you are capable of seeing, accurately, and capable of interpreting, accurately, what you see; these would be axiomatically true.
More complicated systems of reasoning, are similar; they depend upon some presumed, axiomatic truth(s). As far as my experience goes, this is the case for all mathematics; I have not encountered any math system that is not an "axiomatic system." The axioms may differ in, for example, Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry, or what would constitute a definition of truth, as proved in classical math vs. Intuitionism (as I understood the term; I had to look it up on Wikipedia; I am no expert mathematician). But there must be axioms, including the definitions of terms or other presumptions that inform the consideration.
So, my general point is that we tend to presume that certain things are already true, and we reason new truths, from them. Many things that are already "true," we are likely to presume to be true, because they are part of our "absorbed" culture, including family upbringing and early, formal education.
I doubt that anyone can do better than Descartes, finding an intrinsic truth beyond what he found in his own mind. I doubt that the intellect can conjure its own truths, with no axioms for the intellect to work from.
So, the question becomes: what are the best axioms? I cannot provide an authoritative answer, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I can only suppose that we are likely to do best, by acknowledging that it is the nature of each person to think for himself, and perhaps to communicate his ideas, and we can argue about them, and hopefully get some useful agreement, without anybody's trying to forcibly coerce compliance with his (or their) particular ideas - especially including, by the agency of government.
John Stuart Mill argued something like this (governmental suppression of social pressures), in On Liberty, but it's a bad idea; it basically proposes violence in defense against persuasion.
Laws in the USA, at least, protect religious freedom - this being specified as a requirement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[...]" Like some other such prohibitions against federal laws, the principle has been expanded (14th Amendment) to include other lawmaking bodies, in addition to Congress.
So, in the USA, religion is "favored" by not being suppressed by law (also, it is not to be compelled). Some persons have argued (with considerable success, in some cases) that "freedom of religion" means that there is a legal requirement that no person should be exposed to religious ideas or practices. This is excessive, since it constrains, by force of law, "the free exercise" of religion. Religion is also "favored," in some circumstances, by tax immunity; this is intended to represent an acknowledgment that churches are typically charitable organizations, and this should not suffer interference, by governmental confiscation of funds that are likely to be used for charity (and to have been given with that intent and expectation) - perhaps with a purpose, instead, of substituting governmental "charity." There are other organizations that enjoy similar tax immunity.
There is a great variety of social pressures, to believe and to act, besides those that may pertain to religion, particularly. It is unlikely that this fact of human societies, can be entirely eliminated, and I don't suppose that the expression or practice of religious beliefs, particularly, justifies forcible suppression.
I would add that, in the "Moment of Clarity" thread, I alluded to Godel's proof that axioms are inevitably necessary as a precondition for reasoning. It seems to me that particular religious beliefs may represent such axioms, and attempting to suppress them will not eliminate the need for axioms; it can only favor different axioms, which may be similarly objectionable.
The explanation makes it more interesting than it would be, otherwise, but I cannot imagine why anyone would find it so insightful as to pay $3million.
BTW, if any of you guys have seen the album cover of Moody Blues' "Days of Future Past," it is much more thoughtful (and more skillfully done), in my opinion. It would make a very nice poster, to hang on my wall (but I still wouldn't pay $3million).
P.S. - Also, the painter maybe should have somehow connected the puddle to the diving board.
OK. Well, I still don't know what "aero push" means, but your reply has given me even more reason to look forward to OTP, to see what I can learn about it all. Thanks.