This is a note.

As stated here, enforcing this in any meaningful way would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to achieve.

test

test

There's a site http://docdrop.org/ that let's you drag a PDF and wrap it with the annotation tool in seconds.

I'm annotating XML!

HI!

Let's order another test here just to make sure, ok?

I'm not quite sure what it is about this line, but when people talk about Jabberwocky, it's almost always the line they cite. Even kids seem to love it!

Very curious. And what in God's name would be the incentive for them to do that?

just use "hypothes.is" the "www." is not necessary, and we never specify it.

neither Dan Whaley, nor Michiel Schujit,

these

Hypothes.is

sustainable income

this will still

Though it is expected that a minority

publications

publications

customers

"for free" > "free"

though

Actually, eLife is our first paying customer-- I'm not sure if that is a useful distinction here. Your call.

We have received notice that we've moved to the final round. We have not yet received notice of award.

"Annotation layer turns web­vbased information to the higher level of scientific reliable information providing annotations to all pretended facts and reasoning"

I'd probably say "the annotation layer enables communities of experts to bring their critical analysis to bear over web-based information for the purpose of providing a useful counterpoint that can benefit their colleagues or the general public."

This is accurate.

While the annotating all knowledge link is useful here, you should probably point to the Hypothes.is/about page for information directly related to H. Your discretion here of course.

Technically, the name of the organization is "Hypothes.is Project"

Like this.

like this

hi Earl

Like so. This reminds me of another article.

Right now, we don't allow highlights in the Public channel, since they don't carry any value as conversation. We may or may not decide to allow them in publisher groups-- or to make that configurable.

Two very key and well chosen words. Much wisdom lies here! We all know when we hear a story that's so compelling it's like "Wow, of COURSE. This is not only absolutely going to happen, but it's going to change everything in the process."

For me, these words help crystalize how important it is to choose wisely when deciding what to pursue in the first place. If it's not an idea that's got inevitability written all over it, then keep moving till you find it.

A "tech person" issue? Huh? Because only "tech people" need to charge and listen at the same time? This is a non-sensical response. User reports are already coming in to the contrary. You'd be on firmer ground if you said something like "given the extra battery life of the 7 plus, you're more likely to find times when you can charge versus times when you have to listen".

But otherwise, you're simply off base here. I'm not sure about others, but I regularly find myself charging and listening at the same time. At the moment, other than some very very clunky adapters, there are no solutions at all. I'm blown away that Apple didn't at least come out with their own slimmed down version of this thing-- so that at LEAST there was an OEM offering out the gate.

Or-- and perhaps more relevant here-- clicking on a link to an annotation?

This might seem more obvious to someone in the domain, but it's not necessarily so to me. Why isn't it just as easy to create these dense connections in an arXiv preprint as it is in a paywalled journal article?

You've nailed it. We don't toss around social network only because it's an overly broad container that carries a lot of baggage-- and also because we fail pretty miserably (at present) at providing the basic features (@mentions, following, better notifications) that you'd expect if we were to claim this. But our aspirations are to enable these kinds of capabilities.

test

Most naive statement in this document?

I appreciate the graceful thinking that went into this suggestion-- particularly since I (think I) know how much you regret the "all replies are annotations" decision that was made way before you had a say in things.

I remember us discussing this at length, and of course, there is a rationale for it-- which I supported, and I imagined even argued strongly for, since that is kind of my M.O. HOWEVER. I'll say for the record that if there is significant benefit to be had from disallowing this, then I wouldn't be too torn up by having to let it go.

Personally I have never never never done this in actual practice. Though I suppose I could imagine it.

I'm seconding Jeremy's "Whaaa?" but creating this as a top level annotation because I truly thought that we had specifically disallowed this corner case, for obvious reasons (i.e. the only one that could even see my annotation in order to reply to it -- publicly or otherwise -- is me. So replying publicly to my own private annotation is like "me outing myself".) Anyway. I've just checked whether this is indeed possible, and LO AND BEHOLD, it IS. Ugh. Anyway. Let it be said that this isn't a behavior we should care about preserving!!!! :)

Nick, if I could kiss you right now, I would. I love you for writing this down in plain, straightforward prose to give us all detail to work from. Yay!

That's quite a bit!

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Figure it out. That's your job.

Out of the sea, out of the sea!

yrdy

As though it's surprising that within a new social system (i.e. networked computers) that there are humans that will exploit it. Isn't that an assumed characteristic of any human system? One might even ask whether it's necessarily a bad aspect of human behavior. Obviously depends on degree.

In other words, they must be ... hackers?

test

Or ... actually pay attention to what their customers want and don't?

What a load of crap. Why is there this insistence that everything Apple does "must be for our good"?

What if in fact, hundreds of millions of people are actually going to be really irritated by this change, but still want the new tech enough that they go ahead and buy one despite their misgivings. Why not give them a dongle and make their lives better?

Why is this logical? Why must everything be wireless, and require batteries, or separate power?

I love that my current headphones can spin around the jack. That my single set of headphones use an industry standard plug and work on any of the four devices that I carry, that they're cheap ($20) and that they last four years.

Why is this an improvement?

Again-- these things are possible now. Bluetooth exists.

But iPhones already have Bluetooth and have for years. The only reason that this would "page the way for mass adoption of Bluetooth" (ignoring that Bluetooth is already a generally adopted mainstream technology) is that using conventional headphones will be harder (need a dongle) and less convenient.

If people widely adopt a new technology because something simpler that billions of folks have been doing for decades has suddenly been taken away from them, I wouldn't call that "paving the way", I'd call it "shoving it down their throats".

test

test

There's a java library called CERMINE that could be adapted to this.

Here's an annotation that refers to another.

Hypothes.is supports this through fuzzy anchoring, and also an ability to relate a document to other equivalent versions.

Certainly if you're using your best judgment, and that judgment is actually... good, then it's pointless to find fault after the fact.

But it's clear that killing people indiscriminately isn't good judgment. That it was evil and immoral and created obvious consequences. When people do bad things that are obvious later, they should own up to them, and acknowledge their mistakes, and offer apologies-- particularly when those actions were responsible for millions of deaths.

Moral equivalence.... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Or... Bandwagon fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Henry, when you meet your maker, and he asks "Why?" Will you say... "It was in the American interest?"

You might think about leveraging the power of web annotations (w3.org/annotation) in order to have conversations that can exist in layers over Wikipedia-- for use as corrections, suggestions, references to other articles and many other things. Our implementation works in mobile, though there's obvious work that we need to do to improve the optimization of it.

This is a completely open source project, with a goal of providing a universal web annotation interface that can pull annotations from any hosted source. We'd love to work with you to understand how annotation can be the powerful layer that enables readers to provide these contributions!

Well it's always good to wonder aloud I suppose-- but come on. If I had the choice between A and B, A being 35k and B being 37k and B would drive me from my house to my destination without intervention... and safely? I can't believe the author is speculating about this. I'd not only pay 2k, I'd probably pay 10 or 15k more. It's a fundamentally transformative technology.

Yeah, maybe I'm not the average buyer, but I think most people would agree whether they can afford it or not, that fundamentally it's worth it.

Isn't it the most delicious line ever?

Ok, here's one more

Indeed it does!

test

About the best breakdown of nonsense I've seen!

What more can one say than "Sometimes a little nonsense goes a long way."

test

Hi Sebastian

People often ask about this restriction. It's worth explaining why.

Basically, in our Public channel, we want the highlights on text to be of value to others. A single highlight by a single user without any other content doesn't meet that threshold in my view.

Certainly, in the Kindle, Amazon will show you "things other people highlighted". That's different in our eyes-- it's a statistical representation of attention. We might consider that at some point ourselves. The question here is: Should we show every single highlight as a separate thing on a page just because someone was making a personal underline for their own benefit. To us, the answer is "no".

We can see the benefit of you being able to personally share a bunch of highlights you've made with a specific person or group of people. That to us is probably a separate permission level, and a separate sharing model. For instance, you might share a specific link to your highlighted version of a document.

TBD.

firefox

Because they're already pre-prints. :) This is very similar to the notion of overlay journals in that regard.

ORCID isn't a perfect solution-- anyone can get one-- but it might be a start.

I imagine that this is something arXiv might provide too. While they don't do a human review, they do perform a few analyses, and certainly would be keen to ensure that arXiv submissions are original works.

Of course. Like this one.

Yes. For instance, like this: Meta! Background article.

Yes. For instance, like this: Meta! Background article.

Yes. Currently we support mapping to the PDF fingerprint of a paper, however it's clear that we'll need to be able to detect arXiv IDs of papers as well as DOIs (perhaps using CERMINE or an equivalent algorithm).

I think this is a mandatory behavior for any good annotation solution.

We've been working closely with arXiv, and they are a member of the new Annotating All Knowledge coalition. As soon as we're (or anyone is) able to ship a client which can listen to any annotation service, I think arXiv will consider implementing. At our current rate of progress, this will be ready in 2017.

(This is a side note, but may not bear on your project).

This is the new normal-- and not just in machine learning.

test

How do you deport Americans from America?

These variations however would presumably manifest evenly for all lanes however. It seems the basic issue is whether manufacturing tolerances can be reduced further-- and guaranteed in all construction regimes that might host events. Seems reasonable that this is enough of a challenge to make thousandth's timings too difficult. Fascinating.

This. The secret ingredient in any success is almost always insane amounts of persistence, above and beyond what any rational person would ever contemplate.

Here's another annotation.

Hi Rob.

Here's an article by Doug's daughter Christina Englebart on the importance of Hypothes.is' Direct Linking.

This.

Is it really so hard to believe that the "real world" is one characterized by people that are self-serving, self-dealing, often corrupt, and willing to do whatever it takes to win, including cheating?

Aren't we continually bombarded by news reports that uncover pretty much exactly these types of events? Instead of thinking of them as massive 'conspiracies' perpetrated by tinfoil hat wearing nutters, why not simply think of this as the natural predisposition of our race-- that where advantage may be had, directly or indirectly, that people at all levels will push for it and often do. Particularly in high-stakes sports like NBA basketball.

Clearly we need look no further than FIFA to know that what we would call 'conspiracy' is actually the normal functioning modality of some sports.

Your guess may be correct that there is nothing to see here. But to dismiss it out of hand is incredibly naive.

Like so.

Wow. In 2016, we're thinking about a decentralized implementation.

Jabberwocky!

Say something about it.

It is this "denial of justice" provision that is perhaps most worrisome. There are many examples (here and here) of how this seemingly innocuous provision, buried at the end of this otherwise reasonable list of protections can be a real problem for citizens who will bear the cost of these lawsuits.

Even the European Parliament voted in its resolution of 8 July 2015 to "replace the ISDS system with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states"

Test

What a great guy.

Actually, there's some great information about this.

Like this.

We should look no further than the European Parliament when wondering whether the ISDS is an effective system for dispute resolution!

Background here

This is a key example of how the principle of "Denial of Justice" in TTIP can be quite problematic. [Source article]

Good background document on the Yukos v Russia ISDS case.

This is a great example of the problems with TTIP.

Translated:

"Vattenfall had sued Germany in 2012 after the atomic got out damages amounting to nearly 4.7 billion euros to an international arbitration court in Washington. In addition, Vattenfall can make default interest per annum over four per cent, or around EUR 190 million claim, if successful, but still. "The federal government currently expects a hearing in the summer of 2016", according to the response."

Test

Yeah, well, she was also top-roped. This was a climb any kid could do with zero risk. Humorous, but not particularly climb-worthy. And-- was this a stunt any cordless vacuum could have handled?

Still -- got my click.

About 25% of the time I am approved for PreCheck despite never having enrolled. Is this because I've been a United MileagePlus member (Gold presently) for close to 20 years?

If I'm clearly a low enough threat (native born, long time frequent flyer, no criminal record) that they occasionally give me the go ahead without having done any of the additional screening questions, then perhaps they should just use these same metrics to auto-enroll a large part of the US population.

Why as tax payers are we being asked to pay for "access" to something that could be free to begin with? Particularly if they're trying to reduce long lines and deal with staffing levels-- not to mention saving travelers the time and hassle of the longer process?

I'd probably vote for "incredibly naive" over "a little bit idealistic". Clearly the assumption is not that the average reader will go to the CF website to read up on the alternate take.

Rather, what we want to achieve is to slowly begin to put more and more pressure upstream on the journalists themselves and those who publish their stories.

This will take more coverage of stories, more quickly, and over many more domains than just climate science.

test

This.

Like this.

Hi Paul.

Indeed we do!

For the time being. Our next steps are to bring annotation to publishers, so that the annotated layer can be seen by default. We've made progress on that through the Annotating All Knowledge coalition that we announced w/ 60 scholarly publishers in December, which Andy mentions further up.

Long term the solution is to bring annotation into the browser, so that it's there natively for all of us by default. This is the work of the W3C Web Annotation working group but it will take some time. There's much to be done.

Testing!!

This is a test.

A close parallel is the situation with movies and music. The online services like Netflix and Spotify are getting good enough now, that people often use them now instead of pirating via Bittorrent. Open access is the scholarly equivalent.

So true. Getting the annotation of pages right is incredibly challenging-- we do have a complete overhaul of the stream planned though. There are some great things coming!

Today Marc Perton at Newsweek covered Hypothes.is with a great article. http://www.newsweek.com/web-annotation-can-comment-any-page-should-you-452666

There seems to be some speculation that perhaps he had a long term drug addiction to opiates that was complicated by recent prescriptions to treat a hip disorder. Sheila E dismisses this though...

What is the Web Annotation working groups thinking on this? Is there anything that the WG needs to formalize?

So, clearly 221 is 13x17. But I wonder why an overlapping year doesn't happen more often. I guess neither 13 nor 17 year cicadas have alternate populations that pop up in off-years? Why not? Is there an obvious evolutionary reason?

It's not as simple as this.

First, what I expect folks’ like Dawson are saying is "don’t make public annotations here”. Are they really arguing that I shouldn’t be able to make private ones either? Probably not.

But what prevents folks from abusing such a button by disabling annotation on things that are of public importance? What if the corrupt government of Turkey puts a “don’t annotate this” tag on their entire gov’t website?

Hypothetically, how would annotation service providers distinguish between respecting such a tag when perhaps it’s a blog by a woman such as Dawson, vs a government like Turkey. It might seem simple conceptually, but there are billions of pages out there, and limited staff. What about a blog by a [insert your favorite scientific or social issue] skeptic who doesn’t want expert community to fact check their blog. Should annotation providers respect that wish and deny this powerful critical lens to concerned scientific or humanist communities?

A slight misquote: What I said (or meant anyway) was more that when humans reason alone, they're more likely to engage in things like self-dealing. A good primer on this is John Brockman's piece in the edge where he explore's Mercier and Sperber's theories on this.

... for now? We've planned extensions for other browsers.

Simplest perhaps... a mobile browser would potentially be another option for heavy annotators.

Well, to be fair, statements by either the NYSE or the federal gov't about whether the halt was a hack or not probably aren't worth much. Public statements like this are pretty much always a calculation of desired messaging and likely reaction, not some objective reflection of truth.

I completely disagree. OKCupid did the right thing.

Say something.

Test

Wait... small chihuahuas!? That can't be right!

The terror of his situation is causing him to feel weak and vulnerable. It’s strange that he should say it’s draining his lifeblood, because fear typically increases heart rate to redistribute blood to the muscles, thus priming the body to fight. However, when fight-or-flight has an alternative: fear paralysis. In infants, situations of extreme terror has triggers the fear paralysis reflex and may induce SID.

Discussed by Jain (2016) here.

This is a key point that relates to another by Dutta and Sorbo (2016) on pNGB quintessence.

Test

This clearly relates to this other blah blah ....asdfapsdjf;lasdkjf;lasdjkf'asd;fasdlkjf;askdjf;asjdkf;kasdjfl;kajsdfasdkf

So true. Further, the culture of the teams behind these platforms has more influence and power in determining the cultural norms of the world we're headed to than nearly anything else.

This might be one of the more brilliant team names ever.

Yes, annotation tech, either Genius's, Hypothesis's or from anyone that will implement the forthcoming w3.org/annotation specification in the future, lets users commentary/community of their choice onto your content. Viewed through the lens of a Web extension implementation (vs a proxy) implementation this commentary can be applied without the tech ever needing to interact directly with your server. It's not being "pasted on top of your work" in the sense that other visitors who haven't made the same choice can't see it.

As a user of the web I have the ability to speak and listen freely (via twitter, reddit or other means). Those communities either do or don't do a good job at providing tools for countering abuse. Presumably, over the long term whether they do a good job has a direct impact on whether users continue to participate in them.

With annotation, the commentary is "on top of" your work in the same way that a tweet that mentions a URL to your website is "on top of" your work.

In fact, we have an open github issue describing a mechanism by which users could pull in tweets, or reddit or facebook posts about the pages that they're visiting automatically. For researchers, they could "listen" to Google Scholar to easily see the citations about the paper they were reading. You might call this "Persistent Ambient Search", i.e. the ability as an Internet user to electively be aware of conversations about the place you're at wherever you are.

Should publishers, bloggers, etc be able to prevent that from happening? Should twitter implement a "tweet.txt" feature that lets websites opt out of their URLs being mentioned in tweets? Should developers be prevented from shipping extensions that query twitter's API for tweets about the web pages a user is visiting?

We understand that the experience of annotation is palpably different, and that we're all envisioning a world in which it is essentially ubiquitous, but lets also understand the complex questions involved here as they relate to speech and the notion of what is in the public space. There is a middle ground.

Our community (we come together at conferences and many other venues, e.g. iannotate.org) has long discussed whether such a mechanism (call it annotate.txt) makes sense in the same way. There are several reasons why I personally don't think so. (I'm specifically discussing using robots.txt here, not the broader question of whether opt-outs make sense, which I agree with under specific conditions)

First, web crawlers consume resources. Anyone who's operated a website at scale knows that crawlers (from all of the search engines together) can sometimes represent a high percentage (in the double digits) of traffic. That's server load that the publisher has to pay for.

Second, search engines essentially republish content. The goal of indexing it is to expose it to others and make it discoverable in search results which usually are a foundation for advertising revenue for search services.

Annotation by contrast is speech. If you've published something publicly on the web then it's natural that others want to say something about it. They've already clicked on your web page and it's now inside their browser. When they comment on it, it's not consuming resources like a crawler.

If an opt-out mechanism is to be explored, it needs its own kind of signaling, and robots.txt is likely not the right place for that. With robots.txt you effectively "ban" crawlers from your pages, here I think the negotiation between you and The Public is more complicated. Page owners should be able to indicate a preference, but the public should also be able to override page owners' preferences when subject material is in the public interest.

Where that line is and how it becomes negotiated should be something we explore together.

This is going to be helpful on our local bike trail.

This. Is. A. Once. In. A. Lifetime. Moment.

What astonishes me is that my senator, Dianne Feinstein, is so consistently out of touch with where technology is headed, and so completely unable to frame her arguments in the context of why strong encryption exists in the first place. Further, there is no thoughtful exploration of the ramifications of her proposals, there's just the security state perspective and nothing else.

How about putting a public round-table discussion together to explore the issues?

Dianne, as your constituent as well as your neighbor-- one that lives just a mile away-- you are an utter disgrace as an elected representative to your people, particularly those of us in the technology industry.

This was cited by the NY Times as one of the brutally candid views offered by Ambassador Christopher Dell.

The relevant Wikileaks cable is here.

I think this probably creates a copyright issue.

Also, who would do the cloning, where would it be hosted. This would essentially fork content, and perhaps result in an even greater loss of control? What happens if the blogger wants to update the master, how do they update the copy?

I made this!

ho

Or... pretty much everything else. Human reaction time is nowhere near fast enough to dodge an incoming missile or other attack. I'm not a fan of killer robots, but this argument is incredibly disingenuous.

The counterpoint to this of course is that if annotation becomes as widespread, standardized and pervasive as we imagine it will-- and indeed hope it will-- then the notion that anyone can see the stall without the graffiti may become a moot point.

Can you believe it had maggots in it? Eewww!

test

test

We agree for essentially the same reason. That's why we formed Hypothes.is as a non-profit, according to a set of principles.

This is not completely accurate in two important ways. First, the Genius Web Annotator is a javascript client that can be injected either via a browser extension or via a proxy. Only the proxy version retrieves the page via their server. Their chrome extension does not. Our own open source annotation client at Hypothes.is works the same way.

Second, I think it's probably a stretch to say that a proxy redirect that is used solely for the purpose of injecting the javascript annotation layer is appropriation in exactly the same sense. Originally Rap Genius duplicated the lyrics on their website, depriving the original publisher of royalties or advertising revenue that they might have made. The proxy redirect doesn't permanently republish the work, but pulls it newly each time the proxy is clicked. Ads that are on the pages are redisplayed, paywalls are respected.

Certainly you could make the argument that because the proxy redirect strips the user information away and thus blinds the publisher to details about the user that might be helpful in targeting ads, that there is a possible commercial loss to publishers.

However, if you neither serve ads nor need meticulous analytics around exactly who is clicking on your site (probably most bloggers), then whether the reader comes via a proxied link or directly by browsing to your site may be more academic than substantive. The server load is the same and the end result is that your page is copied into their browser where they can read it.

Those of us in the annotation community (and particularly those of us that participate in the W3C Web Annotation working group) are working to deliver specifications and implementations of annotation that can eventually ship natively with browsers--eliminating the need for tricks like extensions or proxies. You'd sign into the annotation services (i.e. communities) that you want to listen to.

It's probably worth separating the technical implementation from the conceptual discussion of the speech that's happening (and in what ways it's both connected to and removed from what it references), since there are a variety of ways (some now and some in the future) that this layer can manifest. I'm not suggesting that there's no room for a discussion of proxies, or site owners' rights with respect to them, simply that perhaps there are two discussions worth having.

Is the corollary argument here that via a web extension I shouldn't be able to create an annotation on a remote server (even if that annotation isn't delivered and reanchored to the original content thru a proxy)?

Here's an extensive list we maintain (not exhaustively, nor accurately in many of the details, but as more of a scratch pad). We had extensive interviews and discussions with many on this list in developing Hypothes.is, including John Atcheson (mentioned below), who's a friend and colleague that I also worked with in assisting Getaround, as well as his co-founder Todd Herman.

The primary difference here is that the site is implementing, and integrating, the tech directly into the page. Medium is only "annotation" in the sense that it's in the margin-- in all other respects it's simply the same paradigm as the other flavors of web commenting systems, such as Disqus, Livefyre, fb comments, etc.

Web annotation in the sense of the W3C definition is a model where annotation services are provided by third parties and lie elsewhere. Users invite them to your page, and otherwise they're not visible to other readers who have not done the same.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that annotation providers did not offer proxy services, or that those proxy services could be prevented by publishers using something like an annotate.txt file (or even simply metadata in HTML headers that said effectively "please don't proxy").

But that even if you were explicit about not wanting your pages to be proxied, your pages could still be annotated by users with various browser extensions, or by the tech that is eventually likely to ship natively with browsers.

Would you have an objection to this kind of annotation?

Saying that the NYT lets you "select which articles are available for annotation" suggests that somehow they are exercising editorial control over annotation in the same way that they do for their native commenting platform-- which is disabled for selected and usually controversial articles, op-ed pieces, etc.

However, what the NYT did was demand that Genius disable their proxy service (what you get when you prepend a URL with genius.it/) for NYT articles. The reason that Genius complied is that the NYT could have blocked the proxy anyway (and may have done so).

However, NYT articles can still be annotated by using the Genius web extension. The NYT has no way of knowing whether the reader happens to deploy an annotation extension within the scope of their browser.

In this respect, Genius and Hypothesis function the same way. The architecture is dictated by the realities of the way the Web works.

Many of us feel that ultimately annotation tech may ship natively with browsers, eliminating most of the friction involved in their use, but also any recourse that publishers may have to block conversations. Thus the tension described elsewhere here between speaking truth to power and having control over conversations that are unwanted.

Your blog is still yours.

Because you're speaking publicly, people are going to talk about it, on twitter, on facebook, on reddit... and with annotation. There's nothing different about annotation except that it "magically" brings the things people say over top of your content. There's Genius, there's Hypothesis, and potentially someone may create a plugin that brings tweets over the top of the posts they're about. But the key difference here is that it's your readers that are consciously making the choice to bring those communities over your content. When I come to your blog post without those tools, your content is just the way you intended it, with only your clean unfettered page.

The problem of course is that if you provide a way to disable annotation, then it pretty much kills the "speak truth to power" angle.

This. So much of organizational conditioning and response-- and really modern life-- can be summed up in this one statement.

A fantastic insight that really gets to the root of different kinds of social psychology. Some people want to participate in and contribute to society. Some want to tear it down. Others want to poke it and see how it responds while sipping tequila.

It's the law!

The new Ben-Hur can't possibly beat the old one.

What's wrong with a little arsenic in your tea?

Actually the VA gets most sjdflajdf;kasdjf;ljasd.m