alternate link: http://rutube.ru/video/8d394c602806d77a02a28f6e7e3cc76b/
alternate link: http://rutube.ru/video/8d394c602806d77a02a28f6e7e3cc76b/
Perhaps it could go something like this:
"Did you hear," I said, "that Snowden gave the alternate Christmas address that airs in Britain every year in response to the official one from the Crown?" I was never good at meaningless conversation. I read the news.
"Really?" He made a face like a small town accountant taking an enormous dump. "I'm surprised they even give the time of day to such a traitor."
"Traitor?!" If you knew me, you'd be able to tell from the tones in my voice that any attempt to make small talk went out the window. "You think he's a traitor?! You didn't want to know about all the warrantless surveillance, the erosion of our civil liberties? Not to mention the damage done to the economy by the NSA having broken everything in order to get past encryption! Not to mention the damage done to our reputation! Do you realize what it does to our economy? Who trusts American security? Did you know RSA themselves said 'Don't use our software?'"
Not to mention the blow to the creativity born of a free and open exchange of ideas.
If we hadn't had the freedom to think, to hack, the innovation upon which the modern age is built would never have been born. If this freedom is killed, prosperity dies with it, and all the promise of the internet age.
But I would no doubt have not mentioned that, having noticed how, suddenly, you could hear a pin drop. I go on, projecting my voice, hoping for eloquence somehow.
"Aren't you afraid of how fascist and totalitarian the government has gotten?"
I can tell he thinks I am wrong, especially on the last point, and that I should be wrong. "If we cannot stop them," I say, "at least now we can talk about it. Maybe, just maybe, if we are smart, we can defend against it!" He is shaking his head patronizingly, righteously expecting to be agreed with. I get a little emotional again, and say "Don't you.... You don't mind being spied on constantly?"
He shrugs his shoulders, smug. "I don't get so... stressed..." -- he waves his drink in my general direction -- "about it, like some people. I don't see the point, and I have better things to do. Let them look at me, I don't mind. I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'm not worried." And then he said it.
"I don't have anything to hide."
"I don't have anything to hide."
Well, Gentle Readers, happy tidings! Peace on earth furthered and good will propagated! Now you needn't dread the rest of the conversation; thanks to this gift to the world from the kind and wise folks at Wikipedia, you can just tell them to look it up. Thank you, Wikipedia: I for one am saved countless future hours in which I will no longer need to risk engaging personally with such idiots.
Let's create it.
Be seeing you,
Not for the anti-intellectual of heart.
(h/t Reggie Watts)
Be seeing you!
Famine? War? Superbugs? Superstorms? Political corruption? Unemployment and economic collapse? The police state, jackbooted and torturing? The fact that almost anyone can buy your private information? Scarcely a corporate contract, personal digital appliance, or health provider you can trust? Hospitalization may be more frightening than incarceration. Being faced with reliance on government assistance may be more frightening than both.
Its those kids wearing black that you have to worry about. Of course.
Excerpted from the statement that the Honorable Matthew G. Olsen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, gave in his hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on November 14, 2013:
The Homeland Threat Landscape and U.S. Response.
Here's the whole text; pdf link and source appended. Click each to enlarge.
Pdf: right-click below. h/t Cryptome.org.
|Invasion of the Privacy Snatchers II - or, how I never learned to stop worrying and love my cell phone -- a faustian mashup|
Just what you needed -- a secret brain in your cell phone. From which many a covert exploit, no doubt.
from OS News:
Every smartphone or other device with mobile communications capability (e.g. 3G or LTE) actually runs not one, but two operating systems. Aside from the operating system that we as end-users see (Android, iOS, PalmOS), it also runs a small operating system that manages everything related to radio. Since this functionality is highly timing-dependent, a real-time operating system is required.
This operating system is stored in firmware, and runs on the baseband processor. As far as I know, this baseband RTOS is always entirely proprietary. For instance, the RTOS inside Qualcomm baseband processors (in this specific case, the MSM6280) is called AMSS, built upon their own proprietary REX kernel, and is made up of 69 concurrent tasks, handling everything from USB to GPS. It runs on an ARMv5 processor.
With this in mind, security researcher Ralf-Philipp Weinmann of the University of Luxembourg set out to reverse engineer the baseband processor software of both Qualcomm and Infineon, and he easily spotted loads and loads of bugs, scattered all over the place, each and every one of which could lead to exploits - crashing the device, and even allowing the attacker to remotely execute code. Remember: all over the air. One of the exploits he found required nothing more but a 73 byte message to get remote code execution. Over the air.
You can do some crazy things with these exploits. For instance, you can turn on auto-answer, using the Hayes command set. This is a command language for modems designed in 1981, and it still works on modern baseband processors found in smartphones today (!). The auto-answer can be made silent and invisible, too.
While we can sort-of assume that the base stations in cell towers operated by large carriers are "safe", the fact of the matter is that base stations are becoming a lot cheaper, and are being sold on eBay - and there are even open source base station software packages. Such base stations can be used to target phones. Put a compromised base station in a crowded area - or even a financial district or some other sensitive area - and you can remotely turn on microphones, cameras, place rootkits, place calls/send SMS messages to expensive numbers, and so on. Yes, you can even brick phones permanently.
Don't suppose you feel any safer -- hard to feel any less safe.
Be seeing you.
Warning: the following may offend due to its tone and content.
The shooter's name is Paul Ciancia?
CIA 'n CIA?
Is it just me or is that odd? I mean no disrespect to either family or loved ones.
Be seeing you.
|"Free Will," a faustian original|
(skip if you want to the hacks)
Been playing the role of 'mouse' in Google's little cat-and- mouse game that has seemed to be the scheduled entertainment in the topiary maze that is teh interwebs. Not a role for which I signed up, not I was ever completely comfortable with. My darker moments transform the topiary maze to that scene from the Shining: encircled, the privacy conscious end user (that could be you or I, Gentle Reader) is unable to keep tabs on all the shenanigans and cahoots and evil underhandedness.
I keep finding myself given no choice that to hack my way out, and grateful I know how. (See? The topiary metaphor works, now, doesn't it?) More grateful that faceless corporations are not Stephen King's demonic hedge-animals -- (yet? to me?) -- or that I've woken up before that point... so far...
I have so far avoided Google+ only very very carefully. The only time Google has been more sneaky was when it posed as the OS X operating system to get authorization to enable third party cookies in Safari. Correction, and possible confession: that was the only time that I know of -- because they were caught ; and it may only have come to my attention -- because it applied to me.
Very carefully has meant:
- read everything
- don't click on anything
- especially click on nothing
- in a popup
- in an email (exception below)
To this I used to add these methodologies which are specific to avoiding Google+ while signed into Youtube:
- try to use a different browser for Youtube
- when hit with that annoying popup, refresh the page (I click the address bar and hit return, not wanting to risk an accidental 'enter' tat may be taken as a 'yes' by the popup).
- to upload a video, move fast:
- sign in to Google accounts,
- open a new tab,
- go to Youtube
- click upload before the page loads
- or you can just get the corresponding URLs from the source and enter them directly. I was thinking of making a form for this, but, as you shall soon see, it is no longer as relevant...
|click to enlarge|
The Bad News
All of that worked until very recently, when all of a sudden, bad news. the Google sign-in page was different. The Youtube head of that hydra seemed to be informing me me that only by upgrading to Google+ could I hope to enjoy the privilege of commenting on a video -- even if it was a reply to a comment posted on my own.
A bit of cursory, uh, ...googling, told me no different. Techcrunch, Engadget, CNET, all interpreting Google's new wording alike. Though each of course responded from their own particular agenda, almost all the sources on that first page of hits shared a virtually identical basic assumption, and each appeared to take that assumption fully for granted: that Youtube comments were now predicated upon surrendering to the inexorable force of nature that was Google+.
The Good News
The following worked for September and part of October for me, and may still work for you, since I doubt this policy is rolled out synchronously:
- follow the link sent to your email to reply to comments
- compose a reply, and
- post it
If everything goes well, as it has for me, no popup will appear until you are done -- in which case one of the above evasive techniques may work.
This however does not work if you want to do more than reply to a comment. Furthermore, though replying and uploading may be possible, one begins to feel like a second class netizen, what with all the dodging and refreshing.... This I only realize with the hindsight that comes from:
So good I made it into its own post. Everyone will be most happy: the answer is innocent, and right in front of you. In fact I am more dismayed, not by my own having missed it, but by its having been missed by so many whose business it is to be tech savvy, above.
I first discovered it in the process of one of the workarounds, above. I had disabled page styles (the command for which, by the way, is usually listed in the browser's menu bar under 'develop' or 'view,' sometimes 'tools') to post a comment -- it worked where more exotic approaches had had no effect -- and lo and behold I saw the words "opt out" in the source.
It seems there was a little 'x' there all along -- I re-enabled styles and yes indeed. Not a trick 'x,' it remained true to its purpose, thanking me as it hustled the micro-management-obssessive Google away, so as to keep me out its reach. Thanking me several times in fact.
The Seemingly Much Better News
Google implied it would be leaving me alone for a while, and I have had no problems since. That was yesterday. I would have screenshots of the opt out 'x', but I didn't take them or save the source, and now it seems impossible to reproduce. I am certainly not complaining
The Actually Not So Much Better News
Google has promised it would be back.
Be seeing you.
Nazi book burning memorial, Göttingen. Photo by chrisjtse on Flickr.
I do NOT want to be on Google Plus unless you fix your policy with regard to psudonyms. I hope I can succeed in this, or find some solution to our mutual benefit. My optimism is flagging, however; it seems you miss the main point.
Pseudonymity is a right. Privacy is precious. Please do not continue on in this manner, forcing me to have to find a workaround to use my own Youtube account. This is silly. And sad.
Here are a couple authors who have said it better than I feel I can at the moment:
Google+ and the right to use an alias
While it is true that many trolls are anonymous, in this day of free accounts like Gmail's, registering a plausible-sounding pseudonym is as easy as registering a legal name. The same goes for spammers, as a look through your Trash folder at the end of a day can easily prove.
Perhaps those who never use a pseudonym might think about the issue as many do about privacy: If you are doing nothing wrong, then why do you need privacy or a pseudonym?
Well, to start with, under the law of the United States and many other countries, using an alias is completely legal so long as you are not using it to commit fraud. A few other restrictions apply in many jurisdictions -- for instance, you generally can't use an alias to cause confusion between you and a celebrity, or use an obscene or racist name. However, generally speaking, even common law names (ones that are not officially registered, but are widely used) take on a certain legal acceptance, just as a common law relationship assumes many of the privileges and obligations of a registered marriage.
Even more importantly, the right to use a pseudonym can be a protection for a surprisingly wide variety of people. A recent article begun by Skud on the Geek Feminism wiki entitled "Who Is Harmed by a 'Real Name' Policy?" gives so many examples that it immediately convinced me that my fuzzy, unexamined thoughts about pseudonyms needed to be revised.
With the help of reader comments and revisions, Skud lists dozens of people who might benefit from using a pseudonym. They include people who face discrimination, bullying, harassment or assault, including women and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) people, and people with disabilities and other minorities. Others include people with non-mainstream views, survivors of abuse, victims of crimes, those accused of crimes, political dissidents, whistle-blowers, the famous seeking anonymity, or people whose online activity is limited as a condition of their employment.
For these and other legitimate reasons, tens of thousands -- possibly millions -- might choose a pseudonym. And whether anyone thinks they should, in many countries they have a right to, regardless of whether Google employees or anyone else thinks they should. It's really that simple.
And let's not even go into the fact that anonymous writing has a long and often honorable history, such as the debates over the American Constitution that resulted in the Federalist Papers.
As Skud summarized to me, to all appearances, "Google's names policy is short-sighted and discriminatory, and their processes and communication about it are a complete train wreck."
Yet, despite the short-terms problems it is causing many people, perhaps Google's name policy will be a long-term, indirect benefit. Especially if Google refuses to back down or clarify, these events may make people think twice before entrusting their on-line future to Google or to any other corporation via cloud services.
Even more importantly, it may alert other people -- as it did me -- to why the use of pseudonyms online is not a fringe concern. Instead, it's a right that should be defended by anyone who cares about the freedom of the Internet.
Who Are We?
Numerous people have asked us who writes Washington's Blog and why we write under a pen name.
In fact, some of the leading writers have used pen names.
As one of the best financial writers - Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge - points out (edited slightly for readability):
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks), anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the United States. Used by the likes of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (aka publius) to write the Federalist Papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume.
Particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the United States, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech.
Like the Economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker - as it should be. We believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.
I am a busy professional, a former adjunct professor, an American and a family man. I am post-partisan: I don't think either the Republican or Democratic parties represent the interests of the people as opposed to the big banks, major corporations, and the military-industrial complex.
But my background is less important than the fact that I provide links to document everything I say, so you can check its accuracy for yourself.
Wikipedia unhelpfully says "Pseudonyms are most usually adopted to hide an individual's real identity.... A pseudonym may also be used for purely personal reasons when an individual feels the context and content of the exchange offer no reason, legal or otherwise, to provide their given or legal name.." While the matter of that may be true, I find the color borders on offense; I would edit it, but the edit button is curiously missing for the first section of their entry. (I hope that has something to do with how many times I have posted, and is not for some darker reason. )
Doubtless you know all this, having indexed it. Perhaps you will listen.
"Wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen." Quote by Heinrich Heine, Nazi book burning memorial, Göttingen. Photo by David Little Reynard on Flikr.
Be seeing you.
But here, here we have proof we told you so. Back then, so there.
Thanks to JYA of Cryptome, as always.
Be seeing you.
|This edition of Music What Kicketh Political Ass brings you a bit of Faustian verse, not even my best, but I trust it will do...|
Originally published over at the blog less traveled,
Lets Do And Say We Did,
with my other verse.
Be seeing you.
That's right, Gentle Reader.
W3C has this to tell us hapless end-users:
"Enjoy the freedom to view source while you can."
W3C green-lights adding DRM to
the Web's standards,
says it's OK for your browser to say "I can't let you do that, Dave"
by Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing
Here's the bad news: the World Wide Web Consortium is going ahead with its plan to add DRM to HTML5, setting the stage for browsers that are designed to disobey their owners and to keep secrets from them so they can't be forced to do as they're told.
Be seeing you.
I thought to get a few links together to refresh your memory. Because the more of us know, the less chance of....
Let's just say the more of us know, the more of us know.
On this page: a few links. If you know of another good one, please leave it in the comments below.
First, of course, my repost of the now-disappeared Geronimo Manifesto's definitive write up. You have to understand, a nuclear bomb went missing, and the circumstances were fecklessly ignored by the main stream media. These so called journalists that no doubt meet Diane Feinstein's superficial and purely socio-economic journalistic standards -- how more worthless could they be? To a one, either they would report that six bombs left Minot AFB, or that five were discovered to have arrived at Barksdale after sitting around for 36 hours as I recall. But not both. Or if they said both, it was because there was obviously some confusion about how many were counted, no? You can see what I mean here: (PDF of Google search). Otherwise see you after the jump, Gentle Reader.
And then what happened?
Officially? The hits, as it were, kept on coming. (As you'll see, that phrase describes the 'unofficial' side of things equally well, hmmm....)
Almost a year later, it was found that fuses that potentially could fit the missing device had accidentally been shipped to Taiwan before the Minot-Barksdale incident, from the other Air Force Base of note when ICBMs are the subject, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. Emphasis will be mine, in red.
Francis E. Warren Air Force Base
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 90th Missile Wing, which was activated 1 July 1963, with the original designation of the 90th Strategic Missile Wing, became the nation's first operational Intercontinental Ballistic Missile base with the introduction of the SM-65D Atlas missile in 1958. Today, the 90th MW operates 150 LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs on full alert 24-hours a day, 365 days a year.
The 90 MW is organized into five groups:
Consists of more than 550 operators, facility managers, and support personnel. It is composed of three missile squadrons, an operations support squadron, a helicopter squadron and a standardization and evaluation element. Each tactical missile squadron is responsible for five missile alert facilities and 50 Minuteman III ICBMs. The units of the 90th Operations Group include:
Provides Minuteman III ICBMs along with command and control systems required to launch those missiles. The group maintains 150 missiles and associated launch facilities, as well as 15 launch control facilities spread between a three-state, 9,600 square-mile complex.
Provides combat support to the 90th Missile Wing. The 1,000 men and women of the group provide civil engineering, transportation and logistics, communications, contracting, and personnel and services support.
Provides continuous security for the 90th Missile Wing. The mission of the 90 SFG includes the protection of F. E. Warren AFB, 15 Missile Alert Facilities (MAFs) and 150 Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) on constant 24-hour alert throughout a 9,600 square-mile area spanning three states. The 90th SFG also sustains a combat-ready force deployable worldwide in support of wartime and peacetime taskings. The 90th Security Forces Group comprises five squadrons:
The 790th Missile Security Forces Squadron provides security for convoys and missile maintenance operations. The 90th Ground Combat Training Squadron is located in Guernsey, Wyo., and provides security, pre-deployment, and antiterrorism/force protection training for USAF personnel. The 90th Missile Security Forces Squadron provides security for 15 missile alert facilities and 150 launch facilities. The 90th Security Forces Squadron provides installation and weapons storage area security; police services; pass and registration functions; and reports and analysis duties. The 90th Security Support Squadron provides command and control for the missile field and access control for all missile field forces as well as all security forces training and equipment support.
More of the official version:
U.S. accidentally sent ballistic missile parts to Taiwan
New York Times, Asia Pacific edition
At a news conference, the secretary of the air force, Michael Wynne, said the misshipped items were four electrical fuses for nose cone assemblies for ICBMs. He also said they had been delivered to Taiwan in 2006 and were sent instead of helicopter batteries that had been ordered by Taiwan. Wynne said the investigation was meant to sort out what had happened and how.
The fuses were manufactured for use on a Minuteman strategic nuclear missile but contained no nuclear materials.
It is the second nuclear-related mistake involving the air force in recent months. In August an air force B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across several states. At the time, the pilot and crew were unaware that they had nuclear arms aboard.
Wynne emphasized that the mistaken shipment to Taiwan did not include nuclear materials, although the fuses are linked to the triggering mechanism of the Minuteman nuclear missile.
And again, Gentle Reader, that you get a feel for this: This time, a page from Wired's Danger Room. (Snafu?!??)
Shipping Snafu Sends ICBM Parts to Taiwan
Well, it’s not as bad as mistakenly sending nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a ride across the United States, but it’s not good either. The Pentagon today announced that it had mistakenly sent fuses for intercontinental ballistic missiles to Taiwan. Oops.
No nuclear components were involved, however.
Apparently, Taiwan was supposed to get helicopter batteries. Instead they got the fuses. It makes you wonder how these boxes are marked.
The Pentagon, based on news reports, appears to be emphasizing the fact that the sale is not part of a strategic shift in arms sales to Taiwan, i.e. we’re not selling ICBMs to Taiwan. Yeah, that’s important, too, but it’d also be nice to know what went wrong in the inventory system that led to this mix-up.
The LA Times reports from today’s news conference: "It could not be construed as being nuclear material," [Air Force Secretary Michael] Wynne said. "It is a component for the fuse in the nose cone for a nuclear system. We are all taking this very seriously."
Apparently it was Taiwan, not the United States, that first noticed the error.
Oh dear, I seem to have accidentally posted the whole article. Oops -- didn't expect it to be so short, I guess.
Read -- in original context.
Could have said so much.... and did not. Not that for which I have grown accustomed to expect from them. Should have been good, and detailed. Was instead surprisingly like to that which has sold out. To repeat, it wasn't so much parts as the trigger mechanism. And it may have been discovered (when the Taiwanese said something) in 2008 -- but the fuses were actually taken in 2006, before the bomb went missing.
Now the following, from Cherchez la Verite, is the kind of thinking of which I would be speaking: too bad he trusts the infamous Sorcha Faal. No doubt he will learn; I like the way he thinks. We had the triggers, and the missile; now something to target it, perhaps?
Hidden Nuke, Crashed Satellite
I have no idea how much Pu-238 is onboard such satellites as a power source. However, the decay heat of Pu-238 is 0.56 W/g; so, for example, a one kilowatt source would require just 1.8 kg of this extremely radioactive material (half-life 88 years). This amount of Pu-238 might account for reports boiling water in the crater (links above). On the other hand, if it actually was the KH-13 satellite and its fuel continued to burn all the way to the impact point, heated metal parts could have boiled the water for a brief time. In any event, all impact-crater experts would agree that boiling water in the crater doesn’t make any sense if the impactor was a meteorite, because ones of this size always arrive from outer space “stone cold.”
The link below explains why a full-scale air attack on Iran would provoke Iranian retaliation with modern Mach-2.5 “Sunburn” and “Yakhonts” anti-ship missiles which, as already proved in a recent U.S. war game, are virtually certain to sink the entire U.S. Fifth Fleet! And the neocons seem to be good with that ...because they are growing desperate for yet another Pearl Harbor. (The God damned traitorous bastards!!!)
So, what now? Unfortunately, it remains very likely that one of those nuclear-armed AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles from Minot actually WAS stolen. The initial reports from Barksdale were that only 5 of the original 6 missiles arrived there. Then there is the fact that the obvious reason for intentionally downing the KH-13 would have been to prevent its imminent use for targeting the purloined AGM-129 against Iran. (Remember, the Peruvian impact was September 15th whereas the limit on the $900 million options bet was September 21st.)
I sincerely hope that the publicity given the B-52 incident will prevent the use of the stolen warhead on American soil! Of course, the one person who still retains the motive, means, and opportunity to circumvent the sophisticated multi-layer security system protecting our nuclear weapons is the insane Dick Cheney. Hopefully, however, enough of our high-ranking military officers are sane and know who the real threat is.
Oh but there's more.
Treason of the Highest Order
Almost as if it was planned. And that's not all (and this is only the offiial version.... wait till you uncover all the dead airmen.) Because, you see, even if you stay on rhe beaten path, things just weren't, uh, kosher,,,
US air force strips 17 officers of power to launch nuclear missiles
The US Air Force has stripped an unprecedented 17 officers of their authority to oversee nuclear missiles, after a string of failings that the group's deputy commander said stemmed from "rot" within the ranks. The suspensions followed a March inspection of the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, that resulted in a "D" grade for the team tested on its mastery of the Minuteman III missile launch operations system.
"We are, in fact, in a crisis right now," the group's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jay Folds, wrote in an internal email that was obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed by the Air Force. The Air Force had publicly described the inspection as a success.
The news follows a series of incidents in recent years that have uncovered major problems with the oversight of the US's nuclear arsenal. In 2007, airmen at Minot accidentally loaded a B-52 with six nuclear weapons. The aircraft then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. In another incident, nuclear weapons parts were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan. The defense department learned of the error in 2008, 18 months after the fuses for nuclear warheads were shipped.
Minot's crew are supposed to stand ready 24-hours a day to launch missiles on the president's command. A crew member was disciplined in 2008 for falling asleep on duty, while watching nuclear launch-code components.
I will leave you with some odds and ends on the subject. Here are the ones I have in my tabs right now:
Other links of interest, in loose chronological order
Interesting, no? Scares the shit out of me, the child in me, actually: the little girl who used to have recurring nightmatres, very realistic, in which she experienced nuclear anhillation in excruciating detail.
There could be more, but that's all I can do for now; I have to stop and go out in the sun or something. Please feel free to leave links in the comments. Hope I helped you to appreciate your day, with your mind and body reasonably healthy I hope, happy I hope, and free, and under the governance of your own choosing. If any of these are in question, I hope you are well on your way to resolving it in your favor.
Heaven help us all.
Be seeing you.