IT Industry Presidential Poll: 'Not Sure' Beats Both Obama and Romney 238
CIStud writes "A new poll conducted of IT industry executives and integrators shows a divided and unsure industry regarding which presidential candidate is better for Information Technology to prosper. The poll, conducted by JZ Analytics on behalf of CompTIA, shows 'Not Sure' winning in four out of five areas. President Obama holds and edge over Mitt Romney in every category, including which person is best for the IT industry in terms of tax policy (remarkably), access to capital, tech exports, education and privacy."
The toilet water guy?!? (Score:5, Funny)
I heard he talked all faggy, and his shit was totally fucked up.
Re:The toilet water guy?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
"And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for fags and neither was writing. People wrote books and movies, movies that had stories so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting, and I believe that time can come again!"
Change we can believe in.
Re: (Score:2)
YEAH NOT SURE 2012!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
His shit wasn't fucked up - it was retarded...
And that's fine because plenty of tards can live kick-ass lives!
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The toilet water guy?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Mentioning this on
We've got this guy Not Sure (Score:3, Funny)
He's gonna fix EVERYTHING!
Re:We've got this guy Not Sure (Score:5, Funny)
Relevant: http://whistleblower-newswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/image0097.jpg [whistleblo...wswire.com]
What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Romney or Obama. Who cares who wins?
Oh and this isn't really news. Every election for the last 30 years or so has had more non-voters than voters, because the non-voters are "not sure" who they prefer. So they just stay home.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the topic of redistricting, do some homework. Republicans and Democrats both use this is a regular tactic and mechanism to control voting results.
Why is it that the President can run on a campaign that includes a promise to reduce the debt, increase the debt by multiple trillions, and then have his supporters tell Republicans that they are the party of NO for tryin
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
You are full of shit. What you are referencing is called gerrymandering and it is not the same. Gerrymandering is redistricting such that you shove all of the other party's voting block into one area as much as possible to make their popular vote as least effective as possible, allowing you to get more of your own guys into the house of representatives. It has nothing to do with the straight up disenfranchising of voters i.e. putting laws in place to purposefully get less people to vote, such as requiring id, restricting means by which to register and purging valid voters from the registry.
We have had a wave of voter ID laws in swing states by Republicans that clearly disproportionately voting blocks that tend to vote Democrat. We had Republicans attempting to allow early voting for Republican counties in Ohio but not for urban counties that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. This is isn't typical gerrymandering and there is no whitewashing it. All of the Voter ID laws are to prevent a crime that is less frequent than the rate that people get struck by lightning in those same states. Republicans are doing it, Democrats aren't. If they were Fox News would be all over that shit.
As for your third line are you one of the members of the Republican party that thinks the Universe was created in January of 2008? Because you are completely fucking lost to reality and have the attention span of a goldfish if you think Republicans give two shits about the national debt for any reason other than a Democrat is in the White House.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, one of the points of emphasis by the Justice Department during the Bush II administration was to seek out all of that voter fraud you seem to think exists. Despite pushing the United States Attorney's hard to seek out and prosecute voter fraud they only came up with a handful of cases, not enough to affect any election but one decided by 1 or 2 votes.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:4, Informative)
The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls. Your voter registration card and your signature should be all you need at the polls.
If there was any evidence that people without the legal right to vote were doing it in large numbers I'd be more sympathetic to the voter ID laws but an exhaustive search only found 10 cases of voter fraud that presenting ID at the polls would have prevented since 2000. Why would Republicans who have such a problem with over regulation want to increase regulations in this area? It's simply because the people who are inconvenienced and/or disenfranchised by these regulation are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Obama did not promise to reduce the debt. He's smart enough to know that's not possible in the short run. What he promised to do is reduce the deficit and he has done that. Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?
Re: (Score:3)
Both parties have redistricted to their heart's content when they had the power to do so. This census, it was the Republicans. I do admit the voter id laws are pushed by Republicans to lower lower class turn out which would benefit the Democrats. Both sides are cheating to win. Every little misstep by either party's members are getting inflated to Biblical Proportions (dogs and cats living together kind of thing).
I also think the Republicans have gone overboard and not at all acting like the loyal oppositio
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do admit the voter id laws are pushed by Republicans to lower lower class turn out which would benefit the Democrats. Both sides are cheating to win
Can you point to anything even remotely on this scale democrats have done? You pointed out a horrible and indefensible one republicans did, then said "but both sides are bad" without even one example of democrats do it. It's literally disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people. Literally. This is not an exageration, it is a fundamental attack on democracy so their side can "win".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure you can cite hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud to offset the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS THAT WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED OVER THIS, you goddamn moron.
This is not theoretical. This is a fact. They are intentionally disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters for no scientific reason.
THEY EVEN ADMIT IT!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/pennsylvania_gop_leader_voter_id_will_help_romney.php
In short, go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the enforcement mechanism in the current system? At my polling place the bulwark against voter fraud is a little old lady. If her spidey sense tingles, well then.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The fact there is virtually no incentive for an individual to do so? The fact it doesn't happen?
Voter Fraud if caught is a HUGE crime compared to the benefit a single individual gets from doing it. The benefit an individual gets is effectively zero. Hell, paying people to vote the way you want is a bigger issue than voter fraud.
Voter fraud only happens on wide scale using things like absentee ballots(which are rarely targetted by these new laws, oddly!). It's not in person voter fraud, and it's certainl
Re: (Score:2)
As we all know, when things are huge crimes no one commits those crimes because of the hugeness. And if caught! How is someone under current system, of no checks, supposed to be caught? Like I said, it's completely unenforceable unless the little old lady's spider sense tingles.
The benefits to voter fraud are the benefits of winning elections. There's lots of money, favors, and jobs to be dolled out. Or someone just might want to put a thumb on the scale for the party that represents their ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your point about individual voter fraud. Local elections are often times won or lost by very small margins. What voter fraud usually is is meaningless. Fraud with absentee ballots is more easily detected because there is barely any way to detect in-person voter fraud. That laws perhaps do not sufficiently target one type of fraud is not reason to not target the other type of fraud.
Individuals have no reason to commit most crimes because of the penalties, and yet crimes are committed ev
Re: (Score:3)
In my state I've always had to sign the poll book when I go to vote and they can compare that signature against the the one on my registration card. It's very difficult to fake another persons signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did register to vote. Not sure how that matters when the little old lady has no idea I'm the person I said I was. Voter registration is public info.
As I said about crime, people commit crime all the time even when one would expect the penalties to deter them. People also often do things when they know they can get away with it. I'm pretty sure there was a study on cheating that made it's way here on Slashdot that showed that.
Having to verify an ID is a step from there being no verification at all
Re: (Score:2)
I already did. The benefits that come with winning an election. It could be as simple as a person wanting Team A to win. Or it could be someone expecting a job or trying to keep a job. Or money that comes from some government contract.
Like I also said, many local elections are decided by only a few votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Voter Fraud if caught is a HUGE crime compared to the benefit a single individual gets from doing it.
That's right, because no fraudulent voter gets any significant benefit from doing it, except for the $10 or so they get paid by the organizer who busses them into the district. The benefit goes to the winner of the election, and to the "community organizing group" (paid for by the party or the candidate) that has preloaded the system with a flood of bogus registrations for people who don't have the right to vote. Hint: it doesn't fall far from the tree.
Why is it that democrats scream about the massive vot
Re: (Score:3)
Please provide evidence of Democrats screaming about massive voter fraud. More likely they're complaining about election fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I should mention that I don't necessarily agree with the solution to require IDs. But not liking the solution to a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What is always shown is that there aren't any checks that would even detect voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a system here. An easily exploitable system. If we were talking a computer program, what would everyone here be saying? Lack of evidence that anyone has written an exploit is reason not to fix the system?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you can show that 312 of those 1099 felons voted for Al Franken, what precisely does your statistic prove? For all you know, all 1099 voted for the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually know where I sit on the voter ID thing, but assuming it's true, it does suggest that that number of people voting illegally, while very small, might, rarely, just maybe, be significant enough to matter. Maybe.
And while I understand that Republicans want voter ID primarily because they know it'll keep poor people from voting, I'm not sure identification is too great a requirement for something important like voting.
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't the time you have to prove you are eligible to vote be when you register to vote, not when you actually exercise your right to vote?
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
As for redistricting, I'm talking about changing the rules so that Democrat districts have less time to vote then Republican ones. Granted that got over turned by a Federal judge, but that they tried it is sickening.
Re: (Score:2)
"Either way, the people lose."
Correct. The question isn't so much "Which one is better?", but more like "Which one is less bad?"
But even that is false dichotomy. Paul is out of the running but there is always Gary Johnson.
(People, please don't reply with that "wasted vote" garbage. If you don't vote for who you want to win, then who you want will never win. That's a "self-fulfilling prophecy". Politics is not like gambling. In gambling, you vote for what you think will win. In politics, you vote for who you want to win. If you don
Re: (Score:3)
What's better, someone who is ineffective but means well or someone who is extremely competent but means you harm?
As someone who has experienced learning on the job first-hand, I think I know which way I'll go.
He's the smartest man alive! (Score:4, Funny)
Americans elect "Not Sure" most times (Score:3)
That's what happens when you elect a Democrat president and Republican congress.
You get a government that can't actually do anything. i.e. that acts exactly as if it's not sure of anything.
And thus the libertarians actually win a lot of the time, since there are so many castrated governments in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
"Democrat president and Republican congress."
or vice versa, of course. Doesn't really matter. Impotence is what you get either way.
Lack of Options (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I got a phone call from an automated polling company. I started to answer but then questions at to which candidate I preferred came up. It was only Obama or Romney. I couldn't go in with the test since I think they are both horrible and evil. So I hung up.
None of the Above (Score:4, Interesting)
Put none of the above on all the ballots. So that people can send a message that they don't want any of the candidates in office. If none of the above wins the election then those that are running are disqualified from the election. Time to chose new candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you just put nothing on the ballot? At least where I live, blank votes are valid and counted separably from spoiled ones.
Re: (Score:2)
So...who runs the country in the meantime?
This always sounds like a neat idea--"None of the above! That'll show those bastards!" But if "None of the Above" wins, what do we do while we pick new candidates? Does the incumbent stay on office until new candidates are picked? Wouldn't this sort of push incumbents into negative campaigning in order to convince voters that you don't like anybody?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I would think that some reasonably and well planned out plan would be put in place. Now that we can stop laughing, i would assume the current incumbent would stay in office. I think he would be just like any other lame duck in office. p. I also don't think it would put incumbents into negative campaigning because they to fall under the none of the above vote, only worse. If the none of the above is selected his ass is out of office with no chance at reelection. If anything I think it would cut
Re: (Score:2)
i would assume the current incumbent would stay in office. I think he would be just like any other lame duck in office.
Well, that depends. For example, a "lame duck" president is in office for about 2 months. So assuming we have an election in, say, November and "None of the Above" wins, do we have only two months to decide? Considering that primaries run for about 5 or 6 months (and it takes time to set up primaries), I'd say you're looking at a minimum of one year of "lame duckiness."
If the none of the above is selected his ass is out of office with no chance at reelection.
Unless he's the incumbent, in which case he stays on in a "lame duck" mode for another year.
Re: (Score:3)
A federal judge just struck down Nevada's "None of the above" ballot option. [lvrj.com]
NEITHER (Score:4, Informative)
Don't just point out Not Sure, the third option was was Not Sure/Neither.
Executives and integrators? (Score:2)
Missed opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
I'd vote for him just to see what the talking heads would do when he delivers the State of the Union address and then the Vice President shows up to deliver the same address again two hours later.
Well, the answer is obvious (Score:2)
One or both of them should change his/their name(s) to Not Sure.
wrong question (Score:2)
This is the wrong question.
IT is highly, highly dependent upon a strong business economic situation to do well. Without actual production, there is no market for IT products and services (other than the bare minimum to keep things running). Many, many businesses have cut back over the past 10 years on IT spending, and it shows in both jobs available and the current state of most company's IT infrastructure: many 'big companies' are still running 8-10 year old equipment because it still works.
The correct que
No Confidence (Score:2)
That should beat 'Not Sure'
A vote either Romney or Obama is wasted chance for something different. But if you like things the way they are, you can't beat those two.
Uh... (Score:2)
The fact that "derp" is generally a more popular choice than a reasoned, deliberate stand on one side of a choice is news because...?
Translation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd kinda like to follow it up with a few questions:
* Did you vote for somebody last time?
* Did you vote for somebody of the same party the time before that?
* Do you expect me to seriously believe that you're not going to do the same this time?
* On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is "Not even the slightest bit independent" and 7 is "A raging partisan hack", where do you fall?
Re: (Score:2)
"Obama didn't cut it so I might vote for Romney, let's see if his policies will fail as hard as Bush's or even harder. We haven't had a serious bubble bursting in years."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that "57 states" thing from shortly after his election? Hasn't he made any mistakes since? Gimme some fresh material dammit, the reruns are killing me.
Let's add "None of the above" as a choice... (Score:2)
Of course, if we did that, we'd need to shorten the length of the election process dramatically or we'd all go insane.
What a great choice! (Score:2)
Between a lying, two-faced, hypocritical tyrant wannabe and a lying two-faced, hypocritical, predatory mega millionaire either one of which will say absolutely anything to get elected!
Oh wait! there ARE "OTHER" candidates and political parties, all of which have been systematically ignored by the corporate media and excluded from any presidential debate!
Assuming ANY presidential election isn't rigged and assuming that your vote matters (BIG ASSUMPTION) vote you conscience, but keep both eyes open!
whats needed for 2016 (Score:2)
All the folks stumping for Not Republican AND Not Democrat need to get in a room and then hash things out so that there is a Single Viable Candidate (or at least maybe a Green and a Purple Candidate). Then hit they can hit the road and when 2016 gets here we can attempt to break the Red/Blue lockup.
right now what we have is Donkey Elephant and a Zoo full of chattering Critters
Re: (Score:2)
Like these guys [lp.org]?
It's hard to be a viable canidate when you have to fight an uphill battle just to get on the ballot, and then good luck getting any major media coverage. Just look at how the media treats Crazy Uncle Ron.
If the red-colored Republicrats were serious about repealing Romney/Obama-care, Ron Paul has the perfect credentials. It's almost as though the red-colored Republicrats are trying to lose. And just think of all that delicious money medical insurance companies will make with their 10%
Which of these would lead Obama and Romney? (Score:2)
1) "Some Puerto Rican guy"
2) "Lance Armstrong"
3) "None of the Above"
4) "Seymore Heinee"
I'm pretty sure they'll all do better than Obama or Romney. Just goes to show you Romney should have chosen Seymore Heinee as his running mate.
I don't see athletes being good candates for any b (Score:2)
I don't see athletes being good candidates for any big office I will take bill gates for the office
what a coincidence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.
"attacks on traditional morality and religion" - WTF does that even mean? What exactly do you mean?
"legalize weed" - not gonna happen. Too bad too.
Re:Preference cascade (Score:4, Insightful)
"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.
Equal rights for all?
How about all single people get the same artificial advantages as married people, eh? No?
You don't know what equal rights actually means. First you set up an unfair situation where some people get special treatment. Then you go on about how some other people dont get the same treatment.
Meanwhile why not just let all people have the same treatment? No? Yeah.. thought so.. empty words from you.
Re: (Score:3)
What's your suggestion? All I see is you think we should get rid of marriage entirely.
You are seeing things that arent there. Thats part of the problem with your generation. You make things up.
Why not let all people have the same advantages? Seriously.. why not? Whats wrong with that, and what does that have to do with ending marriage?
Re: (Score:3)
If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?
I said exactly what I am suggesting. I take great care is not saying things that I do not mean. I also take great care in making sure that what I meant is clearly established. The only way to fuck this up on your end is if you do not understand these simple premises of communication.
Apparently you think Homosexuals want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage, and not for all the legal advantages that go with that institution. Apparently you are completely unaware that the
Re: (Score:2)
Flat taxes are not inherently bad... If they also go along with sufficiently effective and progressive social benefits.
The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.
A 50% flat tax on all personal income (including capital gains, and with a 0% corporate income tax rate) could pay for 100% of what the government currently spends money on and also provide a stipend to every househ
Re: (Score:3)
Are you trolling? You actually think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars going after weed?
Re: (Score:2)
You ought to be a member of the Prohibition Party [prohibitionparty.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Most It types are progressive in their political leanings, favor Obama's redefinition of marriage, attacks on traditional morality and religion and are just waiting on him to legalize weed, probably as soon as the convention. So of course they are chomping at the bit to pull the lever again. Of course they also live in constant fear of being outsourced or rightsized and totally fail to connect their political views to the economic consequences they cause.
So how exactly does marriage, religion, and cannabis
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot one option: they have no reason to believe that the alternative would be any better regarding the economy, and therefore have to choose based on other issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Judging by what happened to the economy last time a Republican held the presidency, can you blame them?
obamacare is better on the outsource Contract side (Score:2)
obamacare is better on the outsource Contract side where Contractors have more choice then the Romney plan.
Re:False choice (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure if Obama has taken a position on the labor alienation, commodity fetishism or historical materialism, let alone the Hegelian dialectic as it applies to capital. He might have said something once about the labor theory of value being wrong, or about the relative moral value of M-C-M' transactions in a market, but I may be mistaken.
This word, "marxism," I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, wouldn't it be nice if more people who talked about economics read, you know, actual economics? Instead of partisan blogs?
Thanks for that. You'd get mod points, if I had any. Instead, you are alienated from the fruits of your labor.
Re: (Score:3)
On what basis do you claim that GM was "confiscated"? Did the state ever hold title on GM? It did make loans to GM, and it only tendered these loans with conditions, the sort of conditions any lender in such a situation might do, but it never appropriated or "nationalized" GM in the style of a popular socialist government (you're actually accusing him of socialism, not Marxism).
If you want to argue about the priority of labor contract claims over shareholders and bondholders, you need to take your argumen
Re: (Score:3)
I guess my point, that by your standard, every politician on Earth is a Marxist, is basically conceded?
Governments interfering with large bankruptcies is quite common; George W. Bush was no Marxist, but he initiated TARP. If you wanna argue the merits of your approach do so, but your attempts to label your enemies are obnoxious and lacking in any kind of rational basis.
I'm sorry the world doesn't live up to your standards, but as the saying goes, you can either carpet the earth or wear shoes. (OTOH you mi
Re: (Score:2)
What we've understood is that you know little or nothing about Marxism, socialism or political theory. How can you possibly b an adult when you have the political sense of a three legged dog trying to chew his apps off.
Re:False choice (Score:5, Informative)
I fundamentally disagree with your analysis. It displays a lack of understanding of political power and Obama is neither a Marxist or a Socialist. But that's not what I want to address today. What we need to address is this:
Obama and Romney differ very little when it comes to the actual issues
You're kidding, right?
One pushed through a big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people while the other is moving as far away from his (mostly identical) program as possible.
One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity. The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.
One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability. The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.
One has invested in renewable energy and the other says he will fund "traditional" energy sources and dismantle decades of environmental law.
One may agree or disagree with the candidates on these points but one cannot honestly say there is no difference between them.
Re:False choice (Score:4, Insightful)
This is because you are very closely aligned with the status quo. Romney isn't really going to deregulate banks. He's not going to get rid of fractional reserve banking and go to 100% hard money. He is just going to use the power to benefit a different group than Obama.
From the libertarian point of view both of these guys just want to use their power to punish their enemies and reward their friends. Would you call it socialist, capitalist, or fascist or some other term?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only an American would call Obama a Marxist. The United States is made of up 300 million political ignoramuses. Have you even read Marx?
Re: (Score:2)
On bOth points I think you're likely lying. Making absurd. Pains to cover you're incredible stupidity is not unusual. And your post has all the hallmarks of some pathetic partisan trying to find cover.
Wake me up when Obama is instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Re:False choice (Score:5, Insightful)
do you have an actual argument
Yes, Obama is financially conservative and socially liberal and rarely strays far from the center. The reason you think he's a socialist is because you are way out on the right wing, the left wing is over your horizon and it's difficult for you to even see the center.
I am not an American, I was born in the former USSR. Unfortunately for me I actually had to read Marx and Lenin too
We've crossed paths before, I believe you are sincere and passionate but it comes across as ignorance and arrogance, unfortunately you routinely believe the most outlandish propaganda and then repeat it as truth. You grew up in a land and time where intense state propaganda was the norm and motivated the behavior of the adults around you. Pravda and Fox are two faces of the same evil, I hope that one day you can get past resenting the adults from your childhood and realize that you've been fighting dragons for so long that you have become one.
Re: (Score:3)
Socially liberal? What, because he "evolved" to a position of tolerance on gay marriage? Exactly what socially liberal policies does this government have?
He claimed he was going to roll back the drug war - and promptly ramped up raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Is he better on civil asset forfeiture? No, decidedly not. What about warrantless wiretaps? Not really, no. How about the whole stupid USA Patriot Act? How about undeclared wars? Not so great there. How about due process - that's
Re: (Score:2)
Or more simply, that cutting taxes makes it hard to balance a budget:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html [zfacts.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gary Johnson is still on running on the libertarian ticket.
I did put quite a bit of effort into feeling out what his history and ideology was about. I would far prefer him over Romney. And he beats Obama on many important issues. But on economics, his zealous idolization of the free market makes him undesirable in this economic climate compared to Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
Shill to whom? I'm reasonably sure Paul is sincere. Just as sure as I also believe him to be ignorant of history, economics, political theory and jurisprudence.
Re: (Score:3)
Reminds me of Frederic Bastiat. He said we are all consumers and producers. We want what we consume to be cheap and abundant and what we produce to be scarce and expensive. A prosperous and free society tends to move towards abundant and cheap things. This requires we don't pass laws that protect producers from competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow even the execs aren't sure if they want to vote for the guy who's going to make it rain for them at the expense of the middle and lower classes? Ouch for Romney.
Re: (Score:2)