Support NeoGAF

[Windu]

Where I lived, if I wasn't driving I wasn't going anywhere. Just how it is.

Same for me too.

 

[Flynn]

case in point, my parents.
Myself I dont have a problem with living in urban centers as long as its reasonably safe. Its kind of exciting to me. But Im also young and single. families probably prefer the suburbs.
This is also pickup truck land, so renting moving vans isnt as common. Im really not sure if Louisiana could exist without oil. I really doubt it.

People are going to have to get used to the idea that suburban (and rural just for shits and giggles) living is going to become more and more untenable. Or at the very least, more and more outrageously expensive.

 

[Instigator]

It's not a "problem." Why can't some of you understand that some people just don't want to live in the city. Some people like to have space, peace, and quiet. Some people want to be able to see the stars at night and listen to the natural sounds of nature instead of traffic and sirens.

Some people want not to work, others want multiple wives. Hey, some might even want to get their freak on with farm animals. In most cases, they don't really need any of those. If they can get it, more power to them, but it's not really essential to their lives.

And BTW, you have to get pretty far from big cities in order to see more than a handful of stars.

 

[Innotech]

And Europe is also not a country. We're talking about individual policies of countries that are significant smaller than the US.

people seem to overlook this...I dunno....ALL the time.
Health care....individual countries of 20 million or less people vs a country of 300 million. Infrastructure in a state sized country vs a country bigger than Europe...efficient high speed highways in a small country vs interstates spanning across thousands of miles of north america...Its nowhere near as easy to govern and maintain the vast expanse of america as it is to make efficient and quicker changes in the much more easily manageable countries of Europe. Europe is a collective of countries, not one huge self governing one. It is loosely tied together by the EU but that still doesnt come close to the way the Us is designed and legistlated.

 

[Neo C.]

It's not a "problem." Why can't some of you understand that some people just don't want to live in the city. Some people like to have space, peace, and quiet. Some people want to be able to see the stars at night and listen to the natural sounds of nature instead of traffic and sirens.

That's fine, as long as you can pay the gas. I'm generally liberal in mind.

 

[MickeyKnox]

So we should, what, throw up our hands? American planning has to become more European. We have no choice. End of story.

Fuck no, there needs to be a giant (I'm talking fucking HUGE) overhaul to our infastructure to cope with what's happening, this is shit we need to deal with. What I'm mildly agitated by is the backseat driving from the EuroGAF contingent. Focusing on what the average American commuter pays at the pump and telling them to get a fucking bicycle is like coming into an emergency room with an arterial bleed and having the douche with the paper cut in the waiting room tell you that you should put a band-aid on it.

 

[Evlar]

I'm sorry, I'm boggling at the argument that Europe's political structure makes it easier to govern and to plan large-scale infrastructure.

 

[Instigator]

people seem to overlook this...I dunno....ALL the time.
Health care....individual countries of 20 million or less people vs a country of 300 million. Infrastructure in a state sized country vs a country bigger than Europe...efficient high speed highways in a small country vs interstates spanning across thousands of miles of north america...Its nowhere near as easy to govern and maintain the vast expanse of america as it is to make efficient and quicker changes in the much more easily manageable countries of Europe. Europe is a collective of countries, not one huge self governing one. It is loosely tied together by the EU but that still doesnt come close to the way the Us is designed and legistlated.

They're not overlooking it, it's just irrelevant.

If healthcare is hypothetically that unmanagible at the federal level then those responsibilities can be given to regional governments (the 50 states in America) where they themselves can collect the taxes to pay for, catering each to a smaller population with the possibility of financial help from the federal government for states too poor to provide adequate coverage.

 

[Innotech]

I'm sorry, I'm boggling at the argument that Europe's political structure makes it easier to govern and to plan large-scale infrastructure.

so you dont think a country smaller than Texas is better able to manage its resources and infrastructure than a country that is 2000 miles wide?

 

[Flo_Evans]

people seem to overlook this...I dunno....ALL the time.
Health care....individual countries of 20 million or less people vs a country of 300 million. Infrastructure in a state sized country vs a country bigger than Europe...efficient high speed highways in a small country vs interstates spanning across thousands of miles of north america...Its nowhere near as easy to govern and maintain the vast expanse of america as it is to make efficient and quicker changes in the much more easily manageable countries of Europe. Europe is a collective of countries, not one huge self governing one. It is loosely tied together by the EU but that still doesnt come close to the way the Us is designed and legistlated.

Uh, not to get to far OT but the US is literally a collection of small states. The Federal gov. is pretty much the same as the EU (but with much more power obviously) Some states are doing much better than others with public transport. Citys should be incharge of light rail and infrastructure to support mass transit.

It is unrealistic to expect to be able to get anywhere in the entire USA on a light rail. But that does not excuse city planners and towns from providing reasonable public transit in their area.

 

[Innotech]

They're not overlooking it, it's just irrelevant.

If healthcare is hypothetically that unmanagible at the federal level then those responsibilities can be given to regional governments (the 50 states in America) where they themselves can collect the taxes to pay for, catering each to a smaller population with the possibility of financial help from the federal government for states too poor to provide adequate coverage.

then you run into the issue of certain state governments being more corrupt than a third world country. Yes Im talking about my state again how wonderful.

 

[HolyStar]

And this, friends, is an ad hominem attack. Textbook logical fallacy. Not a rational argument and proves nothing whatsoever.

And this my friends is a red herring.

 

[reaver18]

Where I lived, if I wasn't driving I wasn't going anywhere. Just how it is.

seriously, I think it would take me more than a day to bike all the way across Phoenix....if I even fuckin made it.

 

[Innotech]

by the way, New orleans levee walls are stuffed with newspaper, just in case you think they actually fixed the problems after Katrina.

 

[Evlar]

so you dont think a country smaller than Texas is better able to manage its resources and infrastructure than a country that is 2000 miles wide?

"Europe" is not a country smaller than Texas. And if it came to it, if for some reason we were unable federally to accomplish what Europe does confederately (despite successfully constructing the most expensive highway system in the world), if for some reason rail in the 21st century confounds the central government... why couldn't Texas build a decent railway on its own?

 

[PrivateWHudson]

They're not overlooking it, it's just irrelevant.

If healthcare is hypothetically that unmanagible at the federal level then those responsibilities can be given to regional governments (the 50 states in America) where they themselves can collect the taxes to pay for, catering each to a smaller population with the possibility of financial help from the federal government for states too poor to provide adequate coverage.

Woah...Be careful mentioning the states around here...you may be called a crazy libertarian, or even a racist if you talk about states rights. The Federal government is the only answer, and the states really are not capable of handling anthing on their own.

 

[MickeyKnox]

I'm sorry, I'm boggling at the argument that Europe's political structure makes it easier to govern and to plan large-scale infrastructure.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like they have half the landmass and had 2 major wars post industrial revolution that left them with a collective blank slate and the full support of a superpower that wanted them up and running again to keep another superpower from gaining influence over them.

 

[dammitmattt]

Some people want not to work, others want multiple wives. Hey, some might even want to get their freak on with farm animals. In most cases, they don't really need any of those. If they can get it, more power to them, but it's not really essential to their lives.

And BTW, you have to get pretty far from big cities in order to see more than a handful of stars.

Who are you to tell people what is and is not essential to their lives?

 

[Souldriver]

people seem to overlook this...I dunno....ALL the time.
Health care....individual countries of 20 million or less people vs a country of 300 million. Infrastructure in a state sized country vs a country bigger than Europe...efficient high speed highways in a small country vs interstates spanning across thousands of miles of north america...Its nowhere near as easy to govern and maintain the vast expanse of america as it is to make efficient and quicker changes in the much more easily manageable countries of Europe. Europe is a collective of countries, not one huge self governing one. It is loosely tied together by the EU but that still doesnt come close to the way the Us is designed and legistlated.

Well, there are quite some arguments you can make to say that a decentralised government>centralised government, but there can also be made quite a few counter-arguments.

In other words, I think it's a lame excuse. If nothing gets done, it's because both the political leaders and the citizens just don't want anything to change or the incentive to change still isn't big enough. The way a government is organised isn't the big deciding factor. Like someone said earlier in this thread, I think some people are just in denial. A lot of changes will have to be made quite quickly, whether they like it or not.

And don't get me wrong, this applies just as well to Europeans. It's not all sunshine and rainbows here. Ten years ago green parties were urging us to go invest in new, green technologies, because it would pay off bigtime. Off course no-one listened, but looking back they made a lot of sense (even though people still don't see that). What Europe is doing now to become less fuel-dependent is hardly enough.

 

[Instigator]

then you run into the issue of certain state governments being more corrupt than a third world country. Yes Im talking about my state again how wonderful.

So freaking what?

You have the same backward examples in Europe like Romania or Albania. That still asn't any excuse for any of the other European state to do their own thing the right way.

If you happen to live in one of those states, you either lobby for change or you move the hell out where the grass is greener,

 

[Tarazet]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like they have half the landmass and had 2 major wars post industrial revolution that left them with a collective blank slate and the full support of a superpower that wanted them up and running again to keep another superpower from gaining influence over them.

Katrina. New Orleans. Any progress yet?

 

[Flo_Evans]

So freaking what?

You have the same backward examples in Europe like Romania or Albania. That still asn't any excuse for any of the other European state to do their own thing the right way.

If you happen to live in one of those states, you either lobby for change or you move the hell out where the grass is greener,

You forget moving is impossible! :lol

 

[Seth C]

Thank god my city is somewhat progressive with our light rail. Its funny though when they started it there was tons of resistance in the suburbs cause they didn't want "city folk" coming out to rob them in their nice suburbs. Now they can't lay the tracks fast enough :lol

Which city is that?

 

[speculawyer]

people seem to overlook this...I dunno....ALL the time.
Health care....individual countries of 20 million or less people vs a country of 300 million. Infrastructure in a state sized country vs a country bigger than Europe...efficient high speed highways in a small country vs interstates spanning across thousands of miles of north america...

People 'overlook' this because it is ridiculous. People don't live in New Jersey and commute to Texas.

Europe built more dense cities and bought more efficient cars because gas was expensive. If the USA had similar energy policies, we too would have had denser cities, more efficient vehicles, and better public transportation.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Which city is that?

St. Louis. We started in 1990.

For $60 a month you can ride the rail and take any bus.

For me it is still cheaper to ride my 45mpg motorcycle that ends up costing about $40 a month for just commuting on it.

 

[Seth C]

"Europe" is not a country smaller than Texas. And if it came to it, if for some reason we were unable federally to accomplish what Europe does confederately (despite successfully constructing the most expensive highway system in the world), if for some reason rail in the 21st century confounds the central government... why couldn't Texas build a decent railway on its own?

Because the federal government takes all the money that should be kept within the individual states, and then only gives it back for things they feel are worthwhile. Mostly they give it to themselves and spend it on war.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

People 'overlook' this because it is ridiculous. People don't live in New Jersey and commute to Texas.

Europe built more dense cities and bought more efficient cars because gas was expensive. If the USA had similar energy policies, we too would have had denser cities, more efficient vehicles, and better public transportation.

Or if the taxes were reversed, and each State got the lions share of your taxes, and not the Feds. I'm sure you missed it earlier in the thread, but in my area, the people and local governments have been trying to get money for a light rail system, but the Fed. turned down requests for the funding.

 

[Seth C]

.

 

[Kabouter]

What Europe is doing now to become less fuel-dependent is hardly enough.

And they're doing even less than people think. The goals set for renewable energy production are almost impossible to achieve. In fact, it's quite possible no more than two or three European countries will reach that milestone within the time set. Especially countries like the Netherlands which are amongst the smallest producers of renewable energy won't come anywhere near reaching the goals set.

 

[Souldriver]

Or if the taxes were reversed, and each State got the lions share of your taxes, and not the Feds. I'm sure you missed it earlier in the thread, but in my area, the people and local governments have been trying to get money for a light rail system, but the Fed. turned down requests for the funding.

That shitty. :/ Let's hope the next government shifts it's focus to what's going on in the USA itself instead of the War (I don't want to cause a topic-change to the War!!!!). Aren't there any options left to get the project going anyway?

 

[HolyStar]

What are these Mcmansions eurpeans speak of?

 

[lastendconductor]

Fuck no, there needs to be a giant (I'm talking fucking HUGE) overhaul to our infastructure to cope with what's happening, this is shit we need to deal with. What I'm mildly agitated by is the backseat driving from the EuroGAF contingent. Focusing on what the average American commuter pays at the pump and telling them to get a fucking bicycle is like coming into an emergency room with an arterial bleed and having the douche with the paper cut in the waiting room tell you that you should put a band-aid on it.

We don't have a paper cut. Gas is way more expensive here.

 

[Flo_Evans]

That shitty. :/ Let's hope the next government shifts it's focus to what's going on in the USA itself instead of the War (I don't want to cause a topic-change to the War!!!!). Aren't there any options left to get the project going anyway?

They could raise local taxes. The problem is most people will not vote to raise their taxes even if it helps them in the long run.

 

[Seth C]

That shitty. :/ Let's hope the next government shifts it's focus to what's going on in the USA itself instead of the War (I don't want to cause a topic-change to the War!!!!). Aren't there any options left to get the project going anyway?

They won't. Why would they shift anything? They enjoy being the ones in control. Sadly, this is exactly what the civil war was fought over, and all the fears the South had at the time have been realized. State governments no longer have the ability to make any real decisions, and have no money to enact them even if they could. Any decision making power they do seemingly have is just indirectly controlled by the federal government. For example: the minimum drinking age is controlled at a state level, but it is 21 in all 50 states because the federal government decided they wouldn't give back money for highway construction and maintenance otherwise. Another one: My state is now heavily enforcing required seat belt laws, because otherwise their Medicare funding was going to be cut drastically.

 

[Kabouter]

They could raise local taxes. The problem is most people will not vote to raise their taxes even if it helps them in the long run.

That's the downside of democracy, short-term over long-term. No system is perfect

 

[PrivateWHudson]

They could raise local taxes. The problem is most people will not vote to raise their taxes even if it helps them in the long run.

Um yeah...they do raise them, mostly to keep up with Federally mandated crap like no child left behind that really doesn't help raise the standard of living for...ah fuck it, I'm out.

 

[Souldriver]

They won't. Why would they shift anything? They enjoy being the ones in control. Sadly, this is exactly what the civil war was fought over, and all the fears the South had at the time have been realized. State governments no longer have the ability to make any real decisions, and have no money to enact them even if they could. Any decision making power they do seemingly have is just indirectly controlled by the federal government. For example: the minimum drinking age is controlled at a state level, but it is 21 in all 50 states because the federal government decided they wouldn't give back money for highway construction and maintenance otherwise. Another one: My state is now heavily enforcing required seat belt laws, because otherwise their Medicare funding was going to be cut drastically.

Well, this one has some logic to it. If all states have to give their money to the federal government, but only the ones that have slack legislation about car safety get all the money back to fund hospital costs, that's unfair to the states that make en effort in increasing car safety.

But yes, the pic you're painting is very depressing. Allthough having a federal government that's not a total fuckup could help quite a bit instead of heavily regionalising competences.

 

[Seth C]

Well, this one has some logic to it. If all states have to give their money to the federal government, but only the ones that have slack legislation about car safety get all the money back to fund hospital costs, that's unfair to the states that make en effort in increasing car safety.

But yes, the pic you're painting is very depressing. Allthough having a federal government that's not a total fuckup could help quite a bit instead of heavily regionalising competences.

Unfortunately the reality is the federal government shouldn't be controlling those things. If the money stayed within the state they could spend it on hospitals if they chose to, and if they were complete screw-ups I could move to a state next door that wasn't. There could be competition, more or less. Power breeds corruption, and the federal government now has all the power and no reason to let go. Oh well, nothing can be done about it now. I give the country 100 years more until it gets a reboot and we try again.

 

[Jackl]

Unfortunately the reality is the federal government shouldn't be controlling those things. If the money stayed within the state they could spend it on hospitals if they chose to, and if they were complete screw-ups I could move to a state next door that wasn't. There could be competition, more or less. Power breeds corruption, and the federal government now has all the power and no reason to let go. Oh well, nothing can be done about it now. I give the country 100 years more until it gets a reboot and we try again.

Number 1 reason Americans hate taxes. Because our government typically doesn't do shit with them thats progressive. Any increase will be wasted on some bullshit redundant agency, pet project of a Congressman, or fall into the extremely deep black hole of the DoD budget.

And they always need more.

 

[Innotech]

Katrina. New Orleans. Any progress yet?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11343932&postcount=214

 

[GodfatherX]

Good. Fat Americans should be walking and biking.

would you like to walk the 35 miles to my work?

i go to work, come home...carpool on the weekends wherever we go....and i still spent over $250 in gas last month

 

[SyNapSe]

They could raise local taxes. The problem is most people will not vote to raise their taxes even if it helps them in the long run.

It's hard when your infrastructure is already in the way. When you see a bill come up that says they want to raise sales tax .5% over X number of years plus shut down the middle lane of a lot of your major highways to install a light rail lines it's a tough decision.

hmm, pay more money a year + have a commute 15 minutes longer each way for the hope that this light rail will pay off or just keep going considering the cost of gas hasn't changed in forever. The problem has been that gas prices have exploded and a lot of the reason has been speculation. There would have been more time to start implementing solutions if gas prices had made a more reasonable incline.

The best case scenario for us is if gas keeps creeping for a bit, freaks people out even more and then levels back out to a liveable rate like 2.80-3.00 a gallon for a while. Hopefully, we'll have got the wakeup call and realized we need to start consolidating and building mass transmit as much as possible.

 

[BlueTsunami]

So how long till Oil Barron CEOs/heads start getting assasinated? Hopefully not long!

Fuck no, there needs to be a giant (I'm talking fucking HUGE) overhaul to our infastructure to cope with what's happening, this is shit we need to deal with. What I'm mildly agitated by is the backseat driving from the EuroGAF contingent. Focusing on what the average American commuter pays at the pump and telling them to get a fucking bicycle is like coming into an emergency room with an arterial bleed and having the douche with the paper cut in the waiting room tell you that you should put a band-aid on it.

Seriously :lol

When some states in America are as large as some European countries, riding your european made tricycle with little air horn isn't enough to travel to certain destinations.

Although, people who own 12v Black Holes called trucks that complain about Gas prices need to be punched in the face. Get a vehicle that isn't made for transporting 2 tons of material!

 

[Souldriver]

So how long till Oil Barron CEOs/heads start getting assasinated? Hopefully not long!



Seriously :lol

When some states in America are as large as some European countries, riding your european made tricycle with little air horn isn't enough to travel to certain destinations.

Although, people who own 12v Black Holes called trucks that complain about Gas prices need to be punched in the face. Get a vehicle that isn't made for transporting 2 tons of material!

The size of a state on its own doesn't matter. A guy who lives in Germany doesn't go to work in Italy. So if you live in Northern Texas, you don't go to the southern border every day for work. And if you do, you should either change jobs or houses. I don't see what these arbitrary state or country borders have anything to do with the discussion.

If it's a very wide-spead non-densely populated state however, then it becomes a problem to connect all the little concentrations of people and still be somewhat profitable/managable. When you live in the middle of nowhere, I completely understand that the thought of owning a bike to get somewhere is ridiculous. But if you live in the middle of nowhere, you shouldn't complain about gas prices either, just as you shouldn't complain when you own a gigantic truck (I'm not directing this to you personally, BlueTsunami). And who knows, if things change drastically in the following years, there might actually be a railroad built through your village, which connects you with all the surrounding suburban areas.

Edit: I noticed your edit too late. I said the same thing.

 

[MickeyKnox]

The size of a state on its own doesn't matter. A guy who lives in Germany doesn't go to work in Italy. So if you live in Northern Texas, you don't go to the southern border every day for work. And if you do, you should either change jobs or houses. I don't see what these arbitrary state or country borders have anything to do with the discussion.

If it's a very wide-spead non-densely populated state however, then it becomes a problem to connect all the little concentrations of people and still be somewhat profitable/managable. When you live in the middle of nowhere, I completely understand that the thought of owning a bike to get somewhere is ridiculous. But if you live in the middle of nowhere, you shouldn't complain about gas prices either, just as you shouldn't complain when you own a gigantic truck (I'm not directing this to you personally, BlueTsunami). And who knows, if things change drastically in the following years, there might actually be a railroad built through your village, which connects you with all the surrounding suburban areas.

Edit:

Again, it's not about the dude driving to work, it's about all the possible shit he needs to buy that has to get from one side of the country to the other.

Hello,

♠

and hi to you too:

 

[Souldriver]

If you're trying to say the railroad network is not built out well in the USA, then yes, that's true. I'm not arguing with you.

But again, why should you want to go from New York to California on a regular basis? No one does it. Just like no one goes from Stockholm to Barcelona on a regular basis. And if you have to go that far, then sure, by all means take the car. Or go by plane, cause it's practically travelling. But the discussion in this thread was more about the daily transportation necessary to a working/living man.

 

[Zerachiel]

That's not how the law of supply and demand works, but to be fair, gas company collusion means that we don't get the benefits of competition either - which is why you never say, "I'm going to Shell because it's cheaper."

You ever think about that little gem? That there is literally no such thing as a cheaper brand? Because there is for everything else. Cars, jeans, pies, ice cream, soda, - but not gasoline.

Sure, there might be a local gas station that is typically cheaper - but that's because the owner or franchise pays less rent, or is more desperate.

That's because gas is a commodity.

Cars, jeans, pies, ice cream, and soda can all scrimp on their quality to bring prices down. You don't have much option for gas beyong the normal/super/ultra, which it seems like every brand attempts to deliver instead of specializing in an individual quality level.

You don't have cheap "brands" for gold, platinum, lumber, etc.

There may be collusion going on between gas companies, but similarity of product is not proof of this. It's merely inherent in the nature of commodities.

they're not due to demand, period. the growth rates in developing countries are not high enough to warrant such a run up in prices. it's profiteering by speculators/oil companies/etc, and they do it simply because they can.

I've never understood this view. do you honestly think that gas prices are a factor of increasing and decreasing benevolence on the part of the oil companies? Do you honestly think that Shell's CEO sat down a few monthsd ago and said, "holy shit, let's start doing some profiteering!" The oil companies have always and will always set prices at the level where they'll reap the most profit. note that that's not the maximum price concievable; as this news story illustrates, when prices go up, people buy less of whatever it is you're selling.

Because all those choices are not to drive prices down, but to make it cheaper for individual by making them consume less.

That's true, but a decrease in demand should lead to a decrease in price. However, the US driving 5% less is probably not enoguh to affect worldwide prices, and even if it were, it could just as easily be explained away by the fact that prices aren't as high as they could be.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

If you're trying to say the railroad network is not built out well in the USA, then yes, that's true. I'm not arguing with you.

But again, why should you want to go from New York to California on a regular basis? No one does it. Just like no one goes from Stockholm to Barcelona on a regular basis. And if you have to go that far, then sure, by all means take the car. Or go by plane, cause it's practically travelling. But the discussion in this thread was more about the daily transportation necessary to a working/living man.

Did you see the part that said daily truck traffic? The goods we use DO go from New York to California everyday. Euro's are surrounded by water, and goods can practically go from the ship to your door within a couple of hours. For us, goods have a long way to go after the boat is unloaded. This is the cost that will destroy our economy, not whether or not I ride a scooter, or drive an SUV to work.

 

[Jackl]

Did you see the part that said daily truck traffic? The goods we use DO go from New York to California everyday. Euro's are surrounded by water, and goods can practically go from the ship to your door within a couple of hours. For us, goods have a long way to go after the boat is unloaded. This is the cost that will destroy our economy, not whether or not I ride a scooter, or drive an SUV to work.

Freight trains carry as much as they can inland, but as been pointed out much of the United States don't have direct suppy lines run through them. Everything is trucked or God forbid flown in.

A good example of this is all the grain and food we export. How'd you think all those middle of no where rural farmlands move their crops?

 

[Evlar]

Freight trains carry as much as they can inland, but as been pointed out much of the United States don't have direct suppy lines run through them. Everything is trucked or God forbid flown in.

A good example of this is all the grain and food we export. How'd you think all those middle of no where rural farmlands move their crops?

They truck it as little as possible... At least where I grew up the corn/grain/soybeans were put on water transport (river barges) in the most direct line possible.

Obviously it's not possible to completely eliminate the gasoline engine from the distribution chain but the idea is to limit the distance travelled by that expensive method as much as possible by constructing an extensive enough network of depots and ports.

This isn't some radical new idea for America. We were at one time the largest rail-serviced country in the world. Our rail network was of gigantic importance in effecting the rise of the US from a middling power of coastal settlements abutting a vast wilderness into the economic powerhouse that dominated the 20th century. If we could connect this huge nation together with rail in the 1870s why can't we do it today?