Are we recording?
This is Pete Seeger, inviting you this Father's Day weekend to celebrate on the shores of
the Hudson River with music, dance, storytelling, crafts, and so much more.
It's Clearwater's Great Hudson River Revival, a music and environmental festival.
Hope to see you there.
It's Clearwater's music and environmental festival, here on WBAI.
I'm Björn from ABBA, and this is WBAI.
WBAI is a non-profit and supported non-commercial radio in New York.
Are we recording?
This is Pete Seeger, inviting you this Father's Day weekend to celebrate on the shores of
the Hudson River with music, dance, storytelling, crafts, and so much more.
It's Clearwater's Great Hudson River Revival, a music and environmental festival.
Hope to see you there.
It's Clearwater's music and environmental festival, here on WBAI.
Hey, if you're listening to the radio station WBAI in New York, the time is 6.59, and, well,
we can't get anything else to work around here, so why don't we just start Off The Hook
a little bit early tonight.
Time now for another exciting edition of Off The Hook.
And that's not going to work.
Okay, well, it's going to be one of those nights, I see, where we have all kinds of
technical problems.
That, actually, you know, by the way, in case you think the CD is dirty, that's a new CD.
We re-recorded it because the last one was giving us trouble, and, well, now it seems
it's the machine that's giving us problems, not the actual theme.
The theme usually sounds better than this.
Believe it or not.
Okay, enough about that.
This is Emanuel Goldstein.
Off The Hook is on the air, and we have a studio filled with people tonight for some
reason.
Why are there so many people here?
I don't know.
And Bernie down there in Philadelphia.
Bernie, you with us?
Good evening.
How you doing?
Pretty good.
How are you?
Hectic.
I don't know what to use because it's been a heck of a week as far as just all these
events happening and preparation for future events and things like that, but I guess the
big news that we're going to start off with involves a guest to our studio from a foreign
country.
Fred from Montreal is here, and Fred actually brought something down to New York that has
been bringing people in the city all kinds of joy over the last about a week or so.
Fred, do you want to describe what it is that the people of New York may have seen for the
first time in their lives because of you?
Well, it's a tiny little thing called a smart car.
So the smart car is in Manhattan right now as we speak.
That's right.
And people are coming up to it.
People are coming up to it, pointing to it.
It never stops.
You can't park somewhere without someone coming to the car in less than 15 seconds.
It's something like I've never experienced before, and I've been a part of a bunch of
weird events, but just driving down the street in this little two-seater car from Europe,
you get all kinds of smiles and waves and thumbs up, people taking pictures.
Just having it parked on the street, people will come by and marvel at it.
In fact, if you want to see it, it's parked right outside the station right now, one block
up actually, and we're going to be driving it around the East Village a little later
tonight.
So if you have nothing else to do, stand by the side of the street, and I'm sure you'll
see it go whizzing by at some point.
I think people are surprised to see just how much like a regular car it is.
It doesn't go slow or it doesn't have no power.
It's really a lot of fun.
It drives great.
It's got a Mercedes-Benz motor in there, so it handles the road very well.
Yeah, it does.
And it's spacey on the inside.
I don't want this to sound like a car commercial, but this is sort of the pinnacle of something
that we've been talking about now for a couple of years, getting these things into this country
and boy, there's one in this country right now.
In fact, I know there are a few, but at least in the city, there is one right now.
And just the reaction that it's been getting from people tells me that boy, this would
do good if they were smart enough, no pun intended, to actually market the thing here.
It's very surprising to see how people react to this car.
I was driving down the 87, and people actually slow down and start waving, giving thumbs
up and smiling, and if you stop the car, it's like you get bombarded with questions all
the time.
Mm-hmm.
I have a question.
Yeah, go ahead, Bernie.
My question is, it seems like such a good idea, and I'm sure the smart car company hasn't
not thought of bringing it to the U.S., but I'm wondering if there's any behind-the-scenes,
I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but I'm wondering if there's any behind-the-scenes
pressure from the current automotive manufacturers in the U.S., like GM, which is on its deathbed,
pressuring the EPA, whoever has to approve this vehicle for sale in the U.S., to sort
of keep putting the application at the bottom of the pile?
Well, I know one of the explanations we give to people when they ask why isn't this thing
in this country, we say it doesn't use enough gas.
Some people seem to accept that as a logical reason, but I don't know.
I think smart and Mercedes could be doing a lot more to bring this thing into this country.
I remember talking to a dealer in Canada, a smart dealer, and they said that they were
thinking of bringing the, not the small one, but the 4.4 and the SUV 4 More to the U.S.
Well, no, they canceled the SUV version.
Oh, did they?
Yeah, that was a stupid idea.
It was called the 4 More.
And the whole point, the whole point of this really neat-looking car is that it's tiny.
So if you make it the same size as a normal car, it loses everything that makes it unique.
But I found it amusing that they didn't think that a small car could do well, and, you know,
just walking down the street anywhere, some of these cars that I see just scare me.
Like, I don't want to be anywhere near them because they're gigantic, and I don't understand
it because...
You know, the thing is, driving around, we've been driving around on highways and throughout
the whole tri-state area, you would think that big cars would intimidate you in this
little tiny thing, but I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but have they intimidated you,
Fred?
Not at all.
Actually, the car handles the road very well.
You can pass cars pretty much easily.
And you're a little higher up than most cars, which gives you, like, a kind of confidence
in the tiny little thing.
And you actually feel like you're in a real car.
It's really small on the outside, but the way they managed to design it, it's extremely
spacey inside.
You actually forget you're in a tiny little car.
And just today, on the way down here, I thought I was going to get hit by some idiot behind
me who was getting really, really close, he was turning, and you can sort of sense
when this guy is too close and I'm about to feel an impact, but I forgot how little space
there was behind me, and he basically was just able to easily go right past me without
coming anywhere near me.
So yeah, it takes a little bit of getting used to.
And I'm afraid when I drive a regular car again, I might undercompensate for those kinds
of things.
So yeah, it's really cool.
It's been an amazing last couple of days just showing this thing off.
And I guess we just got to figure out now how we can actually change the minds of people
who are in charge of motor vehicles in this country, and maybe conserve a whole lot of
fuel in the process.
I actually think the reason they don't have it in the U.S. might be because of the safety
reasons.
I mean, when you're driving around, everybody's staring at it, and drivers are driving really
dangerously around the smart car.
Yeah, there is a lot of pointing and staring.
We've seen people swerve as they pass us, and they're turning around to get a better
look.
Pedestrians go running into traffic, screaming and yelling to see the thing closer.
So yeah, it can be dangerous, but not because of the car itself.
People just have to get used to it, and I guess the only way to do that is to keep driving
around.
We were driving around Times Square, and boy, did that cause a commotion.
Even the cops were coming up wanting to know when they could get one.
Taxi drivers kept rolling down the windows asking, you know, what kind of mileage does
this get?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, you know something is probably wrong with it if the cops want one.
Well, I don't know if they wanted one, or they just wanted to know when they're going
to be around in the country.
You know, in Lisbon, in Portugal, they actually do use these as police cars.
They actually do.
So they must run red lights real well or something?
Well, I ran one by accident.
Criminal?
Yeah, I'm sorry.
But I don't know.
They can go pretty – they can accelerate fast.
They can hold their own.
If you want to see what they look like, go to www.smart.com if you have ideas as to how
we can use some of this positive feedback and actually replace the SUVs with these things.
Yeah, you can't bring your family of eight with the 55-gallon drum of mayonnaise if you
buy Price Club into this thing.
That's true, but there is space for baggage.
There is space for, you know, various things.
If you just want to get around town, this is a good thing.
If you just want to get around this town, of course, you'd do better with a bicycle.
I wouldn't necessarily say that.
I've seen what some bicycles have been doing lately.
But it's the closest thing to a bicycle without being on a bicycle.
Let's put it that way.
It might be harder to park a bicycle in the city.
Yeah.
OK.
What else is happening?
I see Lynn is here.
Yes.
What brings you by?
I just was in town and thought I'd stop by.
You came for the smart car, didn't you?
Yeah.
Well, you told me there was a surprise.
I actually took a picture of it out front before I even knew that was what the surprise
was.
That's what people are doing.
They're walking outside on Wall Street.
They're flocking to the car.
They're taking pictures of it.
It's that unusual.
And I've seen all kinds of things come out.
I've seen, you know, the new VW Beetle and the PT Cruiser and the Mini.
And you know, people like those cars.
But nothing, nothing like this.
Have you seen any of the ones that were all stripped down in Europe where they have, like,
the mesh doors on them and all kinds of – they've taken the doors and the fenders and all this
other stuff off?
I have a picture of one from Switzerland or Germany, I think, where somebody had just
totally modified the whole car and taken, like, I don't know, half the body off of
it.
Wow.
You know, kind of like a dune buggy VW Beetle or something.
That sounds like a lot of fun.
Okay, what's going on in news this week as far as technology, computers, things like
that?
Does anybody have something to –
Kim's.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Kim's.
Kim's.
What's Kim's?
Mondo Kim's.
Mondo Kim's.
Mondo Kim's.
What happened?
They were raided by the New York Police Department.
Really?
Raided by the New York Police Department for selling foreign videos?
Allegedly for selling illegally made mixed CDs or something.
Really?
Mixed CDs?
This is what the police are spending their time doing?
This is what the police are spending their time doing.
And so they went and – are you holding the article?
I'm holding an article.
You're holding an article.
The article.
Okay.
This came from the Village Voice.
Apparently what the police do is they went in and they told all the customers to get
out.
And then they made the staff line up and picked like five of them.
That sounds really ominous.
And they arrested like the clerks, which seems a little unnecessary to me.
And they did this during business hours?
During business hours.
Boy.
Well, you know, we go to Kim's a lot actually because they're the only place around that
has region two DVDs.
You can buy things from Europe and watch videos in a region-free player.
And they also have a lot of music as well.
So it's really kind of frightening to see something like this happen to a place like
that.
I mean, you know, if someone is selling something they're not supposed to be selling, isn't
there another way to deal with it rather than have cops come in and do something like this?
One of the things about this that I really don't understand is that the police were
only interested in hip hop CDs.
Really?
Or from reports anyway.
Which leads me to wonder, is it the case that Kim's is making copies only of hip hop CDs?
That they are actually making illegal copies of those, but only of those?
Or is there some like bizarre thing where the RIA is focusing on hip hop, which is,
you know, music normally or most commonly associated with certain sets of people.
And I'm wondering if they're targeting that, which is kind of strange.
Well, hip hop is also a very popular genre at this point in time.
But so are all kinds of genres.
It's all kinds of popular bits of music out there.
It does seem weird that they would target that specifically.
Is it possible that some record company was behind this that specializes in rap music?
I don't know.
The whole thing is just very strange.
Here's what they got.
They got 500 CDRs, 27 music DVDs, 9 DVD burners, and a scanner.
And you know who told us this?
The RIAA.
That's the Recording Industry Association of America.
They're the ones who are very proud of this raid.
They issued a press release June 9th to applaud the efforts of the NYPD.
The well-known back right corner of Kim's ground floor, normally brimming with hip hop
mixtapes, had been raided completely.
The sectioned shelves conspicuously empty.
Five employees were arrested, all charged with trademark counterfeiting in the second
degree held at Manhattan Central Booking over the night of June 8th.
Kim, do you know the name of the owner of Kim's?
Mr. Kim?
Well, yeah, but his full name is Young Man Kim.
Young Man is his first name.
It's a cool name, I think.
At some point, that will violate truth in advertising laws.
Yeah, Young Man Kim.
Anyway, he's made no official statement about the raid, but Brad Buckles, the executive
vice president of anti-piracy of the Recording Industry of America, I don't know why they
have this guy giving a quote instead of the other guy.
They make it seem like he's going to speak for him.
But this guy said the following, the NYPD's steadfast commitment to the fight against
piracy.
Did you know that they were steadfastly committed in the fight against piracy?
They're steadfastly committed to all kinds of things.
They're steadfastly committed to running red lights.
I know that much.
They do that all the time.
Well, they're in such a hurry to stop piracy that they need to run the red lights.
And driving at highway speeds through parks, you know, things like that, without the headlights
on.
Well, they need to catch the pirates.
It's very important.
Yeah.
I guess that's the only way to do it.
Steadfast.
Their steadfast commitment to the fight against piracy has stamped out yet another significant
illegal operation.
Yeah.
Kim's is a significant illegal operation.
With actions such as these, New York City law enforcement continues to send a strong
message to music pirates that this behavior simply will not be tolerated.
Retailers who are making money on the backs of musicians and record companies by selling
pirated CDs should know that this is absolutely no way to conduct a business.
It might be interesting to point out too that Kim's was thanked in the Kill Bill films
apparently because they're such a cool place.
I don't think Quentin Tarantino would approve of a place that's a den of piracy, would he?
Unless he was writing about it.
Who knows?
So, yeah, that's the latest there.
We'll be keeping an eye on that situation certainly.
What else is going on?
You heard about this thing at Stanford, right, where people were able to check the website
to see if they actually were accepted.
The business school?
Was it the business school?
Yeah.
The Graduate School of Business.
Now, they have rejected 41 applicants who tried to access an admissions website earlier
this year in hopes of learning their fate ahead of schedule.
School officials said the applicants were given the opportunity to explain why they
attempted to gain access to their admissions files before the date when the university
was to tell them that they were admitted.
At the end of the day, we didn't hear any stories that we thought were compelling enough
to counterbalance the act, said Robert Jostein of the business school.
Admission sites of at least six schools were accessed by applicants for about 10 hours
in early March after a hacker posted instructions in a Business Week online forum.
The instructions told people to log on to their admissions webpage and find their identification
numbers in source material that was available on the site.
By plugging those numbers into another webpage address, they were directed to a page where
their admissions decision would be found.
Some applicants saw blank pages.
Others viewed rejection letters before access was denied.
Now, my question is – yes, go, Redbird.
What would a valid explanation be for this?
Curiosity.
I mean –
No, no.
I mean acceptable to them.
What would they accept?
Probably nothing.
Well, you know, there is one that I don't think anybody came up with.
It wasn't me.
I mean how do you prove that the person who is applying was the person that did it?
I mean anybody could find these names I assume.
Anybody could figure out the ID numbers.
I mean I think IP addresses would do it but I doubt that Stanford did that.
The point is this.
It's not a hack.
It's not an intrusion into Stanford's site.
No, it's an intrusion.
It's having that information out there for anybody to look at.
Exactly.
You are minding your own business, perusing Business Week's forums and all of a sudden
you and five billion other people get a message saying, hey, Stanford has bad security.
If you happen to be a business school applicant, it may apply to you.
You can easily go to their site and find out if you've been admitted by doing this.
In other words, that window is open.
There is a naked woman in there.
You can go look.
You're on the sidewalk.
Well, okay.
I see nothing wrong with that.
It may be a little improper but it's not illegal.
Stanford, I think, had no right to bar these people with the flimsy excuses they gave.
But on the other hand, yeah, you say it's not illegal.
They're not being charged with a crime.
And Stanford does have the right to reject people if they want to.
So they think these people are dishonest.
I question whether or not that's dishonesty and just, well, let's see if that actually
works.
Because I know I would do it.
I would certainly want to see if they have a blatant security hole like that where you
can simply check to see who's accepted or rejected.
So I think it's kind of unrealistic to assume that everybody will read something like that
and then just say, well, that would be wrong.
I'm not going to even try and see what results from this.
I wonder if anybody decided that they didn't want to go to this school because of their
poor security.
Yeah.
I mean, that would be another possibility.
Well, that's how I would counter it.
If I was one of the people rejected, I would say, well, I didn't want to go to your stupid
school anyway because you have no security at all and you don't treat your students with
– or potential students with any kind of respect by protecting their privacy.
People with attitudes like that don't apply to business school.
Probably not.
Right.
Just to reiterate what they could have done, they could have done two things.
They could have, when pressed by Stanford, said that, gee, it wasn't me.
And secondly, if you had done this, it would have been brilliant on your part to do it
not only for your ID, which could be obtained from this site, but for six or 12 others.
Because then how would they know it's you?
You could say, it wasn't me.
But honestly –
Did they just look at my thing?
Would you have expected the school to say, okay, now we're not going to accept you at
all because you did this?
You have to think ahead of these idiots.
Well, what about saying, now why did you let other people see my results?
Ooh.
Now, I think anybody who's worth their salt in a business school will already be preparing
the paperwork for a lawsuit about – anybody out there who was rejected because of this,
I would advise you to do that.
Yeah, because you could have taken the list of people who were accepted and sent a rejection
letter saying, I don't want to go to this school anymore until you got accepted.
Or your admissions to another school or another job could be damaged.
Your career could be damaged.
That's true.
Many other possibilities that could be worth a lot, well, you know.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Speaking of naked people, which I believe, Jim, you mentioned, a woman has sued Yahoo
for $3 million alleging the internet site failed to fulfill a promise to remove nude
pictures of her from the web.
That's right.
In a lawsuit filed a couple of weeks ago, Cecilia Barnes claims an ex-boyfriend began
posting unauthorized personal profiles of her containing the photos in December.
The profiles included her email address and work phone number.
The former boyfriend also engaged in online discussions in Yahoo chat rooms while posing
as Barnes and directing men to the profiles, according to the lawsuit.
Due to these profiles and online chats, unknown men would arrive without warning at plaintiff's
work, expecting to engage in sexual relations with her.
Barnes sent Yahoo a letter in January saying she did not create the profiles and wanted
them removed.
Additional attempts to get Yahoo to remove them in February and March did not get a response.
A Yahoo spokeswoman declined to comment, saying they don't comment on things.
My question about this is how much can you expect Yahoo to do about something like this?
If you see a picture of yourself that's not very flattering or that you just don't approve
of, are they really the people that go around deleting everything and playing cop or is
it something that should be more user-defined?
If she didn't send them a letter, I would agree with you totally, but the point is this.
She spots all this stuff, probably the hard way, pardon the pun, by people coming to her
work and telling her, but we chatted on Yahoo, I saw your naked picture.
At that point, she contacts Yahoo.
She must have gotten some sort of response or even if she didn't, at that point, she
expects them to be able to take this down, she's telling them where it is.
How does Yahoo even know that she's who she says she is?
She's swearing it.
I mean, if Yahoo wanted to respond to it, they could have said, well, okay, come by
our offices.
Let's see if you look anything like this photo.
I don't think that's how, maybe that's how you would run Yahoo, but I don't think that's
how Yahoo runs Yahoo.
You know how many hundreds of requests they probably get to ask for deleting accounts
and whatever and if they just approve every one of them.
Yes, they get hundreds of requests to delete an account, but how many of them say, I'm
being hounded by horny guys with perverse thoughts, who would see my photo posted by
my boyfriend.
Here's some good reasons to take it off because it is me and I can prove it.
Take it off already.
If you were in Yahoo's position, wouldn't you just have a filter that just deleted every
request to delete an account?
Think about their position.
It'd be very difficult to weed out ones that were true.
Yahoo's defense may be that they're a carrier.
That's what I would assume they would say.
But if they responded to this, they're in big trouble and I think morally, they have
the power of moral suasion, rather the woman has the power of moral suasion behind her.
If this gets to court, she will win and probably should.
I don't know.
I think it would set a bad precedent because anything that – for one thing, sometimes
people don't want a post of theirs to exist on a Yahoo news group and they say, I demand
that you take that post off.
Why should they?
If they said something, if something existed – I'm with the whole archive.org mentality.
If something happened, then it's happened for all time.
You can't just erase it.
If there's a picture of you that you don't like, well, that's what the nature of the
net is.
If you say something that makes you look like an idiot, you can't just unsay it.
That's how the net works and yeah, you should go after the guy who's harassing you.
It sounds like it's pretty easy to find out who that is but that's where you focus
the attention.
It is a crappy position for her to be in obviously but she should be going after her ex-boyfriend.
But the thing is if I have visited that Yahoo site, I have a picture of her on my computer.
So am I liable for something now too?
Is she going to go after me?
Well, it's obviously unrealistic to ask for anything to be taken off the internet
once it gets up there because of all these mirrors and everything but she should be focusing
her attention towards her ex-boyfriend instead.
Yeah, yeah.
We're working on eliminating him somehow.
Okay, here's a story that I just saw last week and I thought it was really kind of cool.
I want you to listen carefully, all right?
The headline of the story, text messages to stop kids wagging.
Yeah, I could not make this up.
Is this an American story?
Don't interrupt, Jim.
Oh, okay.
Territory children wagging school are about to be daubed into their parents by mobile
telephone text messages.
What is school wagging?
This is either Canadian or Australian.
Well, we have a Canadian here so is this Canadian?
It's not French Canadian, that's for sure.
The system will involve sending an SMS to alert parents if their child is not at school
and we'll ask them for an explanation.
The territory has the highest rate of truancy in Australia.
The messaging system developed by Adelaide company MGM Wireless, oh my God, has been
successful in cutting truancy by 50% in other Australian states.
Palmerston High School is one of six territory schools considering introducing the phone
message software.
The SMS system has been reported to be incredibly effective.
So I guess it's kind of cool, though.
What about the dogs?
I had no idea what wagging was until I read this story either.
Will they still be allowed to wag?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm sure SMS will solve that as well.
Bernie, what do you got down there?
Anything?
I read about a massive state recall of Texas Instruments calculators which was triggered
by a 12-year-old who figured out that if he pressed two keys at the same time on these
state-issued calculators, apparently the state of Virginia issues these calculators, a certain
model, special model calculators modified for the state that doesn't have a fraction
to decimal converter, so kids have to figure out on their own.
So this 12-year-old kid figured out how to do it on his own by pressing two keys.
And actually, maybe it's the other way around, decimal to fraction.
Bernie, I think we talked about this before.
I think we did.
I didn't hear this.
Really?
Okay.
Well, some of us in the studio seem to think we've heard this before.
Maybe we talked about it by ourselves.
All right.
Could be.
Well, maybe it was on off the wall.
That might have been.
That might have been.
Okay.
It's possible.
But okay, it's an interesting story.
So the kid figured out basically how to...
So he's in jail now, right?
Well, you would think so, based on the mentality of government these days, but no, he was actually
congratulated, but the state had to recall something like 160,000 calculators, and they're
going to be replaced by Texas Instruments.
I don't know if it's their expense or whose expense, but probably taxpayer's expense.
So you can't press two keys to emulate a third key.
And what's weird is I remember doing this almost 30 years ago with the original TI-30
calculator.
It wasn't their first one, but it's the first TI calculator I...
Actually, it was the second TI calculator I owned.
And it was basically a matrix, a standard keypad matrix, and if you just figured out
from the row and column where the key was that you wanted to press and found out where
they intersected and pressed the opposing keys at the end of each row and column at
that intersection, you could emulate the third key if you didn't press.
In this case, the key was deliberately missing, omitted by the state of Virginia, and the
kid figured out, well, if he presses two keys where those rows and columns intersect, he
could convert the number, which is going to give kids an unfair advantage, according to
the state of Virginia.
I think that's kind of silly.
But in any case, I'd like to know who's going to pay for this whole thing, and I'm glad
the kid is not being punished.
Well, who do you think should pay for it?
Good question.
I think the state...
Well, the state should pay for it, but as in any case where the state is at fault, as
we've all learned, who gets to pay or has to pay?
That means we're paying for it if the state pays for it.
Exactly.
If we're actually responsible for the oversight, for missing this easy thing, whether it's
tax insurance or the state, the state's going to probably end up paying for it, and the
people...
For instance, if somebody gets arrested without cause by police, and for instance, the Shapeshifters
case got arrested here in Philadelphia during the RNC protest about five years ago.
The city had to pay out a bunch of money, and it was not charged to the people who violated
his rights, but it was charged to the taxpayers, and that's just wrong, and that's simply what
seems to happen in almost every case where there's government, if not malfeasance, but
just incompetence.
Well, have you ever heard of a case anywhere in this country where officials are actually
held liable personally for doing things like that?
That's a thing.
It just doesn't happen.
It's almost encouraging them to continue doing this stuff.
Does that happen in Canada, Fred?
Never heard of such a case.
So officials there aren't held personally responsible either?
No?
Never heard of it.
Okay.
I think this is a syndrome that you find all throughout the world, and it's unfair, certainly,
and we should be fighting it and making people aware of it.
I'm afraid that in cases like Shapeshifters, people would feel that he's the one that's
costing them money if he was to collect a great deal from the police department for
abusing his rights.
It shouldn't be that way.
Obviously, the people who abuse the rights, they should be the ones that feel the public's
wrath, not the people who are victimized.
Okay.
Well, that's a very interesting story, and hopefully that kid will stay out of trouble
now.
Let's take a look at some other things that are going on.
First of all, we're getting a bunch of mail, as always.
Our email address, othat2600.com.
That's over the electronic internet device thing that's out there.
Or you can send us pencil mail, pens, papers, whatever it is you want to send us.
You can do that through the magic of the post office, and the address there is off the hook,
careofwbai120wallstreet.
10th floor.
That's right.
New York, New York.
1-0-0-0-5.
Okay.
It's good to see you again, Walter.
USA.
All right.
And feel free to send us anything that's on your mind.
Here's a note that we got from somebody based on last week's show.
You guys were talking last week about how soon casinos will be able to take bets from
a cell phone as long as you're in Nevada.
And, of course, we were also talking about using cell phones on airplanes.
Now, this person is from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
He's from New York.
take bets from a cell phone as long as you're in Nevada.
And, of course, we were also talking about using cell phones on airplanes.
Now, this person has merged these together and is asking, will they take your bet if
you're calling from a plane flying through Nevada?
Well, that's certainly going to open up all kinds of trouble.
I don't see why not.
Legally, the doctrine is that the territory of a sovereign state, country, whatever you'd
like to think of, extends from the center of the earth up through its boundaries and
as far out as it needs to apply.
Yes, but you're not supposed to be talking on a cell phone on an airplane.
Currently.
All right.
But, actually, isn't there an elevation at which they consider you're in...
If you're in interstate travel, you're under interstate conveyances, which is usually under
federal jurisdiction.
So is there a federal law against gambling?
Could you not do it anywhere in the air?
But it may not apply.
There may be no specific federal law against gambling in the air.
The feds, in other words, tend to let the states handle it.
And I would guess that the feds would, if you're directly over Nevada, not mind.
Well, you don't have to pay...
The airlines do not pay tax on liquor that goes between states.
So it could be an interesting situation.
In the liquor case, it's not where you are.
It's the fact that you are starting in one state and ending in another.
In the gambling case, it's a question of where you are when you're doing it.
When you press the SIM key.
All kinds of legal issues and questions that are raised by these hypothetic situations.
Now here's another question.
One of the first features I noticed about my new phone was that it had an airplane mode.
I remember thinking at the time that it was not...
I was not allowed to talk on cell phones and airplanes, but I didn't realize how much trouble
you could get into until I heard your discussion about it on the show.
I have never used the airplane mode, but I presume that it changes the frequency or something
so that it won't mess with the plane's controls.
My question is, why would a cell phone have an airplane mode in the first place if you're
not supposed to use it on an airplane?
By the way, it's a VM4500 by Sanyo, and I have Sprint service.
Okay, everybody wants to jump on this one.
Redbird, you take it.
The airplane modes usually just turn off the transmitter, so you can use all the other
functions of the cell phone and the transmitter will be off.
You can use the camera.
You can use the calculator.
You can use the calendar.
You can use the MP3 player.
You can use the...
What else do phones do these days besides make calls?
Flashlight.
Flashlight.
You're so proud of that flashlight on your phone.
It's unbelievable.
I just want a phone that makes phone calls.
Is that so much to ask?
That mode actually comes in very useful when you're not near any cell towers, too, because
your cell phone won't be trying to associate itself with a cell phone tower, and it will
save you a tremendous amount of battery power.
Yeah, and not using it as a cell phone, I imagine, would, but boy, it's really hard
to find a phone these days that just makes phone calls.
You should see all the Crackberry addicts on the airplanes with their Blackberries.
Yeah.
Because it has the airplane modes, and they're in there responding to emails, writing emails,
and then when they land, they all send.
That leads me into something I want to discuss as well, and that's, of course, the cell phones.
I don't know if you heard what happened to me last week.
I got a ticket for talking on my phone while I was driving, and I'm still a little steamed
by it, but we got quite a bit of feedback for that.
It happened while I was passing a construction...
Not construction, an accident site, and so I was calling a friend, basically updating
him on my progress, or lack thereof, and bang, right away, I was seen and targeted
and told to pull over.
It took about 10 minutes to pull over safely because of all the traffic that was there,
and finally, I got my ticket for endangering traffic by talking on a cell phone.
Here's what one reader has to say about this kind of situation.
A local cop here in New York City saw me with something in my hand.
He pulled me over and wrote me a ticket for cellular phone use.
I knew better than to argue at the time.
I went to the DMV hearing and questioned the cop as to what cellular brand phone I
was using, what company logo, et cetera.
He did not know.
I pulled out my ham license and put it on the desk.
I then pulled out my transceiver and asked if this could have been what he saw.
For good measure, I showed the specific New York State cellular law with its clear language
about hooked into the PSTN, so depending on what exactly you were doing and what you said
and what the officer remembers and is willing to testify to, you may be able to get off
from that particular charge, signed Danny.
Actually, he adds, the reason I didn't argue with the cop at the scene was that he'd have
rewritten the ticket with the vaguer unsafe driving charge, and that's much harder to
get out of.
Well, my question from that is, why is it that talking on a ham radio or talking on
a CB somehow isn't considered to be distracting, whereas talking on a cell phone is, according
to the law anyway?
Does it make any sense?
No.
Okay.
Bernie, do I seem to remember, now my ham radio knowledge is vastly inferior to yours,
but aren't ham radio conversations supposed to be much more business-like than cell phone
conversations?
As a matter of fact, the contrary, you're not, well, business-like is the key phrase.
You're not actually permitted to discuss anything business-related over amateur radio frequency.
That's a violation of FCC regulations.
You cannot conduct business or play music over ham radio.
It's meant for communicating between people on a non-business basis, but yeah, your conversations
are maybe a little less casual or more formal than a standard phone conversation, because
the nature of the conversation, it's half-duplex.
You have to stay over, or you announce your call sign occasionally, and you let your colleagues
interpret it.
Okay, but the nature of the conversation really shouldn't dictate whether or not something
is distracting, because you're able to talk about anything on a cell phone.
Is that why that's considered to be more distracting than talking about your ham radio equipment?
I think there's no substantial difference between a ham radio conversation and half-duplex,
and a cell phone conversation, full-duplex, from a distraction standpoint.
You'd be just as distracted with one as the other, I think.
So would you say that you could be just as distracted by operating a CB while you're
driving, which is what they're designed for?
People hold them with one hand, and they talk into the microphone.
Why is there not a law against that, but holding something up to your ear, or even having it
next to your ear, and holding it with your shoulder, that somehow is more distracting?
I just don't follow the logic.
Very good point.
Because the police would then not be able to use their multi-million dollar radio systems
in their cars.
Okay.
But I do have to say that both of the speeding tickets I've ever gotten, I was talking on
the radio.
Okay, but you got a ticket for speeding.
Yeah, well that was because I wasn't paying attention to the speed sign, because I was
talking on the radio.
Well, you know, there's all kinds of things that can distract you.
A conversation in the car can make you go fast.
You don't outlaw the conversation, you outlaw the dangerous behavior.
So if somebody is driving erratically, you know, you can blame it on whatever, but you
charge them with driving erratically, or not paying attention or something.
But we got a lot of feedback about this.
I want to read a couple of letters.
Dear Off The Hook, I love the show.
I've been listening for years, first in New York, then in the Bay Area, then in Vancouver,
Canada, and now in London.
Apparently this guy's on the run from something.
I keep meaning to write about something or other.
I'm always cheering you on, but I had to take issue with Emanuel on last week's driving
while on a cell phone debate.
I think Emanuel said that he'd been ticketed that afternoon, so I can understand that he
was bummed about it.
Yes.
Thank you.
Even so, I think the cell phone ban is a great idea.
When I lived in New York, I used to drive from Manhattan to New Jersey every week.
I'd often see fender benders on the approach to the Holland Tunnel, invariably involving
people who were distracted by cell phone use.
Well, first of all, I'd like to know how you know that.
Did you see them happen, or did you see them talking on the cell phone afterwards when
they were trying to call somebody to say they weren't coming or something?
Anyway, I also saw a low-speed pileup happen in the lane right next to me when driving
south of San Francisco.
The traffic had been stop-start.
Someone had fired up their cell phone, and then they'd screwed up their braking when
the traffic ahead of them slowed down.
So from my very unscientific experiences on two coasts, I'd say that low-speed cell phone
use can easily lead to accidents.
What's more, as the phone companies cram more and more services into phones, which require
users to be increasingly fleet-fingered with their phone keys, it's going to be much easier
to get distracted when you're using the phone in a car.
People aren't only talking, they're looking through their calendars, choosing MP3s, downloading
ringtones, and Lord knows what else.
Is that part of the law?
Can you play your MP3 player and look through your calendar?
Can you do that?
Is that illegal?
Just talking on the phone?
I would think that that would fall under distracted driving.
Yeah, I would too.
I agree that it makes sense to ban on the devices and to target Big Macs in particular.
Full disclosure, I usually listen to the show on my iPod via a mini FM transmitter while
I drive to work in Vancouver, and I constantly worry that I'm going to crash the car when
I find myself switching tracks or rewinding to catch Bernie's last sardonic remark.
That's legal in Canada, driving with headphones.
That's legal.
With a Walkman.
No, you can't.
You can't do that here either.
Okay, so I don't understand why it's legal to have a headset for these hands-free devices.
To me, it seems extremely dangerous if something happens, right?
If I'm talking on a cell phone and something happens that requires me to move very quickly,
I drop the cell phone and move very quickly.
If someone is talking into my ear, how do I get them to stop talking into my ear so
I can make that quick maneuver?
I don't agree with that.
You're not restricted in movement by the earpiece.
I really do think that having an earpiece is much safer than having a headset.
If somebody is yelling into your ear and something dangerous is happening right in front of you
that requires 100% of your attention, if I'm on my phone, I can just simply release the
phone, it falls to the ground, and I can devote 100% of my attention to what's going on in
front of me.
Now, if I have somebody in my ear, I either have to figure out a way to turn it off or
I have to yank it out of my ear first.
That adds a step.
You can very easily pull it out of your ear if you feel so inclined, but it's not restricting
your movement or anything like that.
But it sounds to me like you're adding another step where you have to pull something.
If you don't feel like you're able to do this, then don't do it.
That's why I don't want to do it.
I don't want to have something attached to my ear.
I just want to have something in my hand that I can drop at a moment's notice.
I don't disagree with this listener either because there's been many situations where
I'm on the road and people are very distracted while driving with their cell phone.
It's very obvious, like a majority of the people who do very stupid things on the road
are talking to themselves.
I am not denying that there are people who cannot handle the most simple things on the
road, but driving is one of them.
Can't you just ask the person to shut up that you're talking to?
You don't have to take them out of your ear to stop them talking.
If you're driving, particularly in the New York area, things happen very fast.
There's no time to say, you know, I'm about to get into an accident.
Could you please hold on?
You can't do that.
You can't.
You have to act immediately.
Now, I've never had a problem with this.
One of the problems I've had is trying to hide talking on a cell phone so that a cop
doesn't see me.
That's a dangerous situation.
I feel like if something was about to happen very quickly, you'd probably yell an expletive
and that would shut them up.
No.
Believe me, it doesn't.
You know, this whole thing makes me glad I live in a state that doesn't have this law.
Uh-huh.
Anyway, so...
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm in one of the few states that's left.
All right.
Anyway, I want to thank Nick for writing in with that letter.
We have one other on this subject.
Emanuel, this is in regards to your rant about cell phones on the road and your $90 phone
call.
Think of it this way.
You broke the law, but your argument is that you were not endangering anyone by talking
on your phone because you were moving slowly.
If I follow that logic, it would be okay for people to run red lights as long as no one
else was at the intersection.
Well, actually, you know what?
Now that you said that, I think it does make sense.
First of all, cops do that all the time, and sometimes they roll through dangerously, and
I think that's wrong.
But there are many places, particularly in Europe, where when there's nobody around,
when it's late at night, traffic lights aren't real traffic lights.
They turn into flashers, or you don't have a left turn signal, and you basically say,
okay, when it's safe, you go.
Here in this country, a light can stay red for, say, five minutes at a time with nobody
around, and you would not even think of going through that light because it's the law, and
even though there's 0% chance of anyone being there, you don't break the law.
So I think it's kind of silly.
I wouldn't do it, but I think it's kind of silly to have all these restrictions for no
real reason.
Anyway, using a cell phone, watching DVDs, or eating while driving could be deemed dangerous
for two reasons.
It handicaps the use of one of your arms, which is a serious issue when the driver must
shift gears and steer at the same time, and the other reason is it takes your attention
off the road.
The latter obviously applies more to phones and DVDs than food, but listening to radio
may also qualify as an attention distraction.
The reason radio is not deemed dangerous is the same reason that hands-free phone devices
are illegal.
With that in mind, one must conclude that attention is not the issue, but rather the
inability to use one of your hands because it is occupied by a device or food.
The reason cell phones are illegal and CB radio is not is because you don't have to
hold the CB to your ear to use it like a phone, and since you only use the mic to talk, it
is assumed that a person would not talk while driving and demanded your full attention.
I don't accept that.
You have to hold the microphone to talk.
Yeah, but you could technically shift gears with the microphone still in your hands.
Yeah, but it seems like there's all kinds of wires involved there.
You could get all tangled up.
Yeah, but they've got these handy telephone wires that, you know...
It's much less complicated than you're making it seem to be.
Well, I'm capable of holding a phone to my ear without actually having to put my hand
there.
I can do that, but you know what else?
I can also drive with my hand on my ear.
I do that sometimes because I steer with my right hand and I lean into my head, into my
hand with my head.
Now is that illegal?
I'm doing the same thing.
And when you shift gears, what do you do with the phone?
What do I do with the phone when I shift gears?
I shift gears with my right hand.
With the phone in your hand?
But I don't...
No, no.
I don't shift gears when I'm talking on the phone.
There's no reason to do that because that's obviously going slow speed there.
If you're on a highway and you're just going at the same speed, there's nothing dangerous
involved.
Well, then city traffic, then you're constantly shifting gears, and what do you do with the
phone?
It becomes a problem, and you can easily see how it's very easy for people to get distracted.
I agree.
It can become a problem, but I think it's based on your driving ability, and some people
can handle it, and they're driving unsafely, and they should not be doing that, and they
should know better.
I have more of a problem with the seatbelt laws than with the cell phone laws because
cell phone laws actually endanger other people if you're distracted on the road.
And seatbelt laws, it's like the Darwinism thing.
If you're not wearing your seatbelt and you get into a car accident, it's common sense
to put it on.
I have a problem with the laws that permit motor vehicles in New York City, but let's
move on.
All right.
Thanks, NullData, for that letter.
Also, there's an interesting article which came out, apparently as a result of my experience
on CNN, about whether or not hands-free phones are safer.
Yeah, this came out last week, June 9th.
The use of electronic devices, such as cell phones, including hands-free, precipitated
many crashes and near misses, according to a report issued Thursday, the day after I
got my ticket.
Using a cell phone behind the wheel is a key cause of traffic accidents, and hands-free
devices provide little safety benefit, according to the Detroit News.
And in fact-
Who sponsored the survey?
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration researchers.
And they said devices like headsets or voice-activated dialing led to longer dialing times than for
handheld phones.
The delays offset the potential benefit of keeping both hands on the wheel.
So the research, as to a growing body of studies that suggest hands-free cell phone systems
do not deliver the safety benefits automakers and legislators had thought, because they
don't know what they're talking about in the first place.
I have a theory.
What's your theory, Bernie?
My theory is the cellular telephone industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.
The CTIA, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, lobbied successfully
to get things like the, what was it, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act passed back in
1986 to make it a crime just to listen to radio frequencies that happened to have been
usurped by their industry, which used to be TV channels.
But what I'm getting at is, I believe that the safety issues that were raised to legislators
were probably embraced, and proposals were made- I'm just theorizing- the proposals
were made to pass legislation to just say you can't use a cell phone in a car.
And I'm sure the cellular industry had a real problem with that, because they wanted to
rake in all that money on air time.
And they got this compromise that a hands-free option would solve this whole problem.
The compromise was made, and that's what I think happened.
It also gave them the opportunity to sell a new device, namely the hands-free devices,
which everyone is forced to buy.
Speaking of telephones, I had an experience today that you might find interesting.
I received some spit today.
Spam via IP telephony.
Oh, no.
We have an IP phone- Did you just make up that phrase?
No, no.
We have an IP phone in my office, and it's not- it doesn't have an external number.
And it rang today, and I picked it up, and I started hearing a recording of someone saying,
you've just won a free- it was like one of these emails.
You've just won a free vacation to redeem this, that, and the other.
I want to know how prevalent this is.
I mean, how many IP phones are there?
But why should they be exempt?
Yeah, well, I know.
But it was amazing, because it was just like, the phone rang, and it was some spam.
Was it the first phone call you actually got on that phone?
Yeah.
Probably.
What service is it through, or what- It was a Cisco SIP phone.
I don't- Oh, so it's like an- Okay.
It's not subscribed to something like Vonage?
Right.
No, it's not like a- No, no.
Sorry.
So it's not subscribed to Vonage or anything like that.
Right.
Right.
We are going to take phone calls.
212-209-2900.
But I would like to do a very quick round-the-room survey of some cell phone etiquette issues.
Because this has come up quite a few times.
It comes up when we're hanging out socially outside the show as well.
And I just want to, maybe for the record, just lay it to rest.
What's acceptable?
What is not acceptable in using cell phones?
And maybe we can decide this for the rest of the world as well.
Okay?
Now, there seems to be a sentiment that using cell phones in restaurants is not a good idea.
Now, does anybody have any input to that?
Is it ever okay?
No.
It's never okay to use a cell phone in a restaurant?
No.
What if you talk quietly?
Even if you're talking quietly?
It's rude.
It's rude.
What if you're by yourself?
If you're by yourself, I don't have as much of a problem with it.
But I often sit with people who are, you know, eating together.
And they talk on their cell phone.
And it's just like, what the hell?
Well, yeah.
I know.
If you're with somebody, it's annoying.
But if you get a phone call, what should you do in a restaurant?
I would step outside.
Step outside?
Okay.
Any disagreements to this?
No?
No?
No opinions at all?
Arsony?
If you're having a conversation in the first place and you get a call, you can quietly
scoot in the back and sort of whisper into your phone.
Well, that's the thing.
If there's a conversation going on and you get, I mean, it's your own conversation.
So I could see if you can talk without being disruptive.
How is it any different than having a conversation in a restaurant with people and being loud
and boisterous?
Well, I mean, to answer your question, it's very similar because you're being loud and
boisterous.
But there's also this strange priority we seem to put on cell phone calls when we get
them.
Like, we're in the middle of a conversation.
We have to stop to answer our phone.
And I don't even say, I'm sorry, I'm going to take this.
Or rather, just not take it at all.
And I think we should be doing that more often.
Well, it's because the person in front of you is there and they're not leaving.
Well, unless you offend them.
They will.
Believe me, they will.
There's also this mentality people around here have that screaming into the phone improves
the reception.
You see, that to me, I see that so much more in this country than in other places.
Other places, like for instance, Berlin and the subway, people are talking on their cell
phones and they're not yelling.
They're talking quietly.
You can't even tell they're on their cell phones a lot of the times.
I know that's probably going to change.
I know people probably talk louder.
But talking on a cell phone doesn't have to be obnoxious.
No, it doesn't have to be.
No, but you hear people all the time, hey, can you hear me?
Can you hear me now?
Okay, I'll talk like this.
And then maybe-
Well, that's because the service sucks.
And we got to do something about that.
Now, how about if you're using public transportation, if you're on a bus, is it acceptable to use
a cell phone then?
Arsene?
I actually have a story.
I was on a bus on Monday and the bus driver was complaining to a passenger.
He told him to please move to the back because he was talking very loud.
And the man was talking very loud.
On a cell phone?
On a cell phone.
And the man started screaming, so the bus got quiet.
And that's how I heard how he was screaming at the bus driver to tell him that he hit
his fare, that he's been riding forever and no one's ever said anything to him.
But-
What was the person on the phone doing?
That was the person on the phone?
No, the person he was talking to on the phone.
Oh, well, I don't know.
Because that's very rude to-
Right, right.
But the other thing I noticed is that there was a conversation between two women, I think,
that was louder than the man on the phone and they were sitting very close.
So I don't know.
Yeah, it just seems to me that you're discouraged from using cell phones on a bus, in restaurants,
in your car, probably in your home.
You have to wonder.
How about on the street?
How about when you're walking down the street?
I see people using cell phones all the time and there's something about it that annoys
me.
But they're in the street.
They're walking down the street and they're talking to somebody and you just sort of want
to mock them and make fun of them because they're having this animated conversation.
I actually think that's a good thing because now people who talk to themselves don't stand
out as much.
That's certainly true.
But do you know they're really talking to somebody on the phone or are they just acting
like they're talking to somebody on the phone?
You don't know.
They're really talking to somebody on the phone.
You can't tell the difference.
You can't tell.
There's a restaurant-
Back in the-
Go ahead, Vern.
Back in the early days of cell phones, I remember people would actually, when it was having
a cell phone in your car, it was a novelty back in like 85, 86, some people would actually
pretend to be using their cell phone just so the person next to them would see, in a
car next to them, would see talking on a cell phone and just to get that status rush.
But on the subject of handsets, I think it's really ironic that Bell Laboratories spent
millions and millions of dollars researching the ergonomics of telephone usage, trying
to figure out how to get people to use the proper volume level speaking into the handset.
They're not shouting or they're not too quiet.
And that whole thing came out, as we know, called Side Tone, where a certain amount of
your voice is sampled and goes through, not sampled, but amplified and sent through the
earpiece.
You can basically hear yourself talking.
You notice this on a landline phone.
You can hear yourself.
Try taking the earpiece away from your ear while you're talking on a landline phone,
and you'll suddenly realize that it's a cell phone.
You can't really hear yourself anymore.
So I blame the cell phone manufacturers and maybe the carriers for not implementing Side
Tone properly.
And maybe it's an environmental thing, too, because people use cell phones in noisier
areas than they would a landline phone, too.
Well, one thing I think we can all agree on is that the quality of phone calls has gone
way downhills since cell phones were introduced.
I want to take some phone calls, but one final question really quick.
Ringers.
Keep ringers on, keep ringers off.
Which do you go with?
Vibrate clip to your belt.
Vibrate clip to your belt.
It doesn't disturb anyone.
Okay.
And certainly do not pick your ringtone in a restaurant.
Oh, my God.
Or a movie theater in the middle of the movie.
Or show off your ringtone, you know?
I think I like the ones where it vibrates and then it rings, because sometimes if there's
things in your pocket, you can't feel it in the ringtone.
Well, I like the kind that vibrate, and then if you don't respond, it sends like a little
stab of electricity through you.
That's good.
That one's always good.
Yeah, those are good, because sometimes you do need to get that call.
Have you ever seen any of the restaurants that have the signs that say no cell phone
usage?
Oh, yeah.
There's one that I go into, a barbecue restaurant, and they say, you're allowed to use your phone,
but in every phone call, you must mention Old South Barbecue.
All right, let's take some phone calls.
212-209-2900.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Good evening.
Speak up, please.
I was just calling.
It's kind of off topic.
About...
I don't know.
I'm kind of nervous.
It's okay.
Speak up.
Okay.
I was calling.
I had cable, and I got rid of it, and I went to get a satellite, but the building doesn't
allow it.
I was wondering, is that because they made a contract with, let's say, Time Warner, because
I live in Manhattan?
Or is that just to...
Well, there could be a couple of reasons.
First of all, you have to have a view of the southern sky.
Do you have that view?
No, I live...
I'm in the back apartment.
Okay.
So it probably wouldn't even matter, because you can't get it anyway.
I do know for condominiums and various communities that it's...
A Supreme Court ruling has said that they cannot forbid you from getting a satellite
dish.
I'm not sure if that applies in the United States.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.