Mosquitoes Genetically Modified To Crash Species That Spreads Malaria (npr.org) 248
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that a controversial new kind of genetic engineering can rapidly spread a self-destructive genetic modification through a complex species. The scientists used the revolutionary gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to engineer mosquitoes with a "gene drive," which rapidly transmitted a sterilizing mutation through other members of the mosquito's species. After mosquitoes carrying the mutation were released into cages filled with unmodified mosquitoes in a high-security basement laboratory in London, virtually all of the insects were wiped out, according to a report in Nature Biotechnology. The mosquitoes were created in the hopes of using them as a potent new weapon in the long, frustrating fight against malaria. Malaria remains one of the world's deadliest diseases, killing more than 400,000 people every year, mostly children younger than 5 years old. What's encouraging is that the mosquitos reportedly did not appear to further mutate in a way that would diminish the effectiveness of the engineered mutation. "But the researchers stressed that many years of additional research are needed to further test the safety and effectiveness of the approach before anyone attempts to release these mosquitos or any other organisms created this way into the wild," reports NPR.
Why not just introduce another species to eat them (Score:5, Funny)
It worked well with cane toads in Australia.
They even provide entertainment for the locals, swerving their cars all over the road to see how many they can pop.
Re:Why not just introduce another species to eat t (Score:5, Funny)
>> Why not just introduce another species to eat them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm? Because cane toads were a spectacular failure - they didn't eat the pets sitting on top the cane, but devoured native species on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm? Because cane toads were a spectacular failure - they didn't eat the pets sitting on top the cane, but devoured native species on the ground.
Since you're unfamiliar with the ancient Australian concept of bleeding obvious sarcasm, I shall close the cash drawer at this time, cobber.
Re: Maybe if we introduce.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only people weren't so afraid of bats. They're great for bug control
Re: (Score:3)
They are lousy for mosquito control, however. Researchers have analyzed bat stomach contents and mosquitoes are basically nothing - bats like bigger insects (like moths) or swarming insects (like gnats). Mosquitoes just aren't a good source of calories - too much effort for too few calories.
A bat (or purple martin) aren't going to turn down a mosquito if it happens to be in its flight path, but they aren't actively predating them either. The only really effective mosquitovore are mosquitofish, which eat lar
Caution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Caution (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, you sound like every compliance, information security, or risk consultant idiot out there.
Well, you see, this is either good or bad but I have no opinion on it, and I consider this a successful meeting.
Re: Caution (Score:5, Informative)
Well, no, it's a perfectly sensible thing to worry about. For example in Communist China, Mao encouraged everyone to wipe out sparrows because sparrows are a filthy nuisance and they eat crop seeds. So they did that, a government-driven program to eliminate sparrows. Yay, no more sparrows mucking the place up. Except, it turned out that sparrow ate a lot more insects than they did seeds, and after that China started to be beset with locust plagues which actually did wreck agriculture and millions starved to death. They then had to go over to Russia and buy sparrows to breed up and release in China to replace them.
Food chains are in fact pretty delicate things.
Re: (Score:3)
I think flexibility and adaptability could be key. Picture, for example, CRISPR modifications that inadvertently kick humanity down a few rungs on the food chain. Enough to make life "interesting".
Re: Caution (Score:4, Interesting)
For example in Communist China, Mao encouraged everyone to wipe out sparrows
This is mostly a myth. Mao did indeed order that, but the campaign to "wipe out" the sparrows mostly involved banging pots and waving flags. The theory was that the sparrows would be so frightened that they would die of heart attacks. Does that sound plausible to you? Only a negligible number of sparrows were killed, and although there was a famine, it had nothing to do with sparrows.
RIDICULOUS LYING FAGGOT BILL LIES ONCE MORE (Score:5, Interesting)
"To accomplish this task, Chinese citizens were mobilized in massive numbers to eradicate the birds by forcing them to fly until they fell from exhaustion. The Chinese people took to the streets clanging their pots and pans or beating drums to terrorize the birds and prevent them from landing. Nests were torn down, eggs were broken, chicks killed, and sparrows shot down from the sky. Experts estimate that hundreds of millions of sparrows were killed as part of the campaign."
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5927112/chinas-worst-self-inflicted-disaster-the-campaign-to-wipe-out-the-common-sparrow
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20061130_1.htm
You do know Bill is a wingnut, yes? (Score:2)
No distinction or difference from his point that that the sparrow "eradication" campaign consisted of....making loud noises. In either case, it's funny that you're attacking SB here when he's an anacho-capitliast.
Re: (Score:2)
Mao encouraged everyone to wipe out sparrows (...)
Not only sparrows, mosquitoes too... (RTFWA [wikipedia.org]). And indeed eliminating sparrows happened to be a bad idea. But they said nothing about mosquitoes ... "The four pests to be eliminated were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows. The extermination of sparrows resulted in severe ecological imbalance". So, wiping out mosquitoes was maybe a good idea.
Re: Caution (Score:5, Interesting)
Mosquitoes are not a natural part of many food chains. For instance, before the arrival of Europeans, there were no mosquitoes in Hawaii. Same for many other islands in Polynesia.
If the mosquitoes in Hawaii were wiped out, it would be restoring the food chain to its more natural state, and would likely help native species against invaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My biggest worry is the ability to kill off a species of animal so easily, from the sounds of it. Where will it stop? Hey, this is a nuisance, that is a nuisance, kill 'em all. Next thing you know, we have pigs, cows, chickens, and humans left.
To your post, yep. And mosquitoes pollinate plants... of which we eat. The honey business only talks about bees as pollinators, but a lot of flying bugs are.
And I just read somewhere some bat species eat thousands of mosquitoes a night. Certainly other small animals l
Genetic Modification Not Necessary (Score:3)
The Screwfly Solution [usda.gov] has been proven to be quite effective, and doesn't require the introduction of genetically engineered insects into the wild.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? If you read the article you linked, you'll see that the screwfly solution was based on work done on mosquitoes. If it was as effective in mosquito populations as it was in screwworm populations then we wouldn't be looking for an alternate solution. It's not like it hasn't been tried with mosquitoes, it just didn't work. Oh, and the screwfly solution certainly DOES require the introduction of genetically engineered insects into the wild, the only difference is that that techni
Re:Genetic Modification Not Necessary (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Caution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem will be the giant mosquitos they will wind up breeding that will murder everyone.
I saw it in this documentary. [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thoroughly studied. Very specific species 0.1% (Score:5, Informative)
That is of course something to be very careful about.
Because it is, multiple teams have studied the issue thoroughly and there seems to be broad agreement that eliminating the specific species responsible for most malaria would have very little ecological impact at all. There are plenty of other mosquito species (and other insects) to fill the niche. There are over 3,000 species of mosquito, only three (0.1%) cause most disease.
A key there is something like chemical pesticides wouldn't typically target just the species. Hence the search for a very targetted approach.
Re: (Score:2)
A key there is something like chemical pesticides wouldn't typically target just the species. Hence the search for a very targetted approach.
What we need is a way to target only mosquitoes that carry malaria. Surely we can crispr up a malaria-HIV hybrid virus that gives them skeeter-aids. Maybe throw in some polio for good measure.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is a way to target only mosquitoes that carry malaria
uh... that's what they do actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. They're targeting the entire species of mosquito that's prone to carrying malaria and ignoring the species that don't. But not all individuals in the species carry it, and they're not attempting to target just those individuals.
All females in the species can carry it, and that's why those specific 3 species are being targeted. Eradicating them wouldn't have too great an effect on the ecosystem as they don't feed on any particular other species (except humans) and don't serve as a major food source for any other species. Reverting them to a non-human bloodsucking state would be better, but that would be undoing hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and who knows what that might open up. better to let them go extinct or mutate
Re: (Score:2)
As any member of that species is capable of picking up the parasite at any time, they sort of have to target the whole species, and not just the actively infected ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no, removing mosquitoes from earth would not harm any other species. I cannot find the source at the moment but the gist of it is mosquitoes do far more harm and there are plenty of other bugs to make up any loss of a food source. It is the only species that has been shown removing mosquitoes hurts nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Some light reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... [bbc.com]
Re: Caution (Score:3)
Actually no. I've read a couple of articles by biologists, who are convinced that mosquitoes could disappear and not be missed. Anything that eats them also eats lots of other insects.
Well, OK, the malaria parasite would miss them...
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Improving living conditions and modernization has led to population growth declines across the world. What's scarier is that instead of being happy with this outcome, the banking class is in a panic because the current system depends on exponential growth. They've even been so stupid as to think they're going to solve growth problems in the developed world by mass importing people from Africa.
Re: (Score:3)
the banking class is in a panic because the current system depends on exponential growth
Cite?
Re: (Score:3)
Cite?
Sure [wsj.com]. Some snippets:
"Previous generations fretted about the world having too many people. Today's problem is too few."
"Mounting pensions are an important reason peripheral European countries like Greece have such intractable debt burdens and why Germany is so reluctant to stimulate its own economy despite a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the movement of so many people into the highest-saving period of their lives has produced a bulge of excess savings that has held down interest rates and inflation, making it
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it's actually the politicians who are more concerned. Social security and other elderly-welfare programs rely on a young working class to keep providing money.
But with fewer youngsters being born & getting jobs, that means less money to give the elders. Some politicians, like those in Japan, have started handing money to couples if they have 2nd or 3rd children. (Like an inverse of China's one-baby policy.)
Short term that solves the politicians' problem. Long term it continues the overpopu
Re: (Score:3)
While I hate mosquitoes, I would suggest caution. Mosquitoes are important in the food chain. If one species of mosquitoes are wiped out, would other insects fill the void? We need to think carefully about the ramifications of this. Of course, reducing the damage and death caused by malaria would be highly beneficial.
It is inconclusive at the moment what long term effect will be, this is something they have done studies on before though.
Mosquitos (and more often their larvae) ARE major source foods for a lot of species- but nothing eats only mosquitos. In areas where mosquitos have been wiped out by chemical means, there was no noticed damage to the rest of the food chain due to no mosquitos as food. (this wasn't long term studies though because Mosquitos always return eventually).
In studies that have been done, it is
Re: (Score:2)
Mosquitoes should all die. Mankind will take our chances.
Re: (Score:2)
Horse flies for example. And their bite is pretty nasty. I'd take mosquitoes over horse flies any day.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what I love about slashdot. Someone comes up with a question in less than 15 minutes. They are so sure that the question has not been tought of or asked, even by people who have been
Re: (Score:2)
While I hate mosquitoes, I would suggest caution. Mosquitoes are important in the food chain. If one species of mosquitoes are wiped out, would other insects fill the void? We need to think carefully about the ramifications of this. Of course, reducing the damage and death caused by malaria would be highly beneficial.
We obliterate species casually and without much thought all the time for no better reason than we want to clear some forest for lumber, or drain a swamp for a new mall, or demolish a mountain for some minerals. In this instance we'd be doing it deliberately to a few species in a genus that has thousands of members and which is not crucial to any food chain as far as we can discern, and we'd be saving millions of human lives by doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We must engineer a way to displace the blood-sucking kind of mosquitoes with varieties that do not suck blood at all.
Make the non-blood-sucking females more desirable as mates or something.
Soooo. Something that prefers sucking mosquito dick to human blood? Splice in a little Pr0n-star DNA? Nympho-squitoes? Mostormyquitos? Bring your big 'ol stinger over here daddy and get some dis. Uh-huh, you know you want it.
Not enough movies (Score:5, Funny)
You know how sometimes you read something kooky and you say to yourself, "wow, this person watches too many SciFi/spy/etc. movies."? (That happens a fair bit here on Slashdot).
This article is evidently a case of "wow, these people do not watch nearly enough SciFi/spy/etc. movies."
Oh well. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Re: (Score:3)
Right?
You can practically read the synopsis now... "The sterilizing gene drive was only supposed to target other mosquitos. At first, it worked brilliantly. Malaria rates plummeted worldwide. But then a random mutation in the wild allowed it to target other species..."
BRB, writing "Mosquito's Revenge"
They get an E for effort but (Score:2)
They're playing with things when they don't fully understand the consequences. I get that's how we learn, but you don't get an undo button
with this. You do it wrong and the consequences will be epic.
While we pretty much universally dislike mosquitoes, they do play a part in a larger ecosystem that all we ( as a species ) have managed to do is fuck it up.
Disrupt it and you risk a cascading effect which can have consequences far beyond what we can predict or plan for.
It doesn't take a whole lot of imaginati
What about the birds?! (Score:2)
There are all sorts of things that munch on mosquito's. If you kill the mosquito's, there will be other species that have issues. Everything from the mosquito eggs to the full grown adult, are eaten by other creatures.
Ten dead mosquito's, per cubic meter, ads up to a lot of biomass.
--
In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. - Charles Darwin
Re:What about the birds?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why they're aiming at a small subset of mosquitos rather than the entire family.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. They're only targeting the spoiled brats, not the parents of the mosquitos families.
Re: (Score:3)
There are all sorts of things that munch on mosquito's. If you kill the mosquito's, there will be other species that have issues. Everything from the mosquito eggs to the full grown adult, are eaten by other creatures.
Ten dead mosquito's, per cubic meter, ads up to a lot of biomass.
--
In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. - Charles Darwin
Nothing relies heavily on mosquitos for food though. A lot of things eat mosquitos but there is no species that eats ONLY mosquitos. Also, just eliminating species that target humans (a small %) will allow more human-friendly mosquitos to fill the role.
In all the many studies that have been done on this- none have shown mosquitos to be ecologically important to any other species. In fact- mosquitos are regularly wiped out in localized areas using chemical means to control spread of disease and no "food c
I would be more worried about the dragonflies (Score:2)
Baby dragonflies feast almost exclusively on baby mosquitoes. If you kill all the mosquitoes you will likely kill all the dragonflies. Adult dragonflies are an apex predator in the insect world and there are likely a lot of bugs that dragonflies eat that we wouldn't want more of.
Re:I would be more worried about the dragonflies (Score:4, Informative)
Baby dragonflies feast almost exclusively on baby mosquitoes. If you kill all the mosquitoes you will likely kill all the dragonflies. Adult dragonflies are an apex predator in the insect world and there are likely a lot of bugs that dragonflies eat that we wouldn't want more of.
Not almost exclusively. It is certainly a portion of their diet (as it is for many species). They get more nutrition from tadpoles, cadis fly larvae, baby fish, daphnia, ostropods, planaria, snails, and all sorts of other micro fauna. Mosquito larvae is just a part of their diet. They're also not particular about the species of mosquito. Only a small percentage of mosquito species bite people. You could wipe out the dangerous mosquitos and leave "human-friendly" ones alone- so their larvae and adults alike can be consumed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, clearly what needs to be done is to tweak the appetite of those eating mosquitoes to want.. MOAR!!
Hasn't this been done before? (Score:2)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
I'm scared about genetic modification. (Score:2)
Scary joke: Maybe those mosquitoes will escape the attempt to eliminate them through genetic modification that occurs naturally. May they will become as large as eagles and need to drink all of the blood of a human every day.
Re: (Score:2)
"Life, uh, finds a way."
Re: (Score:2)
May they will become as large as eagles and need to drink all of the blood of a human every day.
At least they'd be easier to spot in the bedroom, naively waiting for darkness to come as they usually do.
Re: (Score:2)
Best sleep with a shotgun under your pillow.
Re: (Score:2)
unintended consequences (Score:3)
All other unintended ecological consequences aside, mosquitoes and malaria are the main factor that makes wide areas of Africa effectively uninhabitable. Controlling them will lead to widespread deforestation, massive population growth, and probably result in famine and political upheavals. I'm not passing judgment on whether it should or shouldn't be done, but this is another example of Western technology radically altering developing nations, and I'm afraid the West will get blamed for the consequences again.
Re: (Score:3)
To think that the elimination of mosquitoes would somehow spell calamity for the human race is pearl clutching at it's finest.
Fixed that for you... (Score:2)
The scientists used the revolutionary gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to engineer humans with a "gene drive," which rapidly transmitted a sterilizing mutation through other members of the human's species. After humans carrying the mutation were released into cages filled with unmodified humans in a high-security basement laboratory in London, virtually all of the humans were wiped out
Re: (Score:2)
These seem like good experiments for Antarctica (Score:2)
London seems like a bad place to do experiments like this.
Antarctica would seem like a much better place as there is much less chance of an escape causing havoc.
Re: Like hitler but mosquitos instead of Jews (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's safe to assume the scientists behind this are genuinely interested in saving lives. I think it's also safe to say that the technology, once developed, will be repurposed by someone else (maybe neo-Nazis) to destroy lives.
Re: (Score:2)
The whites are quite keen on those dogs, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were lactose intolerant, you'd say milk is rape, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Google the Malthusian Trap.
The great plague was actually good for mankind because it let those that survive live decent lives for a few generations.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm doing my part! I'm not having kids, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
not because I'm single though
and not using Facebook will not help...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem would fix itself if people would just stop dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Google the Malthusian Trap.
The great plague was actually good for mankind because it let those that survive live decent lives for a few generations.
He lived in a very different time than us. His theory was correct for his time, but not for ours. Technology has far outpaced our population growth rate since then. Also, earth's human population growth rate is slowing and even declining in many countries. Many industrialised countries produce fewer children than needed to maintain their population. While the developing world may be growing in population, most of the developed world would be shrinking if it weren't for migration effects.
We're not going
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I read somewhere, and can't the exact source now, but there are similar sentiments to be found across the web, that the greatest form of contraception for those in great poverty is knowing that your children will survive. I imagine eradication of malaria would go a very long way to reduction of infant mortality in developing nations.
Re:Not to sound cold-hearted (though I am), but... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the more popular explanations among economic historians for why regions of Africa are so underdeveloped is specifically malaria. You will notice that countries like Ethiopia that are located in more mountainous regions and thus suffer less from mosquitoes have also always been more developed. Plague and war completely wreck economic development, which ironically also leads to lower populations down the line for all cases studied to date.
As for Malthus being quoted here, cut him some slack. He lived a long time ago and didn’t sufficiently account for productivity growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that the logic anti-vacation folks are the best thing ever. You are not being cold-hearted; merely following the good old âoeone rule for me, another for theeâ hypocrisy.
That's double standard, not hypocrisy.
And yes it is a double standard. The problem is that we can't do everything for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
7.7Bn people on the planet, it's still growing ... Someone in power needs to think this through in a dispassionate manner.
Not in power, but maybe would be good to help these people get access to birth control (instead of letting them die of malaria).
Re: (Score:2)
7.7Bn people on the planet, it's still growing
Putin, Trump and their friend Kim are going to take care of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone in power needs to think this through in a dispassionate manner.
The scientists COULD use the revolutionary gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to engineer humans with a "gene drive," which rapidly transmitted a sterilizing mutation through other members of the human's species........
Re:Not to sound cold-hearted (though I am), but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your or your neighbor's child dies of whatever, then you'll have 2 more just to make sure one survives. Thus why the birth rate is astronomical in places wracked by war/famine/plague/death. The push to eliminate malaria is in large part driven by the fact that doing so will cause the sub-Saharan birth rate to plummet. After lowering infant mortality rates, the next-best ways to lower the birth rate are female empowerment (enough to allow them to choose how many children they bear), sex education, then access to contraception (which is useless if you use it wrong because your instructor was a prude and assumed you would understand).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cold-hearted western exceptionalist hypocrisy (Score:2)
It's not population growth, it's resources consumption. [nytimes.com] Your entitled western ass shouldn't be blathering about poor people having too many babies when you're using 30 times as much resources as they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chill. Nobody genuinely expects exponential growth to continue indefinitely. Most estimates are that the human race will hit 9-10 billion within the next century, with growth leveling off over time and eventually stabilizing at around a billion per century once the time the world's population hits ~15 billion.
Will humanity survive? Almost certainly, as long as nothing sets us back technologically for more than a year or two (since that level of population can only be sustained via technology-intensive farmi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Score: +5, inconvenient truth
Re: (Score:3)
Anyways, saving millions of children from malaria is all well and good, but what are we gonna do when the world population is 10 billion? 15 billion? Those numbers are coming up fast and will be here soon, definitely within the lifetime of a lot of people on this forum. How about saving millions of people from malaria, but then giving them vasectomy and hysterectomy? Also how about closing down borders and restricting immigration so the high growth countries are forced to confront their internal problems and improves things, instead of exporting their problems to better-run countries?
There are suggestive correlations between reduced child mortality and reduced family size. Professor Hans Rosling gave some famous talks on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (10m 55s in)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the population is growing or shrinking depends on the family size. Once the fertility rate goes below 2.0 children per woman, the population will shrink unless immigration can sustain it.
Japan's declining population [wikipedia.org] is in part due to that fertility rate of 5.10 in 1925 shrinking to 1.43 in 2013 [ref, page 36, but labeled as page 70 [stat.go.jp]].
The point is to continue bringing developing countries up to the more stable populations of developed countries. Then global populations rise may then trail off and sta
Re: (Score:3)
There are suggestive correlations between reduced child mortality and reduced family size.
If that were true then surely the great improvements in medicine and reduction in child mortality that happened from late 19th century to late 20th century would've resulted in smaller family size and smaller global population. Did the global population shrink from 1890 to 1990?
Not globally but definiately regionally. Without immigration, ALL first world countries would have declining populations. Paradoxically, countries with low child mortality rates do have reduced family sizes and native population decline. Part of this is likely do to better access to birth control and also to being less agrarian where large family size is not needed to work the fields. The USA is a perfect example where families of a dozen children used to be common and now are almost non-existent. It's
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Humans are a virus (Score:4, Insightful)
Second-gen immigrants have FAR fewer children than first-gen immigrants. Allowing poor people to emigrate to rich countries lowers that family's birth rate compared to keeping them out.
Brazil's government gave out free vasectomies to any man that wanted one, and it was far more successful than expected. Other countries could do the same thing; how many 1st world nations even do that? The world population is expected to level out at ~10billion, FWIW.
I do agree that if every good person flees a country, then who's going to stay behind to rebuild the country or vote in competent/moral leadership?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
DNA is quite physical.
Re: (Score:2)
Race indeed is a social construct and not something backed up by biology. Certain genes do exists at higher percents in certain populations though; so it is theoretically possible (if not probable) that a "race" could be targeted by a virus... it is a ludicrous idea though.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a few survive? I guess in a generation or two (in mosquito generations), we're back to starting point, with mosquitoes resistant to the mutation.
If only a few survive then dangerous diseases like malaria would probably NOT survive. So it wouldn't be a problem if mosquito populations bounced back AFTER the diseases are wiped out. Mosquitos aren't the biggest enemy- the diseases they unwittingly spread are the biggest enemy.
Re: (Score:3)