Celebrity architect Dermot Bannon was spotted back in Donegal last weekend enjoying some highlights of Inishowen.The ‘Room to Improve’ star wasn’t here to revamp anyone’s home this time, but for a leisurely holiday by the sea.The team at Fort Dunree were delighted to welcome a special guest on Saturday when Dermot showed up with friends for a kayaking experience. “He’s never done kayaking before and he loved it. He said he loved Donegal,” said staff member Bernadette Long.Dermot Bannon and friends visit Fort Dunree. Image via @dunree2018 InstagramFort Dunree is a popular military museum which boasts breath-taking views of Lough Swilly and natural scenery.Water-sports enthusiasts can kayak beneath the fort with Inish Adventures and discover the many caves and rock formations at the historical site.“A lot of people travel to us to do the kayaking. Within minutes you are in caves. Dermot and his friends were well impressed,” added Bernadette. Dermot Bannon kayaking at Fort Dunree. Image via @dunree2018 InstagramDermot Bannon kayaking at Fort Dunree. Image via @dunree2018 InstagramDermot Bannon’s special edition of Room to Improve with Daniel and Majella O’Donnell was RTE’s fourth most watched programme of 2018. Over 860,000 viewers tuned in to see the property show, which was set in Daniel’s homeland of Kincasslagh.Dermot’s summer weekend in Donegal took him to Ballyliffin on Sunday. He went swimming at the local beach and called into Nancy’s Barn to sample their famous dish – the ‘World’s Best Chowder’.World Champion Chowder Chef Kieran Duey Doherty with Architect Dermot Bannon in Nancy’s Barn BallyliffinThe seafood dish went down a treat, according to award-winning Chef Kieran Duey Doherty.“Dermot loved the chowder and Nancy’s Barn and he plans to return again,” Kieran said.After dining on the terrace, the architect also checked out the restaurant building and offered his expert advice. “He said not to change Nancy’s Barn’s structure as it was perfect and he loved it with loads of glass to the rear of it,” Kieran said.So, no Room to Improve there!Kieran added that their celebrity visitor was a “real gentleman” and that he plans to return to Inishowen again soon.Room to be impressed! TV star Dermot Bannon amazed by Donegal was last modified: July 22nd, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:Dermot BannonFORT DUNREEInishowenNancy’s Barn
“Although the last word on the origins of oxygen-making photosynthesis isn’t in,” writes Mitch Leslie in Science,1 “researchers say they are making progress. One thing is for certain, however: Without this innovation, Earth would look a lot like Mars.” That’s the end of his story. What did he say in the beginning and middle? Not much, in terms of scientific evidence. Leslie started by singing the praises of photosynthesis. Maybe this excerpt will help you see the world in a new light:Try to picture the world without photosynthesis. Obviously, you’d have to strip away the greenery–not just the redwoods and sunflowers, but also the humble algae and the light-capturing bacteria that nourish many of the world’s ecosystems. Gone, too, would be everything that depends on photosynthetic organisms, directly or indirectly, for sustenance–from leaf-munching beetles to meat-eating lions. Even corals, which play host to algal partners, would lose their main food source. Photosynthesis makes Earth congenial for life in other ways, too. Early photosynthesizers pumped up atmospheric oxygen concentrations, making way for complex multicellular life, including us. And water-dwellers were able to colonize the land only because the oxygen helped create the ozone layer that shields against the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Oxygen-producing, or oxygenic, photosynthesis “was the last of the great inventions of microbial metabolism, and it changed the planetary environment forever,” says geobiologist Paul Falkowski of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.This being the reality, coming up with a story of how photosynthesis evolved is a challenge. “Given its importance in making and keeping Earth lush, photosynthesis ranks high on the top-10 list of evolutionary milestones.” One looks in vain, though, for evidence that it evolved at all. Leslie approaches the story from two fronts: geology and biochemistry. Let’s examine the latter first. The machinery involved in photosynthesis is mind-boggling. Electrons are shuttled between two reaction centers called Photosystem I and Photosystem II. “Light jump-starts an electrical circuit in which electrons flow from the photosystems through protein chains that make the energy-rich molecules ATP and NADPH,” he said in a brief simplification. “These molecules then power the synthesis of the sugars that organisms depend on to grow and multiply.” The cyanobacteria that live in hot springs can use hydrogen sulfide instead of other oxygen-hugging molecules like water for an energy source. Leslie described these nonconformists, which don’t produce oxygen, as simpler: “Their photosynthetic proteins huddle in relatively simple ‘reaction centers’ that may have been the predecessors of the two photosystems.” But in the very next sentence he said, “Envisioning the steps that led to this complex biochemistry is mind-boggling.” All he could suggest in terms of an evolutionary story were two scenarios: (1) bacteria co-opted existing machinery used for other functions; and (2) bacteria shared their technology by lateral gene transfer. Tantalizing as these suggestions are, he admitted scientists are at a loss. “However, other researchers remain skeptical, arguing that one photosystem evolved from the other, possibly through the duplication of genes, creating an ancient cell with both. No one knows for sure.” As if to fiddle over a grave, he threw in another complication: “Either way, it took some fancy fiddling to convert the primitive reaction centers to oxygen-generating photosystems.” So not only are evolutionists at a loss to explain the anoxic photosynthesis machinery, it is no small order to upgrade it to the advanced kind. Turning to geology, evolutionists try to approach the question by looking for clues when oxygen first became abundant in the early earth. That, at least, might pinpoint the time that oxygenic photosynthesis began:How the photosystems got their start is crucial for understanding the origin of photosynthesis. But the question that’s drawn the most attention–and provoked the most wrangling–is when photosynthesis began. “Most researchers accept that nonoxygenic photosynthesis arose first, probably shortly after life originated more than 3.8 billion years ago. “Life needs an energy source, and the sun is the only ubiquitous and reliable energy source,” says Blankenship.The common story is that there was a “great oxidation event” at 2.4 billion years ago. This is supposed to mark the onset of oxygenic photosynthesis—the time eukaryotes figured out the more demanding photosynthesis that swipes electrons from water, generating oxygen as a by-product. Leslie entertained controversial evidence that oxygenic photosynthesis began even earlier. That was the occasion for the reference to Mars:The early-origin case isn’t ironclad. For example, a 2008 paper that has some researchers fuming claims that the oil biomarkers are contaminants that seeped in from younger rocks. Advocates also have to explain why it took hundreds of millions of years for oxygen to build up in the air. Although the last word on the origins of oxygen-making photosynthesis isn’t in, researchers say they are making progress. One thing is for certain, however: Without this innovation, Earth would look a lot like Mars.What would he think, then, about a new report that pushes oxygen back another billion years? That would not only push the origin of the complex machinery of photosynthesis further back in time, providing less time for the lucky accidents to happen; it also cast doubt on the origin of life itself, because the prebiotic molecules the astrobiologists envision cannot form in the presence of oxygen. Leslie entertained the possibility of an earlier date in a March 13 entry in Origins, the AAAS blog celebrating the Darwin Bicentennial. “It’s no surprise that this is a tough question to answer,” he cautioned. But then, Phil Berardelli reported on Science Now2 March 16 that researches deduced the presence of oxygen in iron-oxide-rich rocks in Australia containing red hematite said to be 3.46 billion years old:If confirmed, the discovery could mean that oxygen-producing photosynthetic organisms originated more than a billion years earlier than previously thought….It’s “very compelling evidence,” says isotope chemist Paul Knauth of Arizona State University, Tempe. The result may go “against the widespread view that [oxygenic] photosynthesis didn’t appear” until about 2.4 billion years ago, he says, but the paper’s conclusion “is the simplest explanation.” He says he hopes the findings will provoke discussion among “all those who argue that the case is closed–surely, we are still learning.”1. Mitch Leslie, “Origins: On the Origin of Photosynthesis,” Science, 6 March 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5919, pp. 1286-1287, DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5919.1286.2. Phil Berardelli, “Oxygenated Oceans Go Way, Way Back,” ScienceNOW Daily News, 16 March 2009.Always learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (Paul). Picture transients on the street trying to build a power plant. Even if they co-opted pieces of their cardboard shacks, and shared their technology by lateral jeans transfer, any success would still be due to intelligent design. Evolutionists expect us to believe one of the most efficient and complex examples of cellular technology of all (07/27/2007, 05/09/2007) just emerged out of nowhere – right near the beginning of life on earth, along with all the other cellular technologies and coding systems. If scientists these days did not feel obligated to force-fit every thought into a 19th-century speculative plot, such evidence-free flights of imagination would be laughable.(Visited 81 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
A side-by-side comparison of the fossil imprint with a living insect eye shows virtually no difference in complexity. The fossil eye was compared by the authors in complexity to a dragonfly eye: “The ratio of lens diameters in the bright zone to lens diameters in the margin (~2.5:1) exceeds that found in other Cambrian arthropods (trilobites and cambropachycopids) and is comparable to that in many modern taxa such as dragonflies,” they said. “The extremely regular arrangement of lenses seen here exceeds even that in certain modern taxa, such as the horseshoe crab,” the authors said. The eyes apparently gave their owners binocular vision: “This bilaterally symmetrical arrangement generates binocular vision,” they suggested, though proof will require discovery of articulated remains. The eyes would have been good for a fast predator: “Acute forward vision and lower-resolution peripheral vision are typical of predators that require excellent frontal vision for estimating distance and detecting prey against complex backgrounds; they are also typical of fast-moving organisms in which acute peripheral vision is precluded by a high retinal angular velocity.” That being the case, the animals would have had many other advanced features in addition to eyes. “The complexity and large size of the Emu Bay Shale eyes strongly indicate that they belong to an active arthropod, probably a large predator.” These eyes, however, were smaller than those of Anomalocaris. This is a game-changer: “The arrangement and size gradient of lenses creates a distinct ‘bright zone’ (also called the acute zone or fovea), where the visual field is sampled with higher light sensitivity (due to large ommatidia) and possibly a higher acuity (due to what seems to be a more parallel orientation of ommatidia),” they said. “Such visual specializations, characteristic of many modern taxa, are otherwise unknown in the Early Cambrian.” Complex eyes with modern optics from an unknown arthropod, more complex than trilobite eyes, have been discovered in early Cambrian strata from southern Australia. The exquisitely-preserved imprints of the eyes in shale were reported by Lee et al. in Nature.1 The abstract started by quoting Darwin and affirming evolution, but then revealed evidence that complex eyes go further back in the fossil record than previously thought possible: Despite the status of the eye as an “organ of extreme perfection”, theory suggests that complex eyes can evolve very rapidly. The fossil record has, until now, been inadequate in providing insight into the early evolution of eyes during the initial radiation of many animal groups known as the Cambrian explosion. This is surprising because Cambrian Burgess-Shale-type deposits are replete with exquisitely preserved animals, especially arthropods, that possess eyes. However, with the exception of biomineralized trilobite eyes, virtually nothing is known about the details of their optical design. Here we report exceptionally preserved fossil eyes from the Early Cambrian (~515 million years ago) Emu Bay Shale of South Australia, revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes, each with over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses and a specialized ‘bright zone’. These are the oldest non-biomineralized eyes known in such detail, with preservation quality exceeding that found in the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang deposits. Non-biomineralized eyes of similar complexity are otherwise unknown until about 85 million years later. The arrangement and size of the lenses indicate that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light. The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms. They provide further evidence that the Cambrian explosion involved rapid innovation in fine-scale anatomy as well as gross morphology, and are consistent with the concept that the development of advanced vision helped to drive this great evolutionary event. How the immediate appearance of a complex trait like vision could “drive” an evolutionary event seems strange, since the eyes were already there during the event. No transitional eyes simpler than this were reported. Though the authors gave lip service to evolution, all the evidence pointed to more complexity and adaptive perfection than was thought possible for animals this early. Here are some details about these compound eyes: The animal type is not known, since articulated remains have not yet been found. The imprints may be from shed corneas, they said. Their graphs show that these eyes exceed most other arthropod eyes of the Cambrian in complexity, even among those of the Ordovician. In their concluding paragraph, they affirmed use of the phrase “Cambrian explosion” as a real event. They could offer no explanation for the evolution of these eyes, nor did they put forward any transitional forms. They merely assumed evolution occurred quickly somehow: The evolution of powerful vision is one of the most important correlates of the Cambrian explosion and has been proposed as a trigger for this event. However, although the overall shapes of eyes are known for many Cambrian organisms, intricate details of the visual surface are known only for trilobites and the tiny stem-crustacean cambropachycopids, which have bizarre, proportionately huge and medially fused compound eyes. In addition, indistinct ommatidia are preserved in a few Chengjiang fossils, including the non-biomineralized arthropods Isoxys and Cindarella. Isoxys inhabited both dim and bright pelagic environments whereas Cindarella probably inhabited a bright benthos. The specimens described here represent the first microanatomical evidence confirming the view that highly developed vision in the Early Cambrian was not restricted to trilobites. Furthermore, in possessing more and larger lenses, plus a distinct bright zone, they are substantially more complex than contemporaneous trilobite eyes, which are often assumed to be among the most powerful visual organs of their time. The new fossils reveal that some of the earliest arthropods had already acquired visual systems similar to those of living forms, underscoring the speed and magnitude of the evolutionary innovation that occurred during the Cambrian explosion. Live Science posted a summary of this finding, showing how the visual acuity of the animal bearing these eyes was superior to that of trilobites and indistinguishable from the acuity of the dragonfly. Though the dragonfly has eight times the number of individual ommatidia, the Cambrian eyes surpassed those of other fossil arthropods dated 40 million years later. Live Science’s article also quoted the authors’ confirmation of the Cambrian explosion: “The new fossils reveal that some of the earliest arthropods had already acquired visual systems similar to those of living forms, underscoring the speed and magnitude of the evolutionary innovation that occured during the Cambrian Explosion.” PhysOrg featured a video showing the fossil in 3-D and comparing it to other arthropod eyes. The article tried valiantly to save evolution from this new evidence: Their discovery reveals that some of the earliest animals possessed very powerful vision; similar eyes are found in many living insects, such as robber flies. Sharp vision must therefore have evolved very rapidly, soon after the first predators appeared during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of life that began around 540 million years ago. Given the tremendous adaptive advantage conferred by sharp vision for avoiding predators and locating food and shelter, there must have been tremendous evolutionary pressure to elaborate and refine visual organs. Science Daily said the fossils look like “squashed eyes of a recently swatted fly.” How could evolution explain this? The headline put forth its thesis: “New Fossils Demonstrate That Powerful Eyes Evolved in a Twinkling.” Stuff happens, and it happens quickly. 1. Lee, Jago et al., “Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia,” Nature 474 (30 June 2011), pp. 583–584, doi:10.1038/474583a. OK, skeptics, face the facts. Complex eyes, “organs of extreme perfection,” are already there in the early Cambrian. Where are the transitions? Trilobite eyes were already astonishing, and now these exceed them in complexity, and appear earlier than the best examples of complex trilobite eyes! They are comparable to modern insect eyes. You cannot call these a trigger of the Cambrian explosion–what nonsense! That’s like saying, “Revolvers appeared out of nowhere, and triggered the Civil War.” The eyes were already there, fully formed, fully operational, even within the incestuous dating scheme of the evolutionists. Arthropods are exquisitely complex animals, crowned with glorious eyes as well as many other senses and systems that allow for rapid motility and function. Who needs a Cambrian rabbit? You can go to the Amazon reviews of the DVD Darwin’s Dilemma and see Donald Prothero self-righteously rant against ignorant creationists, announcing with his professorial authority that the Cambrian explosion was no explosion but was a long slow fuse. Hold this paper up to his face. Here a team of Darwin-worshiping scientists with no love for intelligent design, publishing in the world’s leading science journal Nature (also no friend of intelligent design) called it an explosion five times in their paper. They discovered organs of extreme perfection in the early Cambrian with no transitions, only offering in defense of Darwin the vain hope that eyes might evolve rapidly, tossing that hot potato to Nilsson and Pelger (whose computer model was amply debunked long ago–see ENV 2006, ENV 2007, ENV 2011). Science is supposed to be factive, not fictive. The Cambrian explosion is affirmed; complexity appears suddenly without transitions; Darwinism is falsified; the inference to the best explanation is intelligent design. Let the world know.(Visited 193 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
19 August 2009US-based electronic payment processing services company First Data is to acquire CashAxcess, which offers a range of ATM products and services to the South African corporate and retail market, from local investment groups Mvelaphanda and Venfin for an undisclosed sum.CashAxcess, which has operated in South Africa since 2005, provides outsourced ATM services to leading banks in the region, including Absa, Capitec and Mercantile.It also provides ATM delivery and installation, signage, wireless GPRS communication, cash management and replenishment services, ATM monitoring, equipment insurance, sales and marketing and training services, and has 200 ATMs currently deployed across the country.ATM outsourcingAccording to First Data director Estevao Tokata, ATM outsourcing is a growth area within the South African payments market, as banks look to drive more cost efficiencies through their operations.“Increasingly, banks are concentrating on building and providing core banking services to their customers while working with specialist partners such as First Data to enhance the breadth of payment solutions offered to customers,” Tokata said in a statement this week.First Data operates a global ATM business, with networks in the United States, Asia Pacific and across Europe, and also offers ATM outsourcing and deployment solutions for banks and retailers in more than 17 countries around the globe.It has operated in South Africa since 1993, offering a full range of payment services to leading banks and retailers.“We are delighted to welcome the CashAxcess team into the First Data family,” said First Data international emerging markets vice-president George Zafirakis.“The combination of their considerable ATM expertise and knowledge of the local business environment, coupled with First Data’s scale and global experience, will ensure we can deliver an enhanced service to clients in South Africa.”SAinfo reporterWould you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo material
AI: How it’s Impacting Surveillance Data Storage 2019 is half over, and cybercriminals are on the prowl. As internet, mobile, and IoT technologies become more pervasive, the vulnerable points that hackers can target have increased. Companies can’t simply patch these vulnerabilities and relax. Cybercrime is a constantly evolving threat, and your strategy needs to continually adapt to the latest dangers.The first half of the year provided object lessons in how imminent these threats are. Since January, we’ve seen data privacy breaches at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and increasing incidents of ransomware targeting industrial firms. One of the most serious cybersecurity incidents of the year didn’t even require hackers. In May, it was revealed that First American, a real estate and title insurance firm, had 885 million customer financial records publicly available on its website.Aside from violating customers’ trust, these events are costly — customer data has become a commodity in its own right. Although some breaches feel inevitable, best practices can limit the damage significantly. The New York Times reported that handling cybersecurity the right way — including encrypting data properly and employing a well-trained staff — can reduce the costs of a breach by 47%.3 Steps to Fight Cybercrime Into Next YearCybersecurity is just one component of your data and technology mission. Providing an engaging user experience, empowering your employees, and complying with data regulations are also critical. But without robust security, all that is built on a house of cards.If you want to be a cyber-savvy leader, learn from the first half of 2019 as you revamp your cybersecurity efforts.1. Harden remote access.When it comes to business technology, remote access is a blessing and a curse. It allows remote workers and vendors to access the systems they need to do their jobs, but it also opens the door to cybercriminals. In fact, 86% of executives think data is more at risk when employees work remotely. Fortunately, there are ways to reduce that risk. The key is having employees work on your secure network, no matter where they’re physically working.One of your best options is to use virtual private networks (VPNs), which enable employees to stay off public networks. Another approach is to provide more personalized access through a privileged access management (PAM) solution rather than a VPN. A PAM system gives you more detailed or specific control. In comparison, a VPN is essentially all-or-nothing access for your team. For instance, a PAM solution makes it possible to cut off access to terminated employees or set up alerts and session tracking. Decide how many different levels of access you need internally to determine which of these two routes is best.2. Prioritize IoT security.As the IoT explodes, hackers are targeting these devices and their systems. It’s often too late to patch a device after a security vulnerability has been discovered. For that reason, Trend Micro is pitching in to help companies get it right before IoT devices go to market with its Zero Day Initiative, which provides a team of researchers to vet IoT devices submitted from manufacturers. Efforts like this help ensure that the IoT devices you implement aren’t making it easier for hackers to access your systems and data. To further harden IoT offerings, implement two-factor authentications for network access, in which an SMS code or other means to verify the device is used. As Heitor Faroni, director of solutions marketing for the Network Business Division at Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise, explains, “Many IoT devices are not designed with security in mind and consequently have little to no integrated security capabilities. The best way is to minimize the risks is to take a multi-layer security approach. It starts at the user and device level, making sure that every user and device is recognized, authenticated, and authorized.” Two-factor authentication will help keep hackers off your network. 3. Surpass compliance standards.Data privacy regulations, such as Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are a step in the right direction for cybersecurity. Adhering to the letter of these laws — or even surpassing them — can go a long way toward fulfilling your mission. “Going above and beyond what the regulations require ensures that data is protected — and can be a powerful driver of performance,” says David Wagner, president and CEO of Zix, a leader in email security. “The key is to make the compliance part easy so that companies can focus on turning new regulations into opportunities to discover new strengths.”Start by collecting information on your operations, documenting carefully how you process data and any vulnerabilities. Such a record is a requirement of the GDPR, so it’s both a smart idea and a necessary step. And separate your compliance and security teams. Sure, both teams are working toward the same end goal, but they’ll take different actions to work toward that goal. Your compliance team should focus on documentation to show that you’re following compliance regulations. Meanwhile, your security team should focus on any efforts that enhance the security of your company’s systems and private information. To fend off ever-increasing cybersecurity threats, make sure your company applies the latest patches, fortifies its networks, takes IoT concerns seriously, and complies with all privacy regulations. Companies that fail to do so are courting disaster in the form of brand-damaging breaches, fines, lawsuits, and more. Fortunately, with the array of tools and knowledge available, it’s possible to make your operations much more secure. Tags:#business protection#business security#cyber threats#cyberattacks#cybersecurity#hackers#IT#Leadership Brad is the editor overseeing contributed content at ReadWrite.com. He previously worked as an editor at PayPal and Crunchbase. You can reach him at brad at readwrite.com. Leveraging Big Data that Data Websites Should T… Related Posts Brad AndersonEditor In Chief at ReadWrite Internet of Things Makes it Easier to Steal You… How Data Analytics Can Save Lives
Speaking poorly about your competitors is poor form. It can make you look petty, jealous, and; as if you are trying to build yourself up by tearing them down. That said, you do need to be able to differentiate yourself and your offering from your competitor’s.One way to do this is to speak highly of your competitors as individuals and companies, and attack their business model instead (I mean “business model” in the broadest sense here). The fact of the matter is, your competitors are doing good work or they wouldn’t have the clients they have, and a lot of the people that work there are smart, hardworking people. It’s also true that they do things differently, and those differences are not insignificant.The best time to inform your prospective client that your price is higher is as early in the process as possible. It’s also the best time to educate your dream client as to why your price is higher, how it results in better results, how it results in a lower cost, and why you have made different choices from your competitors.This is how you ensure every competitor with a lower price is recognized as requiring your prospective client to make concessions, or poison the well.If your prospect invests less in areas important to producing the results your dream client needs, explain that many people in your industry (not naming names) make much lower investments in these areas so they can provide the lower price. Then explain why those investments are important, and how a lower investment puts their results at risk.You also explain that you do some things differently than your competitors. If there are things that you do that are necessary to producing better outcomes, you need to explain what they are and why you go to the extra effort. Then you have to explain that other companies make different choices and that you have discovered that choices require concessions that your clients are unwilling to make. This is why you do things; it is what is truly necessary.As you share these ideas, you are providing your prospective client with an understanding of their choices, and the questions they are going to ask your lower priced competitors. You are also establishing yourself as differentiated, better, and worth paying more to obtain. The time to establish this is early, and the longer you wait to do so, the less effective this approach will be.You may not win this game every time. But you will win more often, and you will sell at margins that allow you to deliver the outcomes you sell.