Thursday, July 30, 2009

Cafe Philo in New York City tonight: "Is lying wrong?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City tonight, Thursday, July 30, 2009, is "Is lying wrong?".

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately. I heard that he is now over in France for the summer (as he usually does), recuperating.

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 11 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "Can people have more than one soulmate?".

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

New shoes from New Balance Express online

My shoes are really getting quite worn out due to all of the walking I do. I've been on the lookout for new shoes for over a month now, waiting for the right deal. Today is the day! I got an email alert from New Balance, NB Web Express, telling me that today is the last day for a sale offering 15% off and free shipping (and no sales tax).

I like a comfortable shoe for walking, something I can even do a little hiking in, but something marginally "dressy" so that I can walk into most decent restaurants or events down in Washington, DC without needing to have a second pair of shoes. One pair of shoes for everything. That's me. Actually, I do have an old pair of New Balance running shoes that I may wear on occasion, but as comfortable as they are I prefer wearing one shoe for all occasions. Besides, I would prefer to wear a waterproof shoe so I do not get drenched in a light rain. Although in truth even waterproof shoes don't keep their protection for the kind of hard use I give them -- over four hours a day, five to eight hours on weekends.

I chose the New Balance Dunham 8000 Windsor Waterproof Milled Leather Oxford for $94.99. Minus 15% or $14.25. FREE shipping (ground) and handling. NO sales tax. Grand total of $80.74. That fits my budget.

They will arrive next week sometime, but I'm going to try to get another couple of weeks out of my current shoes.

These are the same shoes I bought here in NYC when I moved here back in May 2008. They held up fairly well.

Back in January I bought a pair of the "Oakdale" Dunham model that was on clearance for 50% off the $135 price. They have been fine, but my budget requires the cheaper shoes. I budget $90.

Walking shoes last me about 5 to 9 months. After 5 months they really are ready to be replaced, but I try to squeeze all of the use out of them that I can. By the time I get a new pair, the old ones are looking very sad indeed.

The good news is that I am now set for another six months.

Check out the New Balance NB Web Express web site.

-- Jack Krupansky

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Cafe Philo in New York City tomorrow night: "Is lying wrong?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City tomorrow night, Thursday, July 30, 2009, is "Is lying wrong?".

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately.

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 11 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "Can people have more than one soulmate?".

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Friday, July 17, 2009

First Lending Club payment fully posted to my account

Since I posted yesterday about the first payment on my first Lending Club investment loan which was due five days ago, the updating process has completed and the first payment has been fully credited to my account. Done! Technically, I probably should say that it took four business days for the payment to post after the payment due date since the payment was due on Sunday.

The payment amount for my $25 share of a $7,700 motorcycle loan was $0.83, consisting of $0.26 accrued interest and $0.57 principal repayment. Lending club charges a 1% service fee, which was $0.0083 or rounded up to $0.01, so my net payment was $0.82, which was simply added to the cash sitting in my Lending Club account (which earns no interest unless I reinvest it.)

My rough calculation suggests that the 1% service fee reduced my nominal 12.53% interest rate by about 0.48% to roughly 12.05%. Still very decent. Over the term of the loan that discount to my rate will rise since although the monthly payment stays the same and the service charge is based on the total payment, the interest portion of the payment trends down to zero.

The Account Activity screen is now updated and shows both the loan payment and the Lender Service Fee.

The first payment for my second investment loan is due today. Just as wth the first loan, I see that the accrued interest is reset to $0.00. I do also see a line on the Loan Performance screen for the loan that shows the payment status as Scheduled, but I see that line for all of my loans. Based on my experience with the first loan payment, I believe that I will see this payment fully posted next Thursday morning.

I just noticed that the Loan Performance screen has a Credit Score Change field that alerts you if the borrowers credit score has changed. For one of my loans I see that their score is Up. Neat feature.

All in all, everything is proceeding smoothly.

Move over Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase... us Lending Club investors are out to eat your lunch! Really.

-- Jack Krupansky

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Cafe Philo in New York City tonight: "Can people have more than one soulmate?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City tonight, Thursday, July 16, 2009, is "Can people have more than one soulmate?". The tribulations of Gov. Mark Sanford and his "soul mate" and wife were an obvious inspiration for this topic.

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately.

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 10 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "What is the happiness in the pursuit of happiness?".

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City tonight: "Can people have more than one soulmate?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City tonight, Thursday, July 16, 2009, is "Can people have more than one soulmate?". The tribulations of Gov. Mark Sanford and his "soul mate" and wife were an obvious inspiration for this topic.

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately.

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 10 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "What is the happiness in the pursuit of happiness?".

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Waiting for initial payments on my Lending Club P2P loan investments

I have successfully completed my initial batch of person-to-person (P2P) loans ("notes") through Lending Club. I have invested 20% of the modest amount ($1,000) than I have earmarked for experimenting with this new investment vehicle. I have $25 investments in eight (8) different consumer loans, with a range of risk profiles. All loans are for a 3-year term.

I actually put in a total of 15 orders, but seven of them either did not get to 100% funding by the end of the 14-day funding period or failed to get verification of employment or income. These "failures" might seem alarming, but they really just show how picky and conservative Lending Club really is.

Unfortunately, the other 80% of my money is sitting at Lending Club idle and does not earn any interest. I could withdraw the money, but I intend to invest it by the end of the summer and it would not earn very much in a money market account anyway.

What's next?

The next step is to wait for the initial monthly payments to come in and see how that process works in practice, as opposed to theory.

My first monthly payment is for $0.83 on July 12, 2009, just 5 days from now. That 83 cents is my share of a $7,700 motorcycle loan that is rated C1 (somewhat risky) and has a rate of 12.53%. Lending Club takes about 0.7% of that, which should net me 11.83%. So far, Lending Club says I have 22 cents of accrued interest (updates every day). The 83 cents includes both accrued interest and repayment of principle. So, of that initial 83 cents, about 25 cents will be accrued interest and 58 cents repiad principle. As each month goes by I will get the same total payment (although it may vary by a penny due to fractional cents), but less interest and more repayment of principle. I am not positive that the 83 cents is actually my net or the gross before Lending Club takes their 0.7%. That is one of the details I will need to verify when the first payment comes in.

Payments are deducted automatically from the borrowers bank account via ACH debit. My share of the payment will accumulate in my Lending Club account, but will not accumulate interest. Lending Club has a reinvestment feature, but that requires that at least $25 be available in the account. I do have my remaining 80% of my initial capital, but I intend to wait until the end of the summer before deciding whether and how to invest deeper into Lending Club. The reinvestment feature searches for loans that meet parameters that you set and sends you an email alert.

My second note will make its first payment 5 days later, on July 17, 2009. The third is a day later, on July 18, 2009. I have two payments due on July 22, 2009, another due on July 23, 2009, another due on July 28, 2009, and the last due on August 9, 2009.

So, for now, all I have planned for the next two months is to sit, wait, and watch. And to blog about my experiences.

Oh, and I still need to research various questions, such as how the interest income gets reported for taxes.

I also want to spend some time sifting their a Google search of "Lending Club" and "sucks" to see if there are any legitimate gripes about Lending Club before I get in too deep.

-- Jack Krupansky

Made my Kiva micro-loan for the month of July

I made a new micro-loan through Kiva for the month of July. My intention is to make a new micro-loan every month, in large part from repayments for past micro-loans.

This one was for a married woman, with married children, in Managua, Nicaragua who farms. It is a 14-month micro-loan for a total of $625, of which I lent $25. The money is to be used to buy fertilizer and supplies. I did not realize at the time I made the loan, but replayment is at the end of the term (14 months, August 2010) rather than monthly. I'm not sure I want to put much money into this form of loan, although this one time is fine. Need to read all the details more closely next time.  The micro-loan was already disbursed to the micro-entrepreneur on June 18, 2009 by the local partner. Kiva is raising funds to essentially buy that loan from the local partner.

Here is my Kiva public lender page: http://www.kiva.org/lender/JackKrupansky

Note: This is all real and good, but these micro-loans do not net any interest to us micro-lenders. Kiva's fine print:

Lending to the working poor through Kiva involves risk of principal loss.
Kiva does not guarantee repayment nor do we offer a financial return on your loan.

Still, at least we know our money is really helping somebody better their lives in a visible way rather than put the money in a bank account or money market fund where who knows what it helps to pay for or what good it does and for only a few pennies of profit in our pockets.

-- Jack Krupansky

What is the meaning of happiness in "the pursuit of happiness"?

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that we have rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", but what exactly did they mean by "Happiness"? The text from the preamble to the declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It seems rather obvious from the context that "happiness" is not being used as merely a synonym for pleasure, so what is it really referring to?

The Wikipedia article on the declaration notes that Jefferson, et al were influenced by the writers of The Enlightenment. A separate Wikipedia article on the key phrase alone notes that John Locke may have been the ultimate source of the general language:

The famous phrase is based on the writings of English writer John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1]

...

1. Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved on January 21, 2009.

To me, that superficially suggests that Jefferson may have treated happiness as a reference to health and possessions, at least loosely speaking.

The Wikipedia article also notes that the Virginia Declaration of Rights had the language (by George Mason):

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That is not inconsistent with Locke. I would interpret "safety" as roughly the combination of "life and liberty", so "happiness and safety" would leave us with roughly the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This suggests that Mason was considering happiness to be roughly "acquiring and possessing property."

I would superficially interpret property as roughly meaning livelihood, the means to support yourself and provide for your family and the prospect of accumulating wealth.

Almost immediately after the July 4, 1776 signing of the declaration, a draft of the Articles of Confederation were published, on July 12, 1776, with no reference to happiness. Article II said:

Article II. The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be divided by any Act Whatever, and hereby severally enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, for their common Defence, the Security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general Welfare, binding said Colonies to assist one another against all Force offered to or attacks made upon them or any of them, on Account of Religion, Sovereignty, Trade, or any other Pretence whatever.

Assuming that "Defence" substitutes for protecting Life, then it would seem that Happiness has been replaced with "general Welfare." To me, that is not inconsistent with interpreting "Welfare" as the means to support yourself and provide for your family, although the concept of accumulating wealth in the form of property is not explicit.

More than a year later (November 15, 1777) the final version of the articles were drafted and submitted to the states, with some wordsmithing, but no essential change in meaning. Article II became Article 3:

ART 3. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

For various reasons the articles were superseded by the U.S. Constitution, which also refrained from explicitly referring to happiness. Taking on a little more of the tone of the declaration, the constitution had a preamble, using the language:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Once again, it would appear that the role of happiness is subsumed by welfare. I interpret the term "general welfare" as meaning that pursuit of the welfare of the individual collectively benefits the whole of society.

Then came the Bill of Rights. Did that have anything to do with "happiness"? I think not. I think the rights and freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights fit more squarely under the category of liberty. Nothing in the Bill of Rights seems to relate directly to acquiring and owning property, livelihood, or accumulating wealth.

Overall, my take on these documents is that happiness and welfare seem to relate to the prosperity of the individual and that the states and the nation had a vested interest in the prosperity of the people as individuals.

I ran across a piece by Carol V. Hamilton entitled "The Surprising Origins and Meaning of the 'Pursuit of Happiness'." She quotes Locke from his essay "Concerning Human Understanding":

The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty.  As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.

That does suggest a more solid origin of Jefferson's pursuit of happiness, but still does not cut to the heart of the meaning of that happiness. I interpret the reference to liberty and happiness being its foundation as indicating that a person cannot experience true liberty unless they are also experiencing true happiness. In other words, without true happiness, liberty is for naught. You cannot feel truly free unless you are enjoying the pursuit of happiness.

Ms. Hamilton digs deeper and finally informs us that:

Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of "the pursuit of happiness," they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to "social happiness."

That still does not answer the whole question, but at least informs a belief that pursuit of true happiness at a personal level does relate to doing good for the whole of society. If we read pursuit of happiness as the pursuit of social happiness, that leads us to inquire what form of "happiness" at a personal level would benefit the whole of society. To me, the answer is enlightened self-interest, pursuing activities that serve a dual purpose of directly benefiting the needs of the individual while simultaneously indirectly benefiting the whole of society. Pursuit of prosperity seems to fit that bill. The ancient philosophers speak of virtue and civic virtue, but I think that is compatible with enlightened self-interest.

In short, my reading of all of this is that Jefferson was using the happiness in the pursuit of happiness to mean prosperity with a strong sense of enlightened self-interest, with prosperity referring to livelihood, the ability to take care of your family, the right to enjoy the fruits of your labors (including at least a little pleasure), the obligation to give back to the community, and at least the hope of accumulating wealth in the form of property and money. Coupled with protection of your life and liberty, all of this would benefit both the individual and the whole of society.

-- Jack Krupansky

Friday, July 03, 2009

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks: "Can people have more than one soulmate?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City, in two weeks, on Thursday, July 16, 2009, is "Can people have more than one soulmate?". The tribulations of Gov. Mark Sanford and his "soul mate" and wife were an obvious inspiration for this topic.

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately.

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 10 people there last night for the disscussion of "What is the happiness in the pursuit of happiness?".

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Cafe Philo in New York City tonight: "What is the happiness in the Pursuit of Happiness?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City, tonight (Thursday, July 2, 2009), is "What is the happiness in the Pursuit of Happiness?".

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately.

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 14 people there two weeks ago.

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky