I don't live in California, but I would have liked to see Meg Whitman win. The biggest problem facing most of these states is that they are just wandering aimlessly, guided by special interest and political tug of wars rather than a sensible leadership. If more people were brought in to run it as a business the waste would be reduced dramatically. Right now the social systems are a huge problem, and a lot of the issue is tied to the measurement of success. Right now their "success" is measured purely by how much money they spend. The logic being the more they spend, the more people helped. Unfortunately that is almost entirely incorrect. There need to be actual hard numbers involved such as the number of people receiving assistance, the number of people who leave the system and their duration, the number of people chronically on the system, the number of people abusing the system, the total cost of each person using the system vs result of rehabilitation.
How does this start at the top? This budget cut is only affecting the lowest level employees and with probably only amount to less than 0.03% of the deficit they are facing. The reality is also that in removing the cell phones NEW and potentially HIGHER costs maybe incurred. Did anyone stop to ask WHY the phones were there? Did they make sure all these officials had landlines still? The average cellphone for an individual is $70 give or take. For the government it would be a fraction of that on a big contract, so maybe $45-$50 assuming high. Now, a central phone system for an agency is general upwards of $100,000 or more, plus maintenance, service, and routine upgrades. Chances are very good that it was actually CHEAPER to have cell phones for the staff routed to from a smaller communications system than it is to go back to full landline use.
I don't even live in California and think this is idiotic without review. This is a knee jerk reaction that will most likely cost more in the end than it saved.
The reality is that "herd immunity" is a misnomer in the hands of idiots. First of all, the term defines that the majority will remain healthy through EXPOSURE and general resistances acquired by the group. It doesn't mean that the offspring of said group will not contract the virus/infection, it simply means the ones who do not die from it will have a greater resistance to it. Now, that entire system is based around survival of the strongest, so in order to work your weak children must be allowed to die. That way they will not reproduce and thereby reduce the herds total resistance. Unfortunately, the chances are vary good that if your child was one of the oddities that would have suffered ill effects due to vaccination, they probably won't make it through the first round of infection either... purely based on the observation that they have inferior biological adaptation qualities. Even beyond the reintroduction of survival of the fittest to the human race, sanitation methods need to be kept in check, as stigmatization will reduce exposure, thereby reducing immune responses.
I don't know, but I prefer the option where we simply do that exact same thing through controlled methods of vaccines, under the care of a physician, and avoid all the unseemly child deaths. I guess if the 0.01% that there is an unknown variable that could cause autism is enough for you to ignore the 1,700% more likely death due to measles.
Save some time and just give it to Michael Bay, that way annoying details like plot and character development can be glossed over and replaced with explosions.
It isn't even the privately owned part that concerns me the most, it's the consolidation of power. Many of the most corrupt organizations and corporations on earth are government entities, so government control wouldn't alleviate the issue either. Corruption happens as soon as person is involved and has the ability/power to abuse their position. The only way to minimize it's damage is to diversify authority, a single point of authentication is a single point of failure and abuse.
It is only a problem because of the incredibly complicated tax codes we have implemented. If the tax was a simple, flat tax rate with no dedications or special escape clauses applied to every person living in the country, it wouldn't be a problem. Of course, you can't feel too shafted unless you are quite wealthy. The upper 10% of income earners pay approximately 70% of all taxes in the country. My guess is you are still not in that 10%.
What we really need to do is stop playing the "well they can afford it" class warfare game and make the tax brackets a fixed percentage for everyone equally. Then it would really be fair and hard to escape with loopholes. You might also want to consider that while a corporation like Google only pays 2.4% tax rate, they are also paying taxes indirectly through the employees and salaries. This only accounts for income taxation and does not account for other dedications they might be utilizing.
That's a UI failure. If the user wants to enter month/day, let them enter it and logic it in behind the scenes. I have users ask for things like this all the time... so I give it to them. It's not something that's going to be a big deal, and it makes their lives easier entering it. Either that or mask it properly with a defaulted year.
You are telling me that no other channel has "shock jock" opinion shows? What the hell have I been watching on the other channels all this time then?
When a segment is labeled "news" I will assume it has a some random facts sprinkled with opinion. When a segment is labeled opinion, I assume it is an entertainment section utilizing facts. The two are very different and do no automatically void any channel they maybe on. Last time I checked, Fox was dominating all other stations because of their opinion shows, and MSNBC was dominating CNN for the same reason. People want to be entertained.... staying current on the petty happenings of the world are just a side effect. The real issue has nothing to do with the shows as much as it is becoming personal to people that disagree with the politics.
If you are explicitly Democrat or Republican, you are already too bias to have a valid opinion on entertainment like this.
I think by definition they can't be conservative while funding a program like this. It is like the "conservatives" in the US that claim the position of conservative while spending money like it's going out of fashion.... and a program like this actually would qualify as socialist as it is being done under the guise of social assistance. A social program doesn't have to make sense to still be a social program, just look at the welfare system.
That would make for a great conspiricy theory, but the my guess is that Julian Assange is probably just an ego maniac douche bag, who sucks to work with. Reality is usually far less interesting than fiction, and I can almost guarantee most people working at wikileaks were doing so because of moral reasons, which conflict with Assange's money making goals.
It doesn't matter if they were hunters, hippies, or investment bankers. It seems that we have simply let the idiot to normal ratio get far to imbalanced in society. We need to repeal seatbelt laws, take the warnings off plastic bags, and let Darwin lean out the population a bit.
Actually, coal plants are a symptom of the need for affordable power systems. We can completely sustain our existence without them, we just need a few billion people to kill themselves first, to relocate populations closer to green power systems, and remove the freewill of the populace to do anything not in the best interest of our agenda. Those who do not comply will need to be dealt with swiftly, I suggest we form an order of Grammaton Clerics to maintain the obedience of the masses. I would also request we do not allow Christian Bale exist in our perfect world, something tells me he might be a problem.
* Note this is satire. I am not actually a new age environmental fanatic, so you FBI agents can put down your pencils and save your self the trip to my house.
Avoiding accidents is rarely about reaction time. If you have to react to something in front of you, then you've already been making some bad decisions in the previous moments. Real life driving is not like a racing game (says the guy who was banned from driving for 3 months when he got caught at 114mph in March this year).
That's not true at all. As someone who has commuted to work for years and participates in autoracing, I can tell you that reaction absolutely matters. Currently most of the traffic collisions we have on our roads are caused by people who are distracted and do not react in time to prevent themselves from fumbling into things. If people actually were paying attention and trained in the skill of driving, as opposed to just taught regulations, our road system would have far fewer problems.
People love to blame speed, visibility, surface conditions, etc, for their failures as a driver, but the physics behind your driving isn't what failed to keep the automobile under control. It was your lack of attention and ability.
PS: Stumbling along under the speed limit and obstructing traffic doesn't make you safer than the person passing everyone. It just makes it slightly easier for other drivers to dodge your mistakes. Likewise, driving fast doesn't make you more skilled.
I played a free game last year called Silk Roads Online that allowed you to buy items in the game for real currency. In fact, it was the primary source of revenue (as far as I know). Heck, I think the games still going and that they are planning a new expansion according to a quick web search.
The problem here is that they of course want to go after misdemeanor suspects first. Its the cliche slippery slope argument. The problem is they will lower and lower the bar for what is acceptable. Eventually minor crime will be what they search for.
The article actually says that is the goal, I'm not exactly sure what you think you are pointing out here. When you look at the purpose of the system, it's to speed up the process of identifying suspects. In all reality it just means that people breaking the law will have a harder time slipping past the officer without being noticed. There are no new laws associated with this and there is nothing different then current police operations other then the fact it can be done at a much higher volume.
The problem i see here is that this is a small attack on our liberty from all sides. Imagine in the future the government makes some really asinine illegal, like burning an American flag. They make it a crime but to appease the people who want it to be legal they make it a tiny tiny offense, a slap on the wrist. What they don't make clear is that anyone who is wanted for this crime is probably going to be arrested on their way to work causing serious hardship.
Also view this police practice in light of the ridiculous war on drugs we have. Marijuana for person use is not a serious crime but that is where i see this tactic being used in the future. Overzealous cops trying to make a career for themselves with no care for the greater good of society will vigorously pursue average peaceful citizens. Their property will be seized for to pay for the inertia of the police force. Too many people's careers are involved in policing small things for this is lighten up.
First of all, burning an American flag is already illegal... not to mention a good way to get yourself injured/killed by patriotic citizens. Now, who decides what laws are asinine? You used the example of the American flag, only to then turn around and try to defend drug abuse. In my book, drug addicts are the most significant problem we deal with today in the country. In Oregon, according to the last article I read, 80% of all property crime in the state was methamphetamine related. Since we disagree, are drug laws asinine or not?
The second part of your argument that really made no sense was when you used that statement "vigorously pursue average peaceful citizens". You do realize that in order to violate a crime, a person does not have to be violent, right? According to that statement, you make it sound as though as long as a criminal is not committing a violent crime, they should not be pursed. Could you please explain your flawed logic?
What this plane will do is make it easier and less risky for the US military to conduct bombing runs. The more bombing runs get done, the more people (innocent and otherwise) get killed.
That logic is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. Currently our bombing missions are unopposed. There are only a handful of nations on earth that could really mount a resistance if they wanted to. What you are attempting to say would mean that the only reason we don't do more bombing runs is because of the risk, but the reality is that there is almost no risk at present. What this does do is allow us to conduct more risky observation maneuvers that will help limit collateral damage. Without a pilot, we are risking a lot less by not shooting first and asking questions later. If they shoot down the drone, another will kill them. If they are peace full, then none of the drones would be shot down and everyone would be happy.
Well Aircraft unlike computers are only operated by trained professionals.
Yeah, but these "professionals" seem to have a higher percentage drunk then computer users. Hell, these new "flapping" carbon wings will be nothing new to them... they already thought the wings were flapping after the first two drinks.
Actually, it is. There are a lot of skills and ceremonies bound into the equipment used for a tradition. The pain and effort put into crafting the appropriate tools, the self-sacrifice, and the possibility of failure can be a big part. The appreciate and understand of performing a traditional action in the traditional way should not be underestimated, nor should the balance with nature that historic technology offered in comparison to modern technologies.
I do not know what part of your comment is more ridicules, the portion where you over emphasize the tools or when you try to equate primitive means with a balance of nature.
Man kind has never been in balance with nature. We have always sought the advantage required to kill animals or other people without getting ourselves killed in the process. A spear, arrow, gun, sling, or any other invention aimed at more efficiently killing was not designed to give the target a sporting chance. The limitations of the tools abilities were tied to the limitations of the technology. Before animals were hunted with bows and guns, they were chased off cliffs, herded into traps, or killed in hibernation... not very balanced or sporting.
Would you prefer that they used the traditional tactics of piercing the animals lung so that if suffocated while towing them along behind it? Most ritualistic or ceremonial hunts are conducted using only slightly modernized tools, but using modern weapons to dispatch the animal after the fact. Generally the animals are still harpooned, but to prevent the animals suffering and endangering the people involved they kill it with other means.
I do not believe it is necessary to conduct ritual hunts in modern society, but I also do not believe it is the place of close minded individuals to impose their will on an entire peoples way of life. They are conducting themselves in a responsible manor, feeding their people, and preserving a tradition.
That logic is flawed. Just because a door is open, it does not mean you may enter. It has been ruled a crime to access an open Wi-Fi hot spot if it's not designated for public use... this would seem to be the same matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't live in California, but I would have liked to see Meg Whitman win. The biggest problem facing most of these states is that they are just wandering aimlessly, guided by special interest and political tug of wars rather than a sensible leadership. If more people were brought in to run it as a business the waste would be reduced dramatically. Right now the social systems are a huge problem, and a lot of the issue is tied to the measurement of success. Right now their "success" is measured purely by how much money they spend. The logic being the more they spend, the more people helped. Unfortunately that is almost entirely incorrect. There need to be actual hard numbers involved such as the number of people receiving assistance, the number of people who leave the system and their duration, the number of people chronically on the system, the number of people abusing the system, the total cost of each person using the system vs result of rehabilitation.
How does this start at the top? This budget cut is only affecting the lowest level employees and with probably only amount to less than 0.03% of the deficit they are facing. The reality is also that in removing the cell phones NEW and potentially HIGHER costs maybe incurred. Did anyone stop to ask WHY the phones were there? Did they make sure all these officials had landlines still? The average cellphone for an individual is $70 give or take. For the government it would be a fraction of that on a big contract, so maybe $45-$50 assuming high. Now, a central phone system for an agency is general upwards of $100,000 or more, plus maintenance, service, and routine upgrades. Chances are very good that it was actually CHEAPER to have cell phones for the staff routed to from a smaller communications system than it is to go back to full landline use.
I don't even live in California and think this is idiotic without review. This is a knee jerk reaction that will most likely cost more in the end than it saved.
The reality is that "herd immunity" is a misnomer in the hands of idiots. First of all, the term defines that the majority will remain healthy through EXPOSURE and general resistances acquired by the group. It doesn't mean that the offspring of said group will not contract the virus/infection, it simply means the ones who do not die from it will have a greater resistance to it. Now, that entire system is based around survival of the strongest, so in order to work your weak children must be allowed to die. That way they will not reproduce and thereby reduce the herds total resistance. Unfortunately, the chances are vary good that if your child was one of the oddities that would have suffered ill effects due to vaccination, they probably won't make it through the first round of infection either... purely based on the observation that they have inferior biological adaptation qualities. Even beyond the reintroduction of survival of the fittest to the human race, sanitation methods need to be kept in check, as stigmatization will reduce exposure, thereby reducing immune responses.
I don't know, but I prefer the option where we simply do that exact same thing through controlled methods of vaccines, under the care of a physician, and avoid all the unseemly child deaths. I guess if the 0.01% that there is an unknown variable that could cause autism is enough for you to ignore the 1,700% more likely death due to measles.
Save some time and just give it to Michael Bay, that way annoying details like plot and character development can be glossed over and replaced with explosions.
It isn't even the privately owned part that concerns me the most, it's the consolidation of power. Many of the most corrupt organizations and corporations on earth are government entities, so government control wouldn't alleviate the issue either. Corruption happens as soon as person is involved and has the ability/power to abuse their position. The only way to minimize it's damage is to diversify authority, a single point of authentication is a single point of failure and abuse.
It is only a problem because of the incredibly complicated tax codes we have implemented. If the tax was a simple, flat tax rate with no dedications or special escape clauses applied to every person living in the country, it wouldn't be a problem. Of course, you can't feel too shafted unless you are quite wealthy. The upper 10% of income earners pay approximately 70% of all taxes in the country. My guess is you are still not in that 10%.
What we really need to do is stop playing the "well they can afford it" class warfare game and make the tax brackets a fixed percentage for everyone equally. Then it would really be fair and hard to escape with loopholes. You might also want to consider that while a corporation like Google only pays 2.4% tax rate, they are also paying taxes indirectly through the employees and salaries. This only accounts for income taxation and does not account for other dedications they might be utilizing.
That's a UI failure. If the user wants to enter month/day, let them enter it and logic it in behind the scenes. I have users ask for things like this all the time... so I give it to them. It's not something that's going to be a big deal, and it makes their lives easier entering it. Either that or mask it properly with a defaulted year.
You are telling me that no other channel has "shock jock" opinion shows? What the hell have I been watching on the other channels all this time then? When a segment is labeled "news" I will assume it has a some random facts sprinkled with opinion. When a segment is labeled opinion, I assume it is an entertainment section utilizing facts. The two are very different and do no automatically void any channel they maybe on. Last time I checked, Fox was dominating all other stations because of their opinion shows, and MSNBC was dominating CNN for the same reason. People want to be entertained.... staying current on the petty happenings of the world are just a side effect. The real issue has nothing to do with the shows as much as it is becoming personal to people that disagree with the politics. If you are explicitly Democrat or Republican, you are already too bias to have a valid opinion on entertainment like this.
I think by definition they can't be conservative while funding a program like this. It is like the "conservatives" in the US that claim the position of conservative while spending money like it's going out of fashion.... and a program like this actually would qualify as socialist as it is being done under the guise of social assistance. A social program doesn't have to make sense to still be a social program, just look at the welfare system.
That would make for a great conspiricy theory, but the my guess is that Julian Assange is probably just an ego maniac douche bag, who sucks to work with. Reality is usually far less interesting than fiction, and I can almost guarantee most people working at wikileaks were doing so because of moral reasons, which conflict with Assange's money making goals.
It doesn't matter if they were hunters, hippies, or investment bankers. It seems that we have simply let the idiot to normal ratio get far to imbalanced in society. We need to repeal seatbelt laws, take the warnings off plastic bags, and let Darwin lean out the population a bit.
Actually, coal plants are a symptom of the need for affordable power systems. We can completely sustain our existence without them, we just need a few billion people to kill themselves first, to relocate populations closer to green power systems, and remove the freewill of the populace to do anything not in the best interest of our agenda. Those who do not comply will need to be dealt with swiftly, I suggest we form an order of Grammaton Clerics to maintain the obedience of the masses. I would also request we do not allow Christian Bale exist in our perfect world, something tells me he might be a problem.
* Note this is satire. I am not actually a new age environmental fanatic, so you FBI agents can put down your pencils and save your self the trip to my house.
Wait? Someone likes java?
If you consider North America and South America one continent, your opinion is automatically invalid.
So how long until that copyright will expire?
A lot longer than the code will be relevant.
Avoiding accidents is rarely about reaction time. If you have to react to something in front of you, then you've already been making some bad decisions in the previous moments. Real life driving is not like a racing game (says the guy who was banned from driving for 3 months when he got caught at 114mph in March this year).
That's not true at all. As someone who has commuted to work for years and participates in autoracing, I can tell you that reaction absolutely matters. Currently most of the traffic collisions we have on our roads are caused by people who are distracted and do not react in time to prevent themselves from fumbling into things. If people actually were paying attention and trained in the skill of driving, as opposed to just taught regulations, our road system would have far fewer problems.
People love to blame speed, visibility, surface conditions, etc, for their failures as a driver, but the physics behind your driving isn't what failed to keep the automobile under control. It was your lack of attention and ability.
PS: Stumbling along under the speed limit and obstructing traffic doesn't make you safer than the person passing everyone. It just makes it slightly easier for other drivers to dodge your mistakes. Likewise, driving fast doesn't make you more skilled.
I played a free game last year called Silk Roads Online that allowed you to buy items in the game for real currency. In fact, it was the primary source of revenue (as far as I know). Heck, I think the games still going and that they are planning a new expansion according to a quick web search.
The article actually says that is the goal, I'm not exactly sure what you think you are pointing out here. When you look at the purpose of the system, it's to speed up the process of identifying suspects. In all reality it just means that people breaking the law will have a harder time slipping past the officer without being noticed. There are no new laws associated with this and there is nothing different then current police operations other then the fact it can be done at a much higher volume.
First of all, burning an American flag is already illegal... not to mention a good way to get yourself injured/killed by patriotic citizens. Now, who decides what laws are asinine? You used the example of the American flag, only to then turn around and try to defend drug abuse. In my book, drug addicts are the most significant problem we deal with today in the country. In Oregon, according to the last article I read, 80% of all property crime in the state was methamphetamine related. Since we disagree, are drug laws asinine or not?
The second part of your argument that really made no sense was when you used that statement "vigorously pursue average peaceful citizens". You do realize that in order to violate a crime, a person does not have to be violent, right? According to that statement, you make it sound as though as long as a criminal is not committing a violent crime, they should not be pursed. Could you please explain your flawed logic?
Were you dropped as a child? I wasn't aware this was tech support. That's why you CALL TECH SUPPORT AND NOT /.!
Think about it, zero gravity and one mistake could put out an eye. Not to mention traumatize someone for life.
That's the difference. They could care less if the consumer side ever resolves their issues.
Man kind has never been in balance with nature. We have always sought the advantage required to kill animals or other people without getting ourselves killed in the process. A spear, arrow, gun, sling, or any other invention aimed at more efficiently killing was not designed to give the target a sporting chance. The limitations of the tools abilities were tied to the limitations of the technology. Before animals were hunted with bows and guns, they were chased off cliffs, herded into traps, or killed in hibernation... not very balanced or sporting.
Would you prefer that they used the traditional tactics of piercing the animals lung so that if suffocated while towing them along behind it? Most ritualistic or ceremonial hunts are conducted using only slightly modernized tools, but using modern weapons to dispatch the animal after the fact. Generally the animals are still harpooned, but to prevent the animals suffering and endangering the people involved they kill it with other means.
I do not believe it is necessary to conduct ritual hunts in modern society, but I also do not believe it is the place of close minded individuals to impose their will on an entire peoples way of life. They are conducting themselves in a responsible manor, feeding their people, and preserving a tradition.
That logic is flawed. Just because a door is open, it does not mean you may enter. It has been ruled a crime to access an open Wi-Fi hot spot if it's not designated for public use... this would seem to be the same matter.