Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, nothing in the article defines reputable as such. There are plenty of people who think a company who tries to earn more profit is therefore more reputable than a company who fritters profit away for altruistic reasons.
I've never ever ever never ever taken the lack of sales tax into account when buying stuff from Amazon or not. It's about the availability, the price, and the ease of shopping.
Who said anything about wasting money? That's my whole point about slashdot editorializing...if you think $16.5 is a big waste, I'm telling you, that's a drop in the bucket and you really are griping about nothing, relatively speaking.
I'm always surprised with the editorial tone of slashdot when they post a figure like $16.5 million and try to draw gasps, as if that's a huge amount of money. I'm on a military contract, and the training portion alone is at about $5 million. $16.5 million for something like a new jet is peanuts.
Wouldn't an electromagnetic device have less stuff to breakdown than a coil+spring+hydraulic cylinder + whatever else is in a traditional suspension piece now? Isn't this device a simplification of what it is replacing?
To be fair, the article is pretty skimpy on details.
The 60 percent ride improvement figure was obtained when a single wheel equipped with the system was mounted on a laboratory testbed that simulates road conditions.
Ok, so a single tire was mounted in a lab to a simulator. That's enough to determine 60% improvement? 60% of what? Over what? How many times do you drive your car on just one wheel?
However, the article is pretty clear in that electro magnetic shocks can respond more quickly and with less energy, so they do have the potential to provide botha sporty AND comfortable ride..something traditional equipment can't really do very well.
Just curious at how one measure's "ride quality"? The article describes the performance features of this suspension system that make it a better performance suspension, but that is usually mutually exclusive to ride "comfort". Most of my fellow Americans prefer the billowy-soft cloud-like ride of their Buicks. This system sounds awesome, though to people who actually want nimble, responsive cars. It seems it can eliminate the mutual exclusiveness of traditional performance vs. comfort suspension designs in place now.
I make close to 6 figures and don't use my undergrad degree at all. Shocking, I know. Not really. I imagine MOST people are doing something in their 40s that they didn't study in college.
That is a good point. I heard on NPR that, although national unemployment hovers around 10%, it is more like 25-30% for those who only have a high school diploma. The odds of still having a job because you have an undergrad degree are worth every penny in my book.
Exactly. I really enjoy playing drums in weekend bands, but there's no income there, so I do it...wait for it....for fun. I play for beer and occasional cash. I would play for free if asked.
Therefore I have a real day job that has a salary and benefits. It's not nearly as fun as playing music, but it keeps my family insured and my bills paid.
Yes, you are correct. I got ahead of myself and was thinking of compartmentalized classifications. The caveats are what protect the "means and methods", not the classification levels (but certain caveats also make the classification automatically set to SECRET or TOP SECRET).
Except most classifications are applied via computer programs that won't let you apply invalid classification combinations. Sure, human error comes into play, but the only human error here is the prosecution erroneously saying that the FOUO document is classified, when no FOUO documents are classified. They in fact are all unclassified so the prosecution just looks like they don't know what they are talking about. And they don't, because every low level Private in intel learns classification guidelines in one of the first classes, then use it for the rest of their careers.
So much wrong in the summary and all the linked stories. I expect more from slashdot.
First, FOUO is a handling instruction, not a classification. There are only 4 classification levels (unclassified, confidential, secret, top secret), and there are hundreds of handling instructions and classification combinations. FOUO, however, can only be used with UNCLASSIFIED, and merely exempts unclassified information from Freedom of Information Act.
Second, the individual pages of that letter is marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO top and bottom, but that is only the highest classification of the particular single page in question. If these pages are in a larger document with higher classifications, they indeed take on the highest classification of the overall document. We don't know, because the title page with the classification authority is not present. My guess is that it comes from a document of higher classification.
Finally, the analyst is guilty of leaking information that has handling instructions of FOUO--information that is not to be disseminated to the public. This means he is not authorized to release this information. It's a security violation. Not as severe as leaking classified information, but still a violation.
I can see how a classified document might get a FOUO marking...
Well you'd be wrong. Only unclassified documents can get FOUO. Classified information, by definition, is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act so FOUO would never occur with classified info.
Paragraph AP3.2 -- AP3.2.1.1. "For Official Use Only (FOUO)" is a designation that is applied to unclassified information that may be exempt from mandatory release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)...
Every page inside of a document is marked top and bottom with the highest classification level of that individual page (and actually each paragraph within the page). So either nothing is classified on THAT page (most likely the case), or these 6 pages come from a higher classified document (also most likely the case).
Why people "contribute" to slashdot and have no idea what they are talking about confounds me to this day.
Repeat after me: classifications aren't derived from the content of the document, rather, from the methods used to acquire the information in the document.
Slashdot Mirror
Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, nothing in the article defines reputable as such. There are plenty of people who think a company who tries to earn more profit is therefore more reputable than a company who fritters profit away for altruistic reasons.
For the record, I hate those type of people.
I've never ever ever never ever taken the lack of sales tax into account when buying stuff from Amazon or not. It's about the availability, the price, and the ease of shopping.
Three companies that help keep Americans fat and a pharmaceutical. No wonder the world thinks so little of us.
Well yes, precisely. But the AC above me said "never take risks". That includes unnecessary risk and managed risks.
Who said anything about wasting money? That's my whole point about slashdot editorializing...if you think $16.5 is a big waste, I'm telling you, that's a drop in the bucket and you really are griping about nothing, relatively speaking.
I'm always surprised with the editorial tone of slashdot when they post a figure like $16.5 million and try to draw gasps, as if that's a huge amount of money. I'm on a military contract, and the training portion alone is at about $5 million. $16.5 million for something like a new jet is peanuts.
Oh no, I have a graduate degree and make almost 6 figures. What I said was I don't use my undergrad degree at all, and never did.
From the TSA it appears that these are self contained systems (for the most part).
Damned TSA has their fingers in everything these days!
So providing zero g's of feedback to a driver is better? No thanks.
Isn't that only a problem with automatics? I don't know, because I've never owned one (but have rented plenty).
Wouldn't an electromagnetic device have less stuff to breakdown than a coil+spring+hydraulic cylinder + whatever else is in a traditional suspension piece now? Isn't this device a simplification of what it is replacing?
To be fair, the article is pretty skimpy on details.
The 60 percent ride improvement figure was obtained when a single wheel equipped with the system was mounted on a laboratory testbed that simulates road conditions.
Ok, so a single tire was mounted in a lab to a simulator. That's enough to determine 60% improvement? 60% of what? Over what? How many times do you drive your car on just one wheel?
However, the article is pretty clear in that electro magnetic shocks can respond more quickly and with less energy, so they do have the potential to provide botha sporty AND comfortable ride..something traditional equipment can't really do very well.
Just curious at how one measure's "ride quality"? The article describes the performance features of this suspension system that make it a better performance suspension, but that is usually mutually exclusive to ride "comfort". Most of my fellow Americans prefer the billowy-soft cloud-like ride of their Buicks. This system sounds awesome, though to people who actually want nimble, responsive cars. It seems it can eliminate the mutual exclusiveness of traditional performance vs. comfort suspension designs in place now.
I make close to 6 figures and don't use my undergrad degree at all. Shocking, I know. Not really. I imagine MOST people are doing something in their 40s that they didn't study in college.
That is a good point. I heard on NPR that, although national unemployment hovers around 10%, it is more like 25-30% for those who only have a high school diploma. The odds of still having a job because you have an undergrad degree are worth every penny in my book.
Exactly. I really enjoy playing drums in weekend bands, but there's no income there, so I do it...wait for it....for fun. I play for beer and occasional cash. I would play for free if asked.
Therefore I have a real day job that has a salary and benefits. It's not nearly as fun as playing music, but it keeps my family insured and my bills paid.
But if you don't take risk, you are forever stuck in your crappy job.
Yeah, well 2-3 years of inside jokes and bad car analogies feels like about 20-30 years.
Yes, you are correct. I got ahead of myself and was thinking of compartmentalized classifications. The caveats are what protect the "means and methods", not the classification levels (but certain caveats also make the classification automatically set to SECRET or TOP SECRET).
I always found this inside joke to be not so funny. I've been on here for at least 2-3 years now, regardless of how many digits my UID has.
Except most classifications are applied via computer programs that won't let you apply invalid classification combinations. Sure, human error comes into play, but the only human error here is the prosecution erroneously saying that the FOUO document is classified, when no FOUO documents are classified. They in fact are all unclassified so the prosecution just looks like they don't know what they are talking about. And they don't, because every low level Private in intel learns classification guidelines in one of the first classes, then use it for the rest of their careers.
So much wrong in the summary and all the linked stories. I expect more from slashdot.
First, FOUO is a handling instruction, not a classification. There are only 4 classification levels (unclassified, confidential, secret, top secret), and there are hundreds of handling instructions and classification combinations. FOUO, however, can only be used with UNCLASSIFIED, and merely exempts unclassified information from Freedom of Information Act.
Second, the individual pages of that letter is marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO top and bottom, but that is only the highest classification of the particular single page in question. If these pages are in a larger document with higher classifications, they indeed take on the highest classification of the overall document. We don't know, because the title page with the classification authority is not present. My guess is that it comes from a document of higher classification.
Finally, the analyst is guilty of leaking information that has handling instructions of FOUO--information that is not to be disseminated to the public. This means he is not authorized to release this information. It's a security violation. Not as severe as leaking classified information, but still a violation.
I can see how a classified document might get a FOUO marking...
Well you'd be wrong. Only unclassified documents can get FOUO. Classified information, by definition, is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act so FOUO would never occur with classified info.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001r.pdf
Paragraph AP3.2 -- AP3.2.1.1. "For Official Use Only (FOUO)" is a designation that is applied to unclassified information that may be exempt from mandatory release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)...
Every page inside of a document is marked top and bottom with the highest classification level of that individual page (and actually each paragraph within the page). So either nothing is classified on THAT page (most likely the case), or these 6 pages come from a higher classified document (also most likely the case).
Why people "contribute" to slashdot and have no idea what they are talking about confounds me to this day.
Repeat after me: classifications aren't derived from the content of the document, rather, from the methods used to acquire the information in the document.