The market is not a substitute for caring about people, but it does factor in exactly how much people DO actually care. Other systems pay lip service to caring about people, but actually reward those who most crassly manipulate others into thinking they care.
SalesForce is not whining. This writer of the article appears to have written a press release for Microsoft talking about how this innovation has Salesforce shaking in their boots. The author could not even be bothered to ask anyone at Salesforce what they thought of this new development.
Perhaps you did not notice, but this article was not produced by Salesforce and does not contain ANY information from anyone at SalesForce.
It is merely the opinion of the author of the article that SalesForce is concerned by this development. The only evidence they provide for that theory is that a Salesforce representative accused MS of anti-competitive behavior during the negotiations to buy LinkedIn (possibly as an effort to get regulators to pressure MS out of buying LinkedIn).
I do not actually see this giving MS any strategic advantage...the more this gets used, the more likely I am to remove my LinkedIn account.
The ADA was a bad idea from its inception. I remember people warning that this sort of thing would happen when the law was being debated. Its proponents insisted that this would not be the case.
It is worse than that, a professor at another university (a private one which specifically targets deaf students) wanted to use some of these videos in their class. They wanted the University of California (and therefore California taxpayers) to shoulder the burden of making these videos usable by their students, rather than having their own university pay the cost.
The US has largely trended more authoritarian
So, you agree with him. The left has ALWAYS favored authoritarian government from the days when the terms left and right were first used about politics during the French Revolution. Progressives believe that the government should employ "experts" who will tell farmers what crops to plant, when to plant them, when to harvest them, and how much to charge for them. They believe that the government should have experts who determine what the best diet is for people and enact regulations to make sure that people eat such a diet (or are penalized for not doing so). There is no area of life where progressives do not believe we would be better off doing what government experts instruct us to do rather than what we personally desire and that therefore the government should punish us, for our own good, when we do not follow the rules defined by "experts".
Apparently you are unaware that during the primaries members of Hillary's campaign actively worked to promote Trump as the Republican nominee. Maybe if you spent a little bit of time reading or listening to news other than the Democratic talking points you might be aware of this.
More importantly than my previous comment. If you want to fix what is wrong with our government you need to make sure you blame the correct people for the problem you are trying to fix.
The point of my original post was that blaming this bill on Breitbart is like blaming the voters in California for Bernie Sanders being in the Senate.
No, Democrats are responsible for Trump being in the White House. If they had not re-elected Obama after he had demonstrated that he had no respect for the rule of law the Republican voters would not have felt it necessary to vote for someone who would do the same thing in their interest.
That is really what the last election was about: whose interest would the President break the law in order to promote. Hillary, who stood foursquare for the political establishment, or Trump, who proclaimed himself as opposed to it. It was really a shame it came down to that with no good candidates, but at least the American voters chose the least bad choice.
Important note: This bill came from the House of Representatives, not from the White House. So, Breitbart had nothing to do with it. Bills like this are why Trump was the Republican nominee rather than a more traditional Republican politician. Now whether Trump opposes this bill or not remains to be seen.
No, they were not. The IRS put many conservative organizations which filed as POLITICAL non-profits under scrutiny and delays which they did not put liberal organizations.
The only difference between the conservative organizations which the IRS placed under special scrutiny and the liberal organizations which the IRS just gave a cursory glance at before approving their applications was their political agenda.
I understand that as a liberal you believe in "free speech for me but not for thee," but you are never going to convince me that a just society can be built on that principle. Further, if you insist that it is OK for your side to use the government to target their political enemies, it is only a matter of time until you will acquire an opposition which will do the same thing to you.
They were filing as political non-profits, just like hundreds of liberal organizations which the IRS just passed right through, and the only "no good" they were up to was opposing Obama's political agenda.
The only way I see automation bringing in more customers is if customer wait time was a problem already
That is because you either order a meal at the same fast food restaurant regularly, or you never order a meal at fast food restaurants. There are two restaurants (for certain meanings of the word "restaurant") near me that both serve similar, custom (as in, there are multiple options to choose from for each item on their menu). One of them has a person behind the counter who takes your order and puts it together. The other has a kiosk where you specify your choices, hit enter, and someone behind the counter puts it together while you go pay (this second one is also a convenience store and gas stations, so you may choose to buy something else while you are there). I don't go to either very often, but when I do, I prefer the second (and there are times when I decide to go out for lunch because the second is an option). The reason I prefer the second is because I can more easily go through the options and choose what I want than at the first (in no small part because I am holding up the line while trying to make up my mind). At the kiosk, I am not holding anyone up while I am deciding on what I want (OK, on very rare occasions they are so busy that all of the ordering kiosks are busy and someone is waiting for one to free up).
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails?
I would expect them to do EXACTLY what Hillary did: turn over a limited number of the requested emails and delete the remainder while claiming that the ones turned over were all of them.
Actually, you miss the most important point. The problem with Hillary's private email server was that it was used to hide her emails from public records laws. Please note that Hillary's private email server was under her control, Mike Pence's was under the control of AOL (a third party over which he had/has limited influence). There seems to be no allegation that Mike Pence used the AOL account to systematically avoid public reporting laws.
Seeing what was in Hillary's emails we see why she wanted to hide them from the public, until someone presents evidence that there was something in Mike Pence's AOL emails that was anywhere near as damning as what was in Hillary's, I will assume that there were other reasons he used AOL. That being said, it is a mistake for public officials to use private email for public business. There are two problems with it. First, there is the security aspect. However, the more important one is the difficulty in making sure they are kept in accordance with record retention laws.
Every so often I run across someone who still has an aol email address. It is usually someone who got that email address when they were in high school or college and sees no reason to change it.
OK, so you have written such scripts to notify you. Now the company decides they do not need you any more. Are you going to rewrite those scripts to notify someone else? Or even bother to mention to someone that they should do so?
Or the other scenario where you get another job midway between renewals (when you have not had a notification in several months). Will you remember to change who gets notified? Will you remember to tell someone? When you remember 3-6 months later that you would be getting notifications about now, will you call your old employer to let someone know the notifications were never changed?
In a lot of companies, certificate renewal becomes someone's job because they are in the right place at the right time to handle it and everyone else forgets that it even happens until something goes wrong. If nothing goes wrong for several years, no one, except the guy who handles it, remembers that it even happens. This happens with a lot of tasks, and is my biggest fear whenever someone leaves our IT Department: what minor tasks were they doing that they were doing so well we all forgot about them?
It has been great at my current job, only one of the people in our IT Department who was here long enough to do anything everyone would forget about who subsequently left was good enough at it for people to forget...that one person only left because they became suddenly ill and died. Dealing with their absence has been a mess.
Only a few years before Bill Clinton did this, the DEMOCRATS has weaponized the same sort of misdeed to remove Senator Packwood from office. Actually that is not true, they had weaponized it before that and had used it against numerous public officials. Then when the Republicans tried to hold Bill Clinton to the standard the Democrats had established they started making the argument you are making. Of course, as soon as they believed that people had forgotten they attempted to go back to the weapon which had worked so well for them in the past.
So you do not remember the people saying that it was "just sex"? The same people who only a few years earlier drive Senator Bob Packwood from office for much the same thing. Only when Senator Packwood had done what Bill Clinton did they said that it was always coercive when a man of his position had sex with an intern.
History has told a story of increasingly decentralized governments, only to have them replaced by increasingly centralized corporate empires.
When, in fact, history tells a story of increasingly centralized governments promoting (and being promoted by) increasingly centralized business empires. This process continues until some disruptive force comes along with which the centralized authority is unable to cope. In all cases power becomes ever more centralized until such a time as the information necessary to maintain that centralized power exceeds the ability of the organization centralizing power to process it. There are three things areas in which an organization may centralize beyond its ability to process information:
Communication--primarily speed of communication, but not necessarily just speed
When the organization is unable to communicate information well enough and fast enough to and from the central decision makers, central authority collapses
Data collection
When the data necessary to make adequate decisions exceeds the ability of the central authority to gather and store it, the central authority collapses.
Data processing
When the amount of data necessary to make adequate decisions exceed the ability of the central authority to process it, the central authority collapses.
Technology has eliminated the problem of speed of communication as a limiting factor on centralized control. I have my doubts about the possibility of overcoming the other communication limits (once the number of people in an organization exceeds some number it appears that words begin to mean different things to different, not clearly defined, groups of people, even when they, theoretically, share the same language). Technology has, at least theoretically, overcome the limit on the ability to gather and store the data necessary to make adequate decisions over the world. However, while technology has massively increased human ability to process the data necessary to manage large centralized organizations, there appear to be emergent qualities to ever larger organizations which cause them to suddenly, and without warning, have different requirements for what data needs to be processed.
Basically, my point is that power tends to become more and more centralized until the organization centralizing the power is no longer manageable. Usually, the people in charge continue to attempt to consolidate ever more power while this is happening until something catastrophic occurs. Occasionally, a visionary has arisen who manages to decentralize authority sufficiently to allow the organization to continue to thrive (or to divide into multiple subgroups which thrive) for some time after the initial singularity.
Slashdot Mirror
The market is not a substitute for caring about people, but it does factor in exactly how much people DO actually care. Other systems pay lip service to caring about people, but actually reward those who most crassly manipulate others into thinking they care.
SalesForce is not whining. This writer of the article appears to have written a press release for Microsoft talking about how this innovation has Salesforce shaking in their boots. The author could not even be bothered to ask anyone at Salesforce what they thought of this new development.
Perhaps you did not notice, but this article was not produced by Salesforce and does not contain ANY information from anyone at SalesForce.
It is merely the opinion of the author of the article that SalesForce is concerned by this development. The only evidence they provide for that theory is that a Salesforce representative accused MS of anti-competitive behavior during the negotiations to buy LinkedIn (possibly as an effort to get regulators to pressure MS out of buying LinkedIn).
I do not actually see this giving MS any strategic advantage...the more this gets used, the more likely I am to remove my LinkedIn account.
The ADA was a bad idea from its inception. I remember people warning that this sort of thing would happen when the law was being debated. Its proponents insisted that this would not be the case.
It is worse than that, a professor at another university (a private one which specifically targets deaf students) wanted to use some of these videos in their class. They wanted the University of California (and therefore California taxpayers) to shoulder the burden of making these videos usable by their students, rather than having their own university pay the cost.
The US has largely trended more authoritarian So, you agree with him. The left has ALWAYS favored authoritarian government from the days when the terms left and right were first used about politics during the French Revolution. Progressives believe that the government should employ "experts" who will tell farmers what crops to plant, when to plant them, when to harvest them, and how much to charge for them. They believe that the government should have experts who determine what the best diet is for people and enact regulations to make sure that people eat such a diet (or are penalized for not doing so). There is no area of life where progressives do not believe we would be better off doing what government experts instruct us to do rather than what we personally desire and that therefore the government should punish us, for our own good, when we do not follow the rules defined by "experts".
Apparently you are unaware that during the primaries members of Hillary's campaign actively worked to promote Trump as the Republican nominee. Maybe if you spent a little bit of time reading or listening to news other than the Democratic talking points you might be aware of this.
More importantly than my previous comment. If you want to fix what is wrong with our government you need to make sure you blame the correct people for the problem you are trying to fix.
The point of my original post was that blaming this bill on Breitbart is like blaming the voters in California for Bernie Sanders being in the Senate.
No, Democrats are responsible for Trump being in the White House. If they had not re-elected Obama after he had demonstrated that he had no respect for the rule of law the Republican voters would not have felt it necessary to vote for someone who would do the same thing in their interest.
That is really what the last election was about: whose interest would the President break the law in order to promote. Hillary, who stood foursquare for the political establishment, or Trump, who proclaimed himself as opposed to it. It was really a shame it came down to that with no good candidates, but at least the American voters chose the least bad choice.
Important note: This bill came from the House of Representatives, not from the White House. So, Breitbart had nothing to do with it. Bills like this are why Trump was the Republican nominee rather than a more traditional Republican politician. Now whether Trump opposes this bill or not remains to be seen.
No, they were not. The IRS put many conservative organizations which filed as POLITICAL non-profits under scrutiny and delays which they did not put liberal organizations.
Well, there is certainly evidence that Lois Lerner was part of a conspiracy to shut down opposition to Obama.
It is interesting that you are the one who says that Obama's policies were designed to destroy America.
The only difference between the conservative organizations which the IRS placed under special scrutiny and the liberal organizations which the IRS just gave a cursory glance at before approving their applications was their political agenda.
I understand that as a liberal you believe in "free speech for me but not for thee," but you are never going to convince me that a just society can be built on that principle. Further, if you insist that it is OK for your side to use the government to target their political enemies, it is only a matter of time until you will acquire an opposition which will do the same thing to you.
They were filing as political non-profits, just like hundreds of liberal organizations which the IRS just passed right through, and the only "no good" they were up to was opposing Obama's political agenda.
The only way I see automation bringing in more customers is if customer wait time was a problem already
That is because you either order a meal at the same fast food restaurant regularly, or you never order a meal at fast food restaurants. There are two restaurants (for certain meanings of the word "restaurant") near me that both serve similar, custom (as in, there are multiple options to choose from for each item on their menu). One of them has a person behind the counter who takes your order and puts it together. The other has a kiosk where you specify your choices, hit enter, and someone behind the counter puts it together while you go pay (this second one is also a convenience store and gas stations, so you may choose to buy something else while you are there). I don't go to either very often, but when I do, I prefer the second (and there are times when I decide to go out for lunch because the second is an option). The reason I prefer the second is because I can more easily go through the options and choose what I want than at the first (in no small part because I am holding up the line while trying to make up my mind). At the kiosk, I am not holding anyone up while I am deciding on what I want (OK, on very rare occasions they are so busy that all of the ordering kiosks are busy and someone is waiting for one to free up).
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails?
I would expect them to do EXACTLY what Hillary did: turn over a limited number of the requested emails and delete the remainder while claiming that the ones turned over were all of them.
Actually, you miss the most important point. The problem with Hillary's private email server was that it was used to hide her emails from public records laws. Please note that Hillary's private email server was under her control, Mike Pence's was under the control of AOL (a third party over which he had/has limited influence). There seems to be no allegation that Mike Pence used the AOL account to systematically avoid public reporting laws.
Seeing what was in Hillary's emails we see why she wanted to hide them from the public, until someone presents evidence that there was something in Mike Pence's AOL emails that was anywhere near as damning as what was in Hillary's, I will assume that there were other reasons he used AOL. That being said, it is a mistake for public officials to use private email for public business. There are two problems with it. First, there is the security aspect. However, the more important one is the difficulty in making sure they are kept in accordance with record retention laws.
Every so often I run across someone who still has an aol email address. It is usually someone who got that email address when they were in high school or college and sees no reason to change it.
OK, so you have written such scripts to notify you. Now the company decides they do not need you any more. Are you going to rewrite those scripts to notify someone else? Or even bother to mention to someone that they should do so?
Or the other scenario where you get another job midway between renewals (when you have not had a notification in several months). Will you remember to change who gets notified? Will you remember to tell someone? When you remember 3-6 months later that you would be getting notifications about now, will you call your old employer to let someone know the notifications were never changed?
In a lot of companies, certificate renewal becomes someone's job because they are in the right place at the right time to handle it and everyone else forgets that it even happens until something goes wrong. If nothing goes wrong for several years, no one, except the guy who handles it, remembers that it even happens. This happens with a lot of tasks, and is my biggest fear whenever someone leaves our IT Department: what minor tasks were they doing that they were doing so well we all forgot about them?
It has been great at my current job, only one of the people in our IT Department who was here long enough to do anything everyone would forget about who subsequently left was good enough at it for people to forget...that one person only left because they became suddenly ill and died. Dealing with their absence has been a mess.
Senator Packwood's intern never filed a complaint against him either.
Only a few years before Bill Clinton did this, the DEMOCRATS has weaponized the same sort of misdeed to remove Senator Packwood from office. Actually that is not true, they had weaponized it before that and had used it against numerous public officials. Then when the Republicans tried to hold Bill Clinton to the standard the Democrats had established they started making the argument you are making. Of course, as soon as they believed that people had forgotten they attempted to go back to the weapon which had worked so well for them in the past.
So you do not remember the people saying that it was "just sex"? The same people who only a few years earlier drive Senator Bob Packwood from office for much the same thing. Only when Senator Packwood had done what Bill Clinton did they said that it was always coercive when a man of his position had sex with an intern.
Unless they are a Democratic President (see: Bill Clinton).
1. Apparently the boss did not make sex a condition of continued employment. He's her boss. That's ALWAYS implied or always the risk.
Really? Then why was it OK when Bill Clinton had sex with an intern?
History has told a story of increasingly decentralized governments, only to have them replaced by increasingly centralized corporate empires.
When, in fact, history tells a story of increasingly centralized governments promoting (and being promoted by) increasingly centralized business empires. This process continues until some disruptive force comes along with which the centralized authority is unable to cope. In all cases power becomes ever more centralized until such a time as the information necessary to maintain that centralized power exceeds the ability of the organization centralizing power to process it. There are three things areas in which an organization may centralize beyond its ability to process information:
When the organization is unable to communicate information well enough and fast enough to and from the central decision makers, central authority collapses
When the data necessary to make adequate decisions exceeds the ability of the central authority to gather and store it, the central authority collapses.
When the amount of data necessary to make adequate decisions exceed the ability of the central authority to process it, the central authority collapses.
Technology has eliminated the problem of speed of communication as a limiting factor on centralized control. I have my doubts about the possibility of overcoming the other communication limits (once the number of people in an organization exceeds some number it appears that words begin to mean different things to different, not clearly defined, groups of people, even when they, theoretically, share the same language). Technology has, at least theoretically, overcome the limit on the ability to gather and store the data necessary to make adequate decisions over the world. However, while technology has massively increased human ability to process the data necessary to manage large centralized organizations, there appear to be emergent qualities to ever larger organizations which cause them to suddenly, and without warning, have different requirements for what data needs to be processed.
Basically, my point is that power tends to become more and more centralized until the organization centralizing the power is no longer manageable. Usually, the people in charge continue to attempt to consolidate ever more power while this is happening until something catastrophic occurs. Occasionally, a visionary has arisen who manages to decentralize authority sufficiently to allow the organization to continue to thrive (or to divide into multiple subgroups which thrive) for some time after the initial singularity.