My guess is that bureaucrats don't have to deal with competing constituencies and do what they feel is best. The other thing is that they are anticipating problems. The public at large doesn't care at this point. Congress doesn't feel a need to address it.
The other option is that the FCC likes having more things to control as over the air becomes less important in the future.
It would make a difference because the rules would derive from a democratic body with the consent of the governed instead of from a bureaucratic agency.
I thought the courts did rule on this in the past and the FCC had to scramble to get some other justification by their own decision re-classifying Internet traffic as being under their supervision.
If I'm astroturfing, that means I'm getting paid, right? Could you put me in touch with people to actually pay me?
My point is that they shouldn't have to pass a law to overturn the FCC. The rules for net neutrality should have been set by Congress and the President, not the FCC just deciding that they had the authority to create rules on the matter.
I don't care your position on the matter, one way or the other. If there's a complicated rule that wasn't clearly given as a task for a regulatory body, the rule should come from Congress.
I would rather be ruled by a democratic, if incompetent, body than a bureaucracy that has aggregated powers to itself.
How about the data released by that alleged former skeptic somewhat recently? It showed no warming trend in the past decade or so.
Re:Having Once Worked at Lockheed Martin...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Research studies are hearsay? It's been about 9 years so I don't even remotely have the reference handy.
Are you trying to say that IT projects, which have low success rates given that criteria, would be less successful generally than building an advanced fighter jet?
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The men in uniform are not nor have ever been designing advanced airplanes.
Having Once Worked at Lockheed Martin...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Lockheed Martin doesn't like to have cost and schedule overruns. While I didn't work on this project directly (I knew people who did), my educated guess would be to the causes:
1) the government's requirements are either unrealistic or changing 2) doing large technical projects is legitimately hard to do on time, on budget, and meeting requirements.
This isn't just true of government and defense projects. This is true of almost all technical projects. While in grad school, I took a software project management class. The teacher stressed that out of all technical projects only 1/6th can be considered successful (on-time, on-budget, meets requirements).
So let's not be hypocritical and attributing cost overruns simply to lobbying.
As to the costs, the government is very bureaucratic. (stating the obvious) Also, the defense industry doesn't outsource labor. Imagine a place where engineering can work for good pay at the age of 55.
It completely ignores human nature. People get hypocritical and cut breaks for things they like all the time. If it isn't Apple, it will express itself somewhere else.
Besides, my overall point is that you are completely oblivious to you are as bad, if not worse, as any fanboy I've ever encountered. Apple reducing the overall intelligence of humanity... seriously?
Burying your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. Why do you think people like the multiverse idea? To get around the theistic implications of the fine-tuning.
Guess what? I'm sorry lots of you don't like the theistic implications. Tough.
Yeah, Social Security and Medicare are real popular until they start bankrupting us due to foreseeable demographic changes. Kind of like cancer that doesn't do much harm until it gets out of control and kills a person.
Are you aware that there's been a fair bit of articles in the last two or three years either admitting that there's been no warming in the last decade or so or trying to explain why there hasn't been any warming?
"Come out and say the biggest part of your platform: that things are not as they seem, observations and experiences cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about reality, because truth can only come from within, through faith."
So you hate people because you haven't a clear idea about what you're talking about? You think you have a clear idea of what evangelicals are like and what they believe and why they believe, but you don't really.
What do you think is more akin to religious belief and grounded scientific reasoning? "I'm not sure if warming temperatures are largely caused by man." vs. "I have a carbon credit (indulgence) to sell you and it will wipe away your guilt (sin)."
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that bureaucrats don't have to deal with competing constituencies and do what they feel is best. The other thing is that they are anticipating problems. The public at large doesn't care at this point. Congress doesn't feel a need to address it.
The other option is that the FCC likes having more things to control as over the air becomes less important in the future.
It would make a difference because the rules would derive from a democratic body with the consent of the governed instead of from a bureaucratic agency.
I thought the courts did rule on this in the past and the FCC had to scramble to get some other justification by their own decision re-classifying Internet traffic as being under their supervision.
If I'm astroturfing, that means I'm getting paid, right? Could you put me in touch with people to actually pay me?
The Internet and net neutrality?
My point is that they shouldn't have to pass a law to overturn the FCC. The rules for net neutrality should have been set by Congress and the President, not the FCC just deciding that they had the authority to create rules on the matter.
I don't care your position on the matter, one way or the other. If there's a complicated rule that wasn't clearly given as a task for a regulatory body, the rule should come from Congress.
I would rather be ruled by a democratic, if incompetent, body than a bureaucracy that has aggregated powers to itself.
Found it:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg
I couldn't find the graph I saw, but I was talking about this: http://perceptionasreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/global-warming-debate-muller-vs-curry.html
Yeah, if you shorten that period up to the last 10 years or so, their data shows a flat trend.
But CO2 is great for plants.
Honestly, it's time to admit that we don't have a handle on all the variables. And guess what? That's OK.
How about the data released by that alleged former skeptic somewhat recently? It showed no warming trend in the past decade or so.
Research studies are hearsay? It's been about 9 years so I don't even remotely have the reference handy.
Are you trying to say that IT projects, which have low success rates given that criteria, would be less successful generally than building an advanced fighter jet?
The men in uniform are not nor have ever been designing advanced airplanes.
Lockheed Martin doesn't like to have cost and schedule overruns. While I didn't work on this project directly (I knew people who did), my educated guess would be to the causes:
1) the government's requirements are either unrealistic or changing
2) doing large technical projects is legitimately hard to do on time, on budget, and meeting requirements.
This isn't just true of government and defense projects. This is true of almost all technical projects. While in grad school, I took a software project management class. The teacher stressed that out of all technical projects only 1/6th can be considered successful (on-time, on-budget, meets requirements).
So let's not be hypocritical and attributing cost overruns simply to lobbying.
As to the costs, the government is very bureaucratic. (stating the obvious) Also, the defense industry doesn't outsource labor. Imagine a place where engineering can work for good pay at the age of 55.
It completely ignores human nature. People get hypocritical and cut breaks for things they like all the time. If it isn't Apple, it will express itself somewhere else.
Besides, my overall point is that you are completely oblivious to you are as bad, if not worse, as any fanboy I've ever encountered. Apple reducing the overall intelligence of humanity... seriously?
Either the dumbest thing I've read on Slashdot or the person most committed to staying in character while writing a parody.
Money, jobs, cheap energy for the nation, reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Not quite.
http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0618592261
Burying your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. Why do you think people like the multiverse idea? To get around the theistic implications of the fine-tuning.
Guess what? I'm sorry lots of you don't like the theistic implications. Tough.
Put Mexican drug cartel info on wikileaks.
If you want money out of politics, get the politics out of money.
You just pointed out three industries with close ties and associations with government.
Yeah, Social Security and Medicare are real popular until they start bankrupting us due to foreseeable demographic changes. Kind of like cancer that doesn't do much harm until it gets out of control and kills a person.
Are you aware that there's been a fair bit of articles in the last two or three years either admitting that there's been no warming in the last decade or so or trying to explain why there hasn't been any warming?
"Come out and say the biggest part of your platform: that things are not as they seem, observations and experiences cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about reality, because truth can only come from within, through faith."
So you hate people because you haven't a clear idea about what you're talking about? You think you have a clear idea of what evangelicals are like and what they believe and why they believe, but you don't really.
What do you think is more akin to religious belief and grounded scientific reasoning? "I'm not sure if warming temperatures are largely caused by man." vs. "I have a carbon credit (indulgence) to sell you and it will wipe away your guilt (sin)."
Just don't screw up Vertica. Leave them to do their thing.
Lots of people believe this type of behavior and campaign contributions are bribes. I think they are more like extortion payments.
Give us a cut or nothing gets done.
Then why do numbers in our head work and correspond to reality?