"I work in the US and I am glad we don't have anything like TUPE. Regulations like that prevent employers from creating jobs in the first place."
because clearly California is known for its lax regulatory environment.
oh, wait, it's not.
Business costs are quite high in CA. You ignore other reasons for Silicon Valley spawning in CA, namely the proximity of several excellent schools and San Francisco's history as a banking and shipping center on the west coast. If regulatory environment were the only issue, then states like South Dakota would be best. http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/BusinessTaxIndex2008.pdf
is best when served chilled, much like revenge. Especially when the selective enforcement is revenge.
It's even better when done by a capricious government, but we don't know any of those, do we?
I for one, wish there was a page limit on the U.S. code and the Federal Register. I see the inability to know all the laws one is responsible for (and their various interpretations) as the number one threat to freedom and justice. Funny thing is: many laws come from a desire to make society better. Kind of a Gandalfian "I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
They can't seem to protect the physical goods at sea which they can at least understand. What then makes them competent to stop behavior they don't understand well? Much less do they understand the repercussions of their actions to prevent it? I think not.
Meanwhile, if they could stick to making the real world safer for trade and tourism, that'd be great.
Aside from the fact that I agree with you that the U.S. government has seriously departed from its foundations in the philosophy of natural rights, I have some serious misgivings about the direction you and the GP head from there. Also, because the former is true, does not mean that reasonable people might not think the system has a positive net utility for freedom, safety, and happiness still and is worth correcting rather than being passive aggressive towards. Some of those smart people, as frustrated as they get, still decide to and persevere at working for its betterment and ours from within.
Regarding your assertion of a universal moral/ethical aversion of smart people to working for the military, that would depend on your particular mores/ethics. [snark] I see it's convenient for you to temporarily ditch your (statistics of "smart people" indicate you may normally believe them) relativism or utilitarian philosophies in order to pat yourself on the back for being "better" than someone else. [/snark]
Also, by extension of your and GP's logic, we ought never to create any technology for anyone because nearly *any* technology is dual use. e.g. Hitler used IBM equipment designed for census taking to more methodically account for and exterminate his victims.
Being an ostrich isn't going to help. If we fall far enough behind technologically (not just militarily, but also industrially) history shows us that we will likely be taken over by another nation. See the socio-political situation in pre-WWII China to see the incentive Japan had to invade. Nature abhors a vacuum (except space, and even that's not a complete vacuum.)
If our government keeps on its current trend of giving security primacy, and drifts further away from democracy this could be liberating. But it seems to me more likely that such a turn of events would be very much for the worse, as foreign occupiers tend to have less regard for those whose territory they occupy. (The U.S. in Iraq being relatively good, though clearly not desirable. Again, check out Japan's treatment of Manchuria for a dose of reality.)
Also, the internet protocol you're enjoying right now was offspring from a DARPA project. Does that offend your morals? If not, is it the sense of separation due to time the thing which allows you to even get on the Internet?
But all of this is aside from the actual problem facing DARPA, and really most of DoD. They are mostly a program management shop. Contractors do the work. The government needs PMs. Their management see PMs as "technical" meaning that they need to hire scientists/engineers/etc. to do the work. But there's no opportunity for doing technical work there. So their skills atrophy. So they become less capable of determining whether the government got what it asked for. Later they lose the ability to ask for (write solicitations) for useful things.
What's worse is that DoD hired like mad during the 80s and those folks are retiring. So they hire new graduates because they cost less and throw them at the PM duties. It doesn't work. The good young engineers leave to seek experience and technical fun, leaving the cruft. And compounding the problem is the fact that DoD is creating another bubble of people with the same retirement date range so this will all circle around in another 20 years. uggh.
There's a reason for all those technicians in the lab and on the production floor. And it's not to assemble product: it's to bounce CS and IST majors who get the hardware bug in them. There is nothing more dangerous than a software guy let loose with a screwdriver, except possibly a software guy set loose with a soldering iron.:p
I don't find the handwaving there that you do, any more than I find in any other philosopher, but fine.
That aside, there's still a difference between what you are obliged by reason to hold to be true and what the philosophical foundation and presumptions our government is founded on are. There are a number of realities that follow from that which as a practical matter I'd hope you would see the benefit of supporting. Put another way: you benefit from a system of government that was built on the notion of natural rights. There is, I think, some ethical/moral/pure enlightened self-interest obligation on your part(and mine etc.) to help keep that government following its own laws and true to its underpinnings in order that we can continue to enjoy those benefits. Should that government be allowed to drift from that foundation, you risk losing them. Should you not find a way to form another foundation and then another government you risk a long dark fall of society and likely yourself and your standard of living. I presume you enjoy your current situation more than you think you'd enjoy the standard of living in countries without any solid philosophical foundation (or with nihilist foundations) (and political forces keeping government tied to it.)
So, since we only know a few things you don't agree with and you know my position, what is yours? You have me at a disadvantage conversationally.
and the judicial notion from that wherein any foray by the legislature to regulate an area of law (demonstrating intent to do so) automatically the supremacy clause across the board...
Or "We're doing something. Really we are. There's a blue-ribbon commission to sit on their hands... i mean investigate the situation. We expect results when you've forgotten the issue... i mean soon."
Or was that "No smoking"? How're we gonna make a sign that big?
(I know combustion would need oxygen and higher temps, but just go with it, ok? at the least it raises questions about practical issues of extracting fuel. We're hot and we bring o2.)
Also, think of the carbon credits needed to offset burning all of that.
but now they can take your dough before the bottleneck, incentivising you to remain in line (duh, when everyone's using this the mobile line will be longer than the in person line.) Net result, fuller fulfillment queue and lower risk of employee idle time.
I, for one, miss my robotic overlords. Vacation and employee relations were better.
Slashdot Mirror
vaporware, literally.
and will probably happen. i feel the war drums reverberating as they approach crescendo.
"I work in the US and I am glad we don't have anything like TUPE. Regulations like that prevent employers from creating jobs in the first place."
because clearly California is known for its lax regulatory environment.
oh, wait, it's not.
Business costs are quite high in CA. You ignore other reasons for Silicon Valley spawning in CA, namely the proximity of several excellent schools and San Francisco's history as a banking and shipping center on the west coast. If regulatory environment were the only issue, then states like South Dakota would be best. http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/BusinessTaxIndex2008.pdf
California's the 48th. Not very encouraging.
is best when served chilled, much like revenge. Especially when the selective enforcement is revenge.
It's even better when done by a capricious government, but we don't know any of those, do we?
I for one, wish there was a page limit on the U.S. code and the Federal Register. I see the inability to know all the laws one is responsible for (and their various interpretations) as the number one threat to freedom and justice. Funny thing is: many laws come from a desire to make society better. Kind of a Gandalfian "I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
They can't seem to protect the physical goods at sea which they can at least understand. What then makes them competent to stop behavior they don't understand well? Much less do they understand the repercussions of their actions to prevent it? I think not.
Meanwhile, if they could stick to making the real world safer for trade and tourism, that'd be great.
what *else* do these surface proteins on the T cell do?
maybe there is something those altered structures do that we will miss when they stop performing their function...
not everything in the body is superfluous like the appendix or wisdom teeth.
what's punishment? losing processor time?
feh!
Aside from the fact that I agree with you that the U.S. government has seriously departed from its foundations in the philosophy of natural rights, I have some serious misgivings about the direction you and the GP head from there. Also, because the former is true, does not mean that reasonable people might not think the system has a positive net utility for freedom, safety, and happiness still and is worth correcting rather than being passive aggressive towards. Some of those smart people, as frustrated as they get, still decide to and persevere at working for its betterment and ours from within.
Regarding your assertion of a universal moral/ethical aversion of smart people to working for the military, that would depend on your particular mores/ethics.
[snark]
I see it's convenient for you to temporarily ditch your (statistics of "smart people" indicate you may normally believe them) relativism or utilitarian philosophies in order to pat yourself on the back for being "better" than someone else.
[/snark]
Also, by extension of your and GP's logic, we ought never to create any technology for anyone because nearly *any* technology is dual use. e.g. Hitler used IBM equipment designed for census taking to more methodically account for and exterminate his victims.
Being an ostrich isn't going to help. If we fall far enough behind technologically (not just militarily, but also industrially) history shows us that we will likely be taken over by another nation. See the socio-political situation in pre-WWII China to see the incentive Japan had to invade. Nature abhors a vacuum (except space, and even that's not a complete vacuum.)
If our government keeps on its current trend of giving security primacy, and drifts further away from democracy this could be liberating. But it seems to me more likely that such a turn of events would be very much for the worse, as foreign occupiers tend to have less regard for those whose territory they occupy. (The U.S. in Iraq being relatively good, though clearly not desirable. Again, check out Japan's treatment of Manchuria for a dose of reality.)
Also, the internet protocol you're enjoying right now was offspring from a DARPA project. Does that offend your morals? If not, is it the sense of separation due to time the thing which allows you to even get on the Internet?
But all of this is aside from the actual problem facing DARPA, and really most of DoD. They are mostly a program management shop. Contractors do the work. The government needs PMs. Their management see PMs as "technical" meaning that they need to hire scientists/engineers/etc. to do the work. But there's no opportunity for doing technical work there. So their skills atrophy. So they become less capable of determining whether the government got what it asked for. Later they lose the ability to ask for (write solicitations) for useful things.
What's worse is that DoD hired like mad during the 80s and those folks are retiring. So they hire new graduates because they cost less and throw them at the PM duties. It doesn't work. The good young engineers leave to seek experience and technical fun, leaving the cruft. And compounding the problem is the fact that DoD is creating another bubble of people with the same retirement date range so this will all circle around in another 20 years. uggh.
gotta go, i think i see the big men with dogs now.
There's a reason for all those technicians in the lab and on the production floor. And it's not to assemble product: it's to bounce CS and IST majors who get the hardware bug in them. There is nothing more dangerous than a software guy let loose with a screwdriver, except possibly a software guy set loose with a soldering iron. :p
bernard is watching...
two words: type safety
this one feature prevents much debugging and allows better, more automated test coverage.
they coded slower, but took less time in QA.
I don't find the handwaving there that you do, any more than I find in any other philosopher, but fine.
That aside, there's still a difference between what you are obliged by reason to hold to be true and what the philosophical foundation and presumptions our government is founded on are. There are a number of realities that follow from that which as a practical matter I'd hope you would see the benefit of supporting. Put another way: you benefit from a system of government that was built on the notion of natural rights. There is, I think, some ethical/moral/pure enlightened self-interest obligation on your part(and mine etc.) to help keep that government following its own laws and true to its underpinnings in order that we can continue to enjoy those benefits. Should that government be allowed to drift from that foundation, you risk losing them. Should you not find a way to form another foundation and then another government you risk a long dark fall of society and likely yourself and your standard of living. I presume you enjoy your current situation more than you think you'd enjoy the standard of living in countries without any solid philosophical foundation (or with nihilist foundations) (and political forces keeping government tied to it.)
So, since we only know a few things you don't agree with and you know my position, what is yours? You have me at a disadvantage conversationally.
read it a bit... then if you aren't laughing, read the bill of rights. then if you aren't laughing, you're hopeless.
space... the final frontier.
it used to be alaska, but times change.
and the supremacy clause.
and the judicial notion from that wherein any foray by the legislature to regulate an area of law (demonstrating intent to do so) automatically the supremacy clause across the board...
Kant, though it's a bit rigorous.
mod parent up!!!
Throw him a frickin bone for the Marathon reference at least!
so that's how the clothes in that movie stayed so clean despite the surrounding filth...
there's proof positive this will work.
check it out in the time musheen!
Or "We're doing something. Really we are. There's a blue-ribbon commission to sit on their hands... i mean investigate the situation. We expect results when you've forgotten the issue... i mean soon."
Or was that "No smoking"? How're we gonna make a sign that big?
(I know combustion would need oxygen and higher temps, but just go with it, ok? at the least it raises questions about practical issues of extracting fuel. We're hot and we bring o2.)
Also, think of the carbon credits needed to offset burning all of that.
don't write exploitable code.
it doesn't happen.
everyone knows this.
next topic; move along.
but now they can take your dough before the bottleneck, incentivising you to remain in line (duh, when everyone's using this the mobile line will be longer than the in person line.) Net result, fuller fulfillment queue and lower risk of employee idle time.
I, for one, miss my robotic overlords. Vacation and employee relations were better.
i'm afraid i can't. i've got lunch with the bobs.
and if that fails, a kegerator.
or have i got that backwards?