I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical.
So would the scientists.
In truth, the only way to determine if this is a problem is to study the species and if they go extinct, then determine why.
Incorrect. They can monitor population trends and cycles, then determine when things are out of the normal range.
Define "normal range: Especially in a long living animal like a sea turtle. http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/p... Then there is that "historical" bit in the mix. This is where problems occur. You hit on it yourself, so I wouldn't be in such a hurry to diasagree with me agreeing with you.
Animal species populations fluctuate all the time. Sometimes wildly. Chipmunks are a good example, and one that most of us could verify. Some years there are dozens running around my back yard, then a year later, almost none. This correlates with the availability of acorns, which vary in production. The best production of acorns comes in what are called "mast years".
simple terms - lot of acorns = lot of chipmunks. Not many? They largely die off. Fluctuations do tend to work best in rapidly reproducing and short lived animals.
Certainly at the 1 percent male level, most females will not reproduce.
"Most" females may not need to reproduce in a given year to maintain the population. What is the typical ratio range? That information is not provided.
http://www.seaturtle-world.com... Sea turtles reproduce by mating with several males. The females lay eggs around a two year schedule once mature.
There is clearly not enough information to draw any conclusion. But don't let that stop you.
Tell me Mr D from 63 - what exactly was my conclusion? I don't recall making any conclusions.
Do you disagree that we don't have long term data?
Do you disagree that genetic imperfections can cause problems?
Do you disagree that in a widly dispersed population such as seagoing turtles that it becomes difficult to have a harem reproduction strategy?
And do you disagree that temperature plays a large role in sex of many reptiles?
Those are not conclusions, those particular bits are facts.
Rather than drawing conclusions, I was attempting to answer questions that you have shown by your response - that at best you are not taking input, and rejecting any attempts to give you input. That is the conclusion I have made at this point.
I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical.
So would the scientists.
In truth, the only way to determine if this is a problem is to study the species and if they go extinct, then determine why.
Typically, an imbalance at this level puts a species at risk by virtue of the one gender having to be genetically perfect. Get a few males with some messed up chromosomes or sterile, and that number starts ticking even lower.
Certainly at the 1 percent male level, most females will not reproduce.
Anyhow, we learn about these things by studying them. Humans have only been capable of studying other animals at this depth for a few hundred years at best. Incubation temperature has been shown to be a big determinant of sex in animals like turtles and alligators. There can be no argument about that.
Loopks like I pissed off the Bitcoin fanboys. Hey- emember it will only go up, so put every penny you have into bitcoin, you'll be wealthy beyong your wildest dreams....
According to both wikipedia and various dictionaries, gerrymander was solely to give political gain to the party in power and dilute the representation of the opposition.
It's just been co-opted to allow minority rule. If the present political situation was reversed, the party that has benefitted the most from gerrymandering and getting fewer votes overall but winning the presidency, they would be demanding a constitutional amendment, and Fox News would be on an outrage rampage
But for now it suits them, and it is fun to listen to them bloviate on how minority rule is somehow democratic.
The point is to prevent dense urban centers from hijacking all influence. It exists for the exact same reasons as the bicameral legislature and the electoral college.
It is absolutely about balancing the representational weight of the populace vs that of each county (be they divvied up by roads, cities boundaries, rivers, railroads, or whatever).
We could avoid all the trouble by electing the candidate that got the least votes.
In a fit of irony, the district on the left was originally engineered by Democrats who wanted to get a man of African descent into their legislature. But after a while, Republicans realized that North Carolinians being what they are, were happy to keep it since there would be a white backlash ensuring that the people who are not like us were confined. Regardless, the whole process needs fixed so neither party can rig the results.
This idea that the system is broken because it produced a result you don't agree with is even MORE dangerous to democracy than gerrymandering.
Short of a simple geometric algorithm, any attempt to redraw districts will generate objections. Both parties will seek to alter the result to benefit them.
So what you are saying is that a system that allows a candidate to receive less votes than another should be accepted, and that even mentioning that is bad?
That makes no sense. If candidates who win get less votes overall consistently win, it is a red light that something is terribly broken. Gerrymandering has taken place on a nationwide level.
A House Representative I know showed me a district map that one of the parties had gerrymandered. It looked like a barbell, with two roundish shapes on either side, and a thin sliver about 40 mile long, and 200 feet wide running along a highway that connected the two.
Seems odd that some folks don't want discussion about what look like abuses.
There are three ways this can go: Bitcoin becomes fully accepted, Bitcoin value drops to nothing (even if you can still exchange it), or Bitcoin becomes worthless through lack of ability to exchange it for anything of real value. My guess is that Bitcoin will devalue as banks come up with their own version of E-Coin.
If it is going to be an actual currency, You'll be able to buy a candy bar with it and it will only cost you the cost of the candy bar, and nothing else. You walk into a store, and pay for it. Otherwise it is an investment vehicle, which is based on bitcoin being bitcoin, and transactoin fees being like other investment transaction fees.
But for me, it is merely another funny money concept, like the housing bubble. People were willing to pay over a million dollars for tiny houses, and people were willing to take out 50 year mortgages when it was obvious they wouldn't even live 20 more years, and people working at fast food places living in multi-million dollar houses they weren't able to pay for. My favorite housing bubble moment was listening to some wonk on a radio show trying to explain that humans would live in perpetual debt from now on, but it would be okay because whenever they need money, they'd just re-finance their houses again, because real Estate worth would also go up forever.
Not that bitcoin is exactly the same. But it is the same sort of irrational thinking. My guess is that just like the housing bubble, trillions will disappear overnight at some point. Right after the insiders dump their bitcoin.
I can't understand how this works at all if it's not a viable currency. If bitcoin is not currency, what is the driving force behind owning it?
Play Money. Think of the various money bubbles like the dotcom, or housing bubbles.
It's not actually real money. While bitcoin suffers from being less tangible, otherwise it is vapor. A few people will make out well when the bubble is breaking, the rest? Not so well.
And? Your mama. People act like the term "anger issues" suddenly gives them a high ground. I find that you weak gotos interesting but still don't further your point and if anything makes it sound like I'm dealing with a 12-year old.
Dude, unless you just fell into this universe, All caps is yelling. The only time it isn't is when used for initializations or acronyms. And it has been that way since the caps key was invented. By typing "anger issues much", I was being polite.
Comcast is not wanting Google touching their stuff because they know, they wouldn't fuck it up. If you think differently you've obviously never worked in this industry.
Well now, As for working in the Cable industry, My first job after graduation was working for a manufacturer during the early 1970's. Turnkey operations or just design. A lot of field work. But it is really good to know I have an expert here, so let's roll.
Okay, you have just been handed the contract for a cable television system. Give me the steps in doing a turnkey operation.
What is the name of the maps you use?
What is the difference between a Trunk, Bridge, and Distribution amp? That one should be easy. Which size cable is used in each?
What type of equalization pads are used and why?
What was an early tap method?
What happens if you move or damage another utility's work?
What are the problems that can occur while moving an active trunkline?
What is the final step of a completed cable system?
More questions await.
If your cable access goes away during Judge Judy, you're going to blame Google
I'm going to blame the cable company obviously, but then the cable company does that thing they are supposed to do because it's good business. INFORMED THEIR CUSTOMER AS TO WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
So you hit the nail on the head. It's your fault when someone screws up your equipment and your customers suffer. And all caps is really hammering the point home. Anger issues much?
If there were lawsuits the agreement was that Google was the person responsible for showing up in court. Granted your average customer is dumb as a rock, but a group of lawyers who have contracts and agreements stating that Google is the one responsible is less likely to blame the wrong person. So yeah, if there are lawsuits then your statement is full of shit given that was the agreement Google had with NES. Now if you want to move the goalpost to make your statement more accurate, that is fine, but it doesn't change the initial one you made.
Yeah - random guy on slashdot tells me my idea is full of shit when the owners of the Equipment and the courts agree that people who own the equipment should be the owners of the equipment.
The point that random guy on Slashdot who is suffering badly from dunning-kruger effect is missing is that people who own infrastructure shouldn't be having other people fucking with it. It's a situation ripe for lawsuits as we've seen already, and a royal pain in the ass.
I think the bigger yikes is just how well the lies have spread about this.
Such as:
Absolutely. A contract like the one that was signed By Google and NES held up nicely didn't it? You would think that it would be inviolable yes?
There are lawsuits filed every day. Apparently some folks didn't like this contract either. And if Google caused outages caused say an outage during an important event and much of Nashville went without cable/internet during the event, Comcast and AT&T would be sued, NES would Be sued, and Google would be sued. That's just how things work.
I suspect that your attitude might be based on your dislike of Comcast, maybe AT&T as well. I mean, who does like them? But my point is that there are a lot more things involved than just moving wires. I explained them before, so don't feel the need to do all that again.
If it was just installing strand, it would be pretty simple. If it were just installing fiber, it wouldn't be too bad. But having the freedom to move equipment around that is owned by other people is complicated, especially when there is a lot of active components involved. In some cases, if amplifiers are accidentally nuked, replacements have to be made from dwindling stock of some of the older systems. Which just moves rebuild time all that much closer.
It's a real Pain in the ass to have other people monkeying about in your equipment, and pretty easy for them to file a lawsuit against you if they can come up with a scenario as to why they shouldn't be responsible for damage. They can even file a lawsuit if they figure they didn't do any damage while you believe they did.
And if the pole owners want to move the Fiber without consulting Google, You approve of that as well? There is a reason that there are specific rules and laws pertaining to access to utility poles.
Which is probably a big part of why AT&T and Comcast brought the lawsuit, and probably a real big part of why Google and Nashville lost the lawsuit.
You can call it lies, or anything you want, but there are sound legal and operational reasons why you shouldn't mess with other people's stuff that's hanging off of utility poles.
It takes a certain amount of technology just to do the modifications and ensure everything is working again There simply will be outages.
You speak as if would be the first time Google has done this. As if they are experimenting with installing broadband on existing infrastructure. Austin TX, Provo UT, and Kansas city all currently have Google fiber. In all of those cities this procedure was used. Perhaps there were outages caused by it but I was unable to find any reports of it happening.
I speak of raising actively running components and having them continue to work after moving them. I think perhaps people are thinking of this stuff as just wires. They aren't. Trunk, bridge, distribution and extender amplifiers, eternal power supplies to feed them. Taps to the customers. If Google is doing this with no problems, as you insinuate, Comcast should hire them, because the Google people are better Field Techs and engineers than exist at the moment.
Cool. I've got nothing against new technologies. It's just that nobody's created anything that's both reliable, and a solid platform yet. The beauty of the web was and is that it's anything you want it to be. Interested in writing Java? Cool, the web will support it. Want to screw around with php? Done.
Yeah - I mean that's nice and all, But hardly inspiring. I'm even learning Swift and playing with XCode at the moment. But its just a mental exercise mostly. The direction the web at large has taken largely bores me. The best it is is like paper in a book that the interesting things sit on.
The problem with mesh networks, well, there are a lot of problems with mesh networks, but the biggest is that (at least so far) they generally lock you into a manosphere of technology.
Wait... What? What do mesh networks have to do with that?
If someone is not doing a reasonable amount of work then that's grounds for disciplinary action. Simply paying them 20% for 80% less work doesn't seem like a very good solution.
The problem is that there are often Governmental or special interest groups in the mix, and then there is the problem of what to do with the driven people. For the first issue, disciplinary action against protected people tends t be responded to with 'ism accusations, and is a minefield. So it is avoided. Then the non-protected people do the "what about?" thing if you try to discipline them.
So any kind of discipline is saved for very tangible things like getting caught stealing.
And then there are those driven people. Do they need throttled so that they aren't doing too much? Fired because they worked more than 48 hours a week? As a driven person, I love solving problems, and don't think about it as an 8-5 proposition. I dream solutions to problems. And enjoy it.
But somehow, some way, that is bad. For some folks, I'm "being taken advantage of". Damn, seeing interesting places, doing interesting things, playing with expensive and fun toys, and respected and considered the go to guy who solves your problems, and well paid too.
Shit - I feel so used and abused! Or not.
Then there is my hypothesis. In my career, the people who were the most annoyed by my productivity shared two traits. They were pissed because they thought I made them look bad, and they were not particularly productive themselves. They were trying to collect a paycheck, and their idea of success was collecting that paycheck with the minimum about of work.
From that, I decided that they were just below average work inclined, and wanted everyone else to emulate them.
While it is always popular to chant about increased competition, it is no wonder that AT&T and Comcast opposed this.
To put it in terms we might understand, it is like if you wrote an important piece of software, then a competitor demanded the right to come in and change your software, but you still had all of the responsibility for it. If the competitor made errors and there were lawsuits, they would be held harmless and you would take the hit.
Moving pole infrastructure involves a lot of effort and great care. Cable TV amps are not just simple boxes, there are multiple runs of cable in the same strand in many places, and taps all over the place. It takes a certain amount of technology just to do the modifications and ensure everything is working again There simply will be outages.
If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.
What if someone works the same hours, but just produces better output ? Differences of a factor 10 are not impossible, even in people with same experience on paper.
And it's not exploitation if you reward them accordingly.
I can't speak for everyone, but at least in my work environment, the laziest people were the ones who were loudest about pay equality. Hmmm, wonder why that was?
If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.
I'm Europe employers are expected to be fair to employees, including not expecting excessive hours and not rewarding self-harm. You may be surprised to learn that working more than 48 hours a week is illegal here, and there is discussion about lowering that number.
Sounds like a tyranny of the weak to me.
As for exploitation, I've heard that one before. Yet I've been able to travel to a lot of places, meet and work with really interesting people, and perhaps make a difference. I can be depended on. In some instances, the work was dangerous. That was more exciting than anything else..
Money? Its such a paradox regarding the equal pay for equal work laws. As in all of these matters, the thought is that "If we mandate equal pay, we'll all be making as much as that jerk guy who is making all of the money." In the end, overall wages would be lowered, and almost certainly the value of the work.
In the Educational environment I worked in, it was understood that even in a utopia, there are people with different levels of ability, dedication, and willingness to work. You were not going to make great breakthroughs with the people who were there only to pick up a paycheck, and would do the minimum amount of work to continue getting the paycheck.
They also understood that top notch employees were willing to put in the work to get the job done. And given that the top notch employee is sort of a valuable rarity, that employee needed compensated, lest they leave for a better place. So they had a somewhat complicated system of grades and levels within a grade.
Who would benefit the most from these limits on work? Who would benefit the most from paying the person who does maybe 2 hours of work a day while someone else out of a sense of duty, puts in a honest day's work.
Exactly - the worst employee. It's a workplace race to the bottom.
Equal? No. Having to hire women instead of men if qualifications are equal? Yes.
This is a good place to interject my question.
The presumed wage gap is around 30 percent.
We'll just accept that for the purpose of argument.
It is not debateable that corporate America and other outfits want to pay as little as they can get away with. We have businesses declaring they will introduce automation specifically in order to get rid of payroll.
If women are getting paid 30 percent less and I had a business or corporation, I would not hire men - it would be all women. The amount I could save on payroll would enrich me quite a bit.
So why has this not happened? All other things being equal, who would hire any man?
I'm referring to jobs/workers/wages in a particular field. I am not comparing different types of jobs.
But what of my situation. Same Job description, but wildly differing work outputs. One rather protected group, and another individual would would end up leaving or cutting way back on the work.
Tell me how we were going to be paid the same?
Let's take sex out of the equation This is the problem with mandating equal pay for everyone. The best tend to stagnate or leave, and then everyone settles down to whoever the laziest person is. I've seen it, and it ain't pretty.
There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same,
Why?
because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.
Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days, work in less pleasant environments or more dangerous conditions. Particular groups also push more for raises or change jobs for increased pay.
If those groups don't represent men and women equally, their "statistical centers" would be skewed apart.
Okay, I see you just wrote the same thing as I did in answer to him. But this exactly. I did all of the hazordous duty in my group. I did the field trips and long out of town stays, I came in early and worked late, I lost vacation, and collected a half years unused sick leave when I retired. I'd also work with the suits, which for some reason they were afraid to do. I also on occasion finished their work, because they would just leave at 5, and if something was needed bu 8 am, it was me that finished it. Not complaining about working hard, but I did have an issue with lazy shits. Especially when they thought they should be paid the same.
Slashdot Mirror
When we're all gone it's just going to be Skynet singing to itself.
We need to set that line to music!
I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical.
So would the scientists.
In truth, the only way to determine if this is a problem is to study the species and if they go extinct, then determine why.
Incorrect. They can monitor population trends and cycles, then determine when things are out of the normal range.
Define "normal range: Especially in a long living animal like a sea turtle. http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/p... Then there is that "historical" bit in the mix. This is where problems occur. You hit on it yourself, so I wouldn't be in such a hurry to diasagree with me agreeing with you.
Animal species populations fluctuate all the time. Sometimes wildly. Chipmunks are a good example, and one that most of us could verify. Some years there are dozens running around my back yard, then a year later, almost none. This correlates with the availability of acorns, which vary in production. The best production of acorns comes in what are called "mast years".
simple terms - lot of acorns = lot of chipmunks. Not many? They largely die off. Fluctuations do tend to work best in rapidly reproducing and short lived animals.
Certainly at the 1 percent male level, most females will not reproduce.
"Most" females may not need to reproduce in a given year to maintain the population. What is the typical ratio range? That information is not provided.
http://www.seaturtle-world.com... Sea turtles reproduce by mating with several males. The females lay eggs around a two year schedule once mature.
There is clearly not enough information to draw any conclusion. But don't let that stop you.
Tell me Mr D from 63 - what exactly was my conclusion? I don't recall making any conclusions.
Do you disagree that we don't have long term data?
Do you disagree that genetic imperfections can cause problems?
Do you disagree that in a widly dispersed population such as seagoing turtles that it becomes difficult to have a harem reproduction strategy?
And do you disagree that temperature plays a large role in sex of many reptiles?
Those are not conclusions, those particular bits are facts.
Rather than drawing conclusions, I was attempting to answer questions that you have shown by your response - that at best you are not taking input, and rejecting any attempts to give you input. That is the conclusion I have made at this point.
Feel free to show what I wrote was wrong.
I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical.
So would the scientists.
In truth, the only way to determine if this is a problem is to study the species and if they go extinct, then determine why.
Typically, an imbalance at this level puts a species at risk by virtue of the one gender having to be genetically perfect. Get a few males with some messed up chromosomes or sterile, and that number starts ticking even lower.
Certainly at the 1 percent male level, most females will not reproduce.
Anyhow, we learn about these things by studying them. Humans have only been capable of studying other animals at this depth for a few hundred years at best. Incubation temperature has been shown to be a big determinant of sex in animals like turtles and alligators. There can be no argument about that.
Loopks like I pissed off the Bitcoin fanboys. Hey- emember it will only go up, so put every penny you have into bitcoin, you'll be wealthy beyong your wildest dreams....
According to both wikipedia and various dictionaries, gerrymander was solely to give political gain to the party in power and dilute the representation of the opposition.
It's just been co-opted to allow minority rule. If the present political situation was reversed, the party that has benefitted the most from gerrymandering and getting fewer votes overall but winning the presidency, they would be demanding a constitutional amendment, and Fox News would be on an outrage rampage
But for now it suits them, and it is fun to listen to them bloviate on how minority rule is somehow democratic.
The point is to prevent dense urban centers from hijacking all influence. It exists for the exact same reasons as the bicameral legislature and the electoral college.
It is absolutely about balancing the representational weight of the populace vs that of each county (be they divvied up by roads, cities boundaries, rivers, railroads, or whatever).
We could avoid all the trouble by electing the candidate that got the least votes.
In some ways slight gerrymandering can actually give better representation for everyone so that the 30% minority actually gets a representative.
But then we get this: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org...
In a fit of irony, the district on the left was originally engineered by Democrats who wanted to get a man of African descent into their legislature. But after a while, Republicans realized that North Carolinians being what they are, were happy to keep it since there would be a white backlash ensuring that the people who are not like us were confined. Regardless, the whole process needs fixed so neither party can rig the results.
This idea that the system is broken because it produced a result you don't agree with is even MORE dangerous to democracy than gerrymandering.
Short of a simple geometric algorithm, any attempt to redraw districts will generate objections. Both parties will seek to alter the result to benefit them.
So what you are saying is that a system that allows a candidate to receive less votes than another should be accepted, and that even mentioning that is bad?
That makes no sense. If candidates who win get less votes overall consistently win, it is a red light that something is terribly broken. Gerrymandering has taken place on a nationwide level.
A House Representative I know showed me a district map that one of the parties had gerrymandered. It looked like a barbell, with two roundish shapes on either side, and a thin sliver about 40 mile long, and 200 feet wide running along a highway that connected the two.
Seems odd that some folks don't want discussion about what look like abuses.
There are three ways this can go: Bitcoin becomes fully accepted, Bitcoin value drops to nothing (even if you can still exchange it), or Bitcoin becomes worthless through lack of ability to exchange it for anything of real value. My guess is that Bitcoin will devalue as banks come up with their own version of E-Coin.
If it is going to be an actual currency, You'll be able to buy a candy bar with it and it will only cost you the cost of the candy bar, and nothing else. You walk into a store, and pay for it. Otherwise it is an investment vehicle, which is based on bitcoin being bitcoin, and transactoin fees being like other investment transaction fees.
But for me, it is merely another funny money concept, like the housing bubble. People were willing to pay over a million dollars for tiny houses, and people were willing to take out 50 year mortgages when it was obvious they wouldn't even live 20 more years, and people working at fast food places living in multi-million dollar houses they weren't able to pay for. My favorite housing bubble moment was listening to some wonk on a radio show trying to explain that humans would live in perpetual debt from now on, but it would be okay because whenever they need money, they'd just re-finance their houses again, because real Estate worth would also go up forever.
Not that bitcoin is exactly the same. But it is the same sort of irrational thinking. My guess is that just like the housing bubble, trillions will disappear overnight at some point. Right after the insiders dump their bitcoin.
I can't understand how this works at all if it's not a viable currency. If bitcoin is not currency, what is the driving force behind owning it?
Play Money. Think of the various money bubbles like the dotcom, or housing bubbles.
It's not actually real money. While bitcoin suffers from being less tangible, otherwise it is vapor. A few people will make out well when the bubble is breaking, the rest? Not so well.
And? Your mama. People act like the term "anger issues" suddenly gives them a high ground. I find that you weak gotos interesting but still don't further your point and if anything makes it sound like I'm dealing with a 12-year old.
Dude, unless you just fell into this universe, All caps is yelling. The only time it isn't is when used for initializations or acronyms. And it has been that way since the caps key was invented. By typing "anger issues much", I was being polite.
Comcast is not wanting Google touching their stuff because they know, they wouldn't fuck it up. If you think differently you've obviously never worked in this industry.
Well now, As for working in the Cable industry, My first job after graduation was working for a manufacturer during the early 1970's. Turnkey operations or just design. A lot of field work. But it is really good to know I have an expert here, so let's roll.
Okay, you have just been handed the contract for a cable television system. Give me the steps in doing a turnkey operation.
What is the name of the maps you use? What is the difference between a Trunk, Bridge, and Distribution amp? That one should be easy. Which size cable is used in each?
What type of equalization pads are used and why? What was an early tap method? What happens if you move or damage another utility's work? What are the problems that can occur while moving an active trunkline? What is the final step of a completed cable system? More questions await.
If your cable access goes away during Judge Judy, you're going to blame Google
I'm going to blame the cable company obviously, but then the cable company does that thing they are supposed to do because it's good business. INFORMED THEIR CUSTOMER AS TO WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
So you hit the nail on the head. It's your fault when someone screws up your equipment and your customers suffer. And all caps is really hammering the point home. Anger issues much?
If there were lawsuits the agreement was that Google was the person responsible for showing up in court. Granted your average customer is dumb as a rock, but a group of lawyers who have contracts and agreements stating that Google is the one responsible is less likely to blame the wrong person. So yeah, if there are lawsuits then your statement is full of shit given that was the agreement Google had with NES. Now if you want to move the goalpost to make your statement more accurate, that is fine, but it doesn't change the initial one you made.
Yeah - random guy on slashdot tells me my idea is full of shit when the owners of the Equipment and the courts agree that people who own the equipment should be the owners of the equipment.
The point that random guy on Slashdot who is suffering badly from dunning-kruger effect is missing is that people who own infrastructure shouldn't be having other people fucking with it. It's a situation ripe for lawsuits as we've seen already, and a royal pain in the ass.
I think the bigger yikes is just how well the lies have spread about this.
Such as:
Absolutely. A contract like the one that was signed By Google and NES held up nicely didn't it? You would think that it would be inviolable yes?
There are lawsuits filed every day. Apparently some folks didn't like this contract either. And if Google caused outages caused say an outage during an important event and much of Nashville went without cable/internet during the event, Comcast and AT&T would be sued, NES would Be sued, and Google would be sued. That's just how things work.
I suspect that your attitude might be based on your dislike of Comcast, maybe AT&T as well. I mean, who does like them? But my point is that there are a lot more things involved than just moving wires. I explained them before, so don't feel the need to do all that again.
If it was just installing strand, it would be pretty simple. If it were just installing fiber, it wouldn't be too bad. But having the freedom to move equipment around that is owned by other people is complicated, especially when there is a lot of active components involved. In some cases, if amplifiers are accidentally nuked, replacements have to be made from dwindling stock of some of the older systems. Which just moves rebuild time all that much closer.
It's a real Pain in the ass to have other people monkeying about in your equipment, and pretty easy for them to file a lawsuit against you if they can come up with a scenario as to why they shouldn't be responsible for damage. They can even file a lawsuit if they figure they didn't do any damage while you believe they did.
And if the pole owners want to move the Fiber without consulting Google, You approve of that as well? There is a reason that there are specific rules and laws pertaining to access to utility poles. Which is probably a big part of why AT&T and Comcast brought the lawsuit, and probably a real big part of why Google and Nashville lost the lawsuit.
You can call it lies, or anything you want, but there are sound legal and operational reasons why you shouldn't mess with other people's stuff that's hanging off of utility poles.
It takes a certain amount of technology just to do the modifications and ensure everything is working again There simply will be outages.
You speak as if would be the first time Google has done this. As if they are experimenting with installing broadband on existing infrastructure. Austin TX, Provo UT, and Kansas city all currently have Google fiber. In all of those cities this procedure was used. Perhaps there were outages caused by it but I was unable to find any reports of it happening.
I speak of raising actively running components and having them continue to work after moving them. I think perhaps people are thinking of this stuff as just wires. They aren't. Trunk, bridge, distribution and extender amplifiers, eternal power supplies to feed them. Taps to the customers. If Google is doing this with no problems, as you insinuate, Comcast should hire them, because the Google people are better Field Techs and engineers than exist at the moment.
Cool. I've got nothing against new technologies. It's just that nobody's created anything that's both reliable, and a solid platform yet. The beauty of the web was and is that it's anything you want it to be. Interested in writing Java? Cool, the web will support it. Want to screw around with php? Done.
Yeah - I mean that's nice and all, But hardly inspiring. I'm even learning Swift and playing with XCode at the moment. But its just a mental exercise mostly. The direction the web at large has taken largely bores me. The best it is is like paper in a book that the interesting things sit on.
The problem with mesh networks, well, there are a lot of problems with mesh networks, but the biggest is that (at least so far) they generally lock you into a manosphere of technology.
Wait... What? What do mesh networks have to do with that?
If someone is not doing a reasonable amount of work then that's grounds for disciplinary action. Simply paying them 20% for 80% less work doesn't seem like a very good solution.
The problem is that there are often Governmental or special interest groups in the mix, and then there is the problem of what to do with the driven people. For the first issue, disciplinary action against protected people tends t be responded to with 'ism accusations, and is a minefield. So it is avoided. Then the non-protected people do the "what about?" thing if you try to discipline them.
So any kind of discipline is saved for very tangible things like getting caught stealing.
And then there are those driven people. Do they need throttled so that they aren't doing too much? Fired because they worked more than 48 hours a week? As a driven person, I love solving problems, and don't think about it as an 8-5 proposition. I dream solutions to problems. And enjoy it.
But somehow, some way, that is bad. For some folks, I'm "being taken advantage of". Damn, seeing interesting places, doing interesting things, playing with expensive and fun toys, and respected and considered the go to guy who solves your problems, and well paid too.
Shit - I feel so used and abused! Or not.
Then there is my hypothesis. In my career, the people who were the most annoyed by my productivity shared two traits. They were pissed because they thought I made them look bad, and they were not particularly productive themselves. They were trying to collect a paycheck, and their idea of success was collecting that paycheck with the minimum about of work.
From that, I decided that they were just below average work inclined, and wanted everyone else to emulate them.
If the competitor made errors and there were lawsuits, they would be held harmless and you would take the hit.
No.
Right. If your cable access goes away during Judge Judy, you're going to blame Google.
To put it in terms we might understand, it is like if you wrote an important piece of software, then a competitor demanded the right to come in and change your software, but you still had all of the responsibility for it. If the competitor made errors and there were lawsuits, they would be held harmless and you would take the hit.
Moving pole infrastructure involves a lot of effort and great care. Cable TV amps are not just simple boxes, there are multiple runs of cable in the same strand in many places, and taps all over the place. It takes a certain amount of technology just to do the modifications and ensure everything is working again There simply will be outages.
"The patriarchy" /s
Must be pretty powerful to put up with having to pay the enemy H^H^H^H^H^H^ men 30 percent more.
If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.
What if someone works the same hours, but just produces better output ? Differences of a factor 10 are not impossible, even in people with same experience on paper.
And it's not exploitation if you reward them accordingly.
I can't speak for everyone, but at least in my work environment, the laziest people were the ones who were loudest about pay equality. Hmmm, wonder why that was?
If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.
I'm Europe employers are expected to be fair to employees, including not expecting excessive hours and not rewarding self-harm. You may be surprised to learn that working more than 48 hours a week is illegal here, and there is discussion about lowering that number.
Sounds like a tyranny of the weak to me.
As for exploitation, I've heard that one before. Yet I've been able to travel to a lot of places, meet and work with really interesting people, and perhaps make a difference. I can be depended on. In some instances, the work was dangerous. That was more exciting than anything else..
Money? Its such a paradox regarding the equal pay for equal work laws. As in all of these matters, the thought is that "If we mandate equal pay, we'll all be making as much as that jerk guy who is making all of the money." In the end, overall wages would be lowered, and almost certainly the value of the work.
In the Educational environment I worked in, it was understood that even in a utopia, there are people with different levels of ability, dedication, and willingness to work. You were not going to make great breakthroughs with the people who were there only to pick up a paycheck, and would do the minimum amount of work to continue getting the paycheck.
They also understood that top notch employees were willing to put in the work to get the job done. And given that the top notch employee is sort of a valuable rarity, that employee needed compensated, lest they leave for a better place. So they had a somewhat complicated system of grades and levels within a grade.
Who would benefit the most from these limits on work? Who would benefit the most from paying the person who does maybe 2 hours of work a day while someone else out of a sense of duty, puts in a honest day's work.
Exactly - the worst employee. It's a workplace race to the bottom.
Yes.
Mesh requires density of devices.
What's with this third-world crap?
It's a paradox.
I cant say for certain, but it sounds like Techies and a certain amount of cannabis are involved...
"Doooood! What if like everyone in the nation turned their wireless routers into this kickass network? Oh my Gawd, that would be so awesome!"
"Oh hell yea dude! That would kick ass, man. Now hand me the fuckin' Cheetos!"
Equal? No. Having to hire women instead of men if qualifications are equal? Yes.
This is a good place to interject my question.
The presumed wage gap is around 30 percent.
We'll just accept that for the purpose of argument.
It is not debateable that corporate America and other outfits want to pay as little as they can get away with. We have businesses declaring they will introduce automation specifically in order to get rid of payroll.
If women are getting paid 30 percent less and I had a business or corporation, I would not hire men - it would be all women. The amount I could save on payroll would enrich me quite a bit.
So why has this not happened? All other things being equal, who would hire any man?
I'm referring to jobs/workers/wages in a particular field. I am not comparing different types of jobs.
But what of my situation. Same Job description, but wildly differing work outputs. One rather protected group, and another individual would would end up leaving or cutting way back on the work.
Tell me how we were going to be paid the same?
Let's take sex out of the equation This is the problem with mandating equal pay for everyone. The best tend to stagnate or leave, and then everyone settles down to whoever the laziest person is. I've seen it, and it ain't pretty.
There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same,
Why?
because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.
Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days, work in less pleasant environments or more dangerous conditions. Particular groups also push more for raises or change jobs for increased pay.
If those groups don't represent men and women equally, their "statistical centers" would be skewed apart.
Okay, I see you just wrote the same thing as I did in answer to him. But this exactly. I did all of the hazordous duty in my group. I did the field trips and long out of town stays, I came in early and worked late, I lost vacation, and collected a half years unused sick leave when I retired. I'd also work with the suits, which for some reason they were afraid to do. I also on occasion finished their work, because they would just leave at 5, and if something was needed bu 8 am, it was me that finished it. Not complaining about working hard, but I did have an issue with lazy shits. Especially when they thought they should be paid the same.