Social Security has a number of different elements. The preamble to the social Security Act of 1935:
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
The first phrase defines benefits for "general welfare", that means for everybody!
Everything after the first "and" describes the safety net provisions.
Yes, but the money contributed was invested, so it "grew".
When you put money into a savings account or CD don't you expect to get more money back than you put in? You also have the same expectation for your IRA & 401K account, and for your retirement plan if you are fortunate enough to still have a traditional retirement plan where you work.
It is the same with Social Security. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand about Social Security? The major difference is that it is run by the government, it is required to invest in government securities, and when it needs cash (to pay retirees) it cashes in those government securities. These are the same notes that you can buy directly, that banks & other governments buy & sell.
Or for this discussion should we be less interested in how many parts come from ___________ & more interested in how much economic benefit it provides (wages paid, raw materials bought & profits retained)?
There are a lot of engineers out there who have business credentials too. At my company, a large aerospace company, "working level" engineers mostly have a BS in engineering/science & 2 advanced degrees -- a technical degree and an MBA.
Engineers still know something that is no longer taught to business majors -- that you have to make decisions for the long term. When you're building systems that cost many millions & must perform for decades you must keep this in mind at every stage of the process -- both business & engineering functions.
Decades ago this was a part of business majors' education. In management courses, accounting, every course you were taught to always make decisions assuming your firm is an on-going concern. Now business students are taught to extract as much money as possible in the least amount of time and get out. Think short term and eventually you'll destroy enough companies that that you no longer have anyplace to invest... and the "wealth" that you have amassed is worthless. This same thinking has spread to government & investors.
Combined with other evidence 80% would be pretty good. If you had 5 independent means of determining the perpetrator, each 80% accurate, then you'd be 1 - (0.2^5) = 0.99968 probability, or 99.9968% certainty.
Or consider the investigation stage. If you only had data from this one method, you can eliminate 80% of the suspects from consideration. Then you can concentrate your efforts on the remaining 20% of the suspects for a five-fold increase of resources bearing on the guilty party. That is huge!
Not allowed for court in the US either, though police do use it during their investigations.
Really, all you need is to convince the person you're investigating that it works... then if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent.
Except for a short stint at a startup it has been at large companies (one about the size of France, slightly fewer people but a bigger GNP). Large risk pools; deductibles/copays ranging from none to low; and I selected the best of the batch where I had a selection.
The only thing that previous plans did was steer you to a company/website/local provider that provided a discount.
You're missing the point. DARPA is about reaching a long-term goal -- one which isn't achievable with existing science/engineering. DARPA contracts are short term contracts whose goal is to determine why one small step towards the ultimate goal is not achievable. This is followed by another contract that determines how to facilitate the previous step... or to determine how that is blocked. And it keeps on going!
Eventually there is success, and the success flows back to the first step... except now you are asked to go just a bit farther to discover what the next block is.
The PM's job is to keep an eye on the overall goal & to act as a champion for the program. And, although they are generally experienced technical managers, PM's don't remain at DARPA for a long time, it's just too intense.
If you understand what is going on, and DARPA contracts are great to work on, encouraging freedom & creativity, and you'll probably get more contracts. If not then you'll end up frustrated, somebody else will have to dig through your CDRLs to get the needed data, and the followup contract will end up going to somebody who understands the process.
The buses' movement is public data, but the article mentions that transponders were attached to buses to allow this data to be collected. Who paid for this (the article doesn't say)?
If I pay to collect the data & generate a database that doesn't mean that I can be forced to give the data away. But also, I can't stop anybody else from collecting the data & making their own database. If you don't want to buy it from me go forth & make your own database.
The working level at my location (primarily EE & CS, some other engineering & science) is BS + 2 masters degrees. Generally hired with a BS, then an MS in a technical field & MBA later in the career.
I ran into this system in Toronto a few years ago.
There's no way to pay manually. Sections that are toll aren't well marked. Cost isn't clearly defined and changes as a function of time and/or traffic density. So when turning in the rental car there's no way to determine the charges for tolls.
Months after the trip I got a bill from the car rental agency: cost of tolls + several taxes + surcharge by the car rental agency + a billing fee.
Can you tell I'm not a fan of this technology?!
Car rental agency added costs were more than twice the cost of tolls.
It's been almost 15 years and I still miss it -- it was great! We had 9 hour days Mon-Thu, either 0 or 8 hours on Friday.
The company originally instituted it in California to meet a mandate to reduce pollution by 20%. They shut down 1 day out of 10 + took credit for 10% reduction in employee commuting.
It was popular enough that they spread it to other sites.
One side effect was that the week started/stopped at noon Friday. Part of the plant was unionized and union rules said anything over 40 hours in a week was paid at overtime rates, and if the company scheduled you for less than 40 hours work in the week you still got paid for 40 hours. Nothing in the contract specified when the week started. So it was timecards at noon Friday.
Yes, I've found that it's always easier to get somebody to tell you what you did wrong.
You'll get more interest if you can get something working out there, even if it's a just a shell to demo the interface. Responses can sometimes be painful, but some of the interest will be constructive.
The goal was not to serve rural regions, but to assure that basic services were affordable & available to all. To also to support poor urban areas and to provide phone service to libraries, schools, and other public facilities. What was originally subsidized was "local dial tone".
And, as we changed what we think of as "basic services" the fund has changed the services that were supported. Rural areas got DSL. Libraries got internet access.
So USF was collected from "telephone companies" and used to support and promote internet communications. It has come full circle. VoIP providers got a free ride while the grew, and now they also are being tapped to support the USF. What will be included in "basic services" in the future?!
And, what is a telecom company today? ATT & Verizon were once "phone companies" but now are also selling broadband network access -- physical access & services. They're building the physical & legal infrastructure to let them compete with the cable companies. And cable companies are now selling phone service.
Have you heard? Phone companies are gone! About the only thing that being the incumbent LEC brings you anymore is that you are required to provide the infrastructure for universal service.
The tax in question is the Universal Service Fund. The idea behind the USF is to make basic service available to everybdoy. It is used to: subsidize phone service to isolated & rural areas; to provide phone service for public schools & libraries; and even to provide internet access for public libraries (as the definition of basic communications has changed over the years).
Previous arguments to exempt VoIP from the Universal Service Fund have centered on the fact that the FCC is also chartered to promote communications. As such, VoIP was exempted not because the USF wasn't applicable to it, but because not taxing VoIP would help it to grow, promoting communications.
So, this must mean that VoIP has become mainstream, that it doesn't need to be protected in order to be financially successful.
IIRC, the FCC charter is to regulate & promote communications for the public good. Changes in the way we now communicate has spread the FFC's sphere of influence. Change should be to the Communications Act itself, the underlying authority from which the FCC derives their regulatory authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Highest flying? The sun is an "energy generator", and it is quite a bit higher than any blimp/kite/turbine will be.
The first phrase defines benefits for "general welfare", that means for everybody! Everything after the first "and" describes the safety net provisions.
Yes, but the money contributed was invested, so it "grew".
When you put money into a savings account or CD don't you expect to get more money back than you put in? You also have the same expectation for your IRA & 401K account, and for your retirement plan if you are fortunate enough to still have a traditional retirement plan where you work.
It is the same with Social Security. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand about Social Security? The major difference is that it is run by the government, it is required to invest in government securities, and when it needs cash (to pay retirees) it cashes in those government securities. These are the same notes that you can buy directly, that banks & other governments buy & sell.
Some of us keep both the Old Testament & the New Testament on our desks
Or for this discussion should we be less interested in how many parts come from ___________ & more interested in how much economic benefit it provides (wages paid, raw materials bought & profits retained)?
There are a lot of engineers out there who have business credentials too. At my company, a large aerospace company, "working level" engineers mostly have a BS in engineering/science & 2 advanced degrees -- a technical degree and an MBA.
Engineers still know something that is no longer taught to business majors -- that you have to make decisions for the long term. When you're building systems that cost many millions & must perform for decades you must keep this in mind at every stage of the process -- both business & engineering functions.
Decades ago this was a part of business majors' education. In management courses, accounting, every course you were taught to always make decisions assuming your firm is an on-going concern. Now business students are taught to extract as much money as possible in the least amount of time and get out. Think short term and eventually you'll destroy enough companies that that you no longer have anyplace to invest ... and the "wealth" that you have amassed is worthless. This same thinking has spread to government & investors.
Combined with other evidence 80% would be pretty good. If you had 5 independent means of determining the perpetrator, each 80% accurate, then you'd be 1 - (0.2^5) = 0.99968 probability, or 99.9968% certainty.
Or consider the investigation stage. If you only had data from this one method, you can eliminate 80% of the suspects from consideration. Then you can concentrate your efforts on the remaining 20% of the suspects for a five-fold increase of resources bearing on the guilty party. That is huge!
The Emancipation Proclamation was one of Lincoln's Executive Orders. Has it expired?
Not allowed for court in the US either, though police do use it during their investigations.
Really, all you need is to convince the person you're investigating that it works ... then if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent.
No. Wrong on all counts.
Except for a short stint at a startup it has been at large companies (one about the size of France, slightly fewer people but a bigger GNP). Large risk pools; deductibles/copays ranging from none to low; and I selected the best of the batch where I had a selection.
The only thing that previous plans did was steer you to a company/website/local provider that provided a discount.
Most insurance, at least in the US, doesn't cover hearing aids. They will cover the tests.
I changed insurance recently. The first policy I've ever had (over 50 years) that pays anything ($1000 per ear every 3 years).
You're missing the point. DARPA is about reaching a long-term goal -- one which isn't achievable with existing science/engineering. DARPA contracts are short term contracts whose goal is to determine why one small step towards the ultimate goal is not achievable. This is followed by another contract that determines how to facilitate the previous step ... or to determine how that is blocked. And it keeps on going!
Eventually there is success, and the success flows back to the first step ... except now you are asked to go just a bit farther to discover what the next block is.
The PM's job is to keep an eye on the overall goal & to act as a champion for the program. And, although they are generally experienced technical managers, PM's don't remain at DARPA for a long time, it's just too intense.
If you understand what is going on, and DARPA contracts are great to work on, encouraging freedom & creativity, and you'll probably get more contracts. If not then you'll end up frustrated, somebody else will have to dig through your CDRLs to get the needed data, and the followup contract will end up going to somebody who understands the process.
The buses' movement is public data, but the article mentions that transponders were attached to buses to allow this data to be collected. Who paid for this (the article doesn't say)?
If I pay to collect the data & generate a database that doesn't mean that I can be forced to give the data away. But also, I can't stop anybody else from collecting the data & making their own database. If you don't want to buy it from me go forth & make your own database.
The working level at my location (primarily EE & CS, some other engineering & science) is BS + 2 masters degrees. Generally hired with a BS, then an MS in a technical field & MBA later in the career.
There's no way to pay manually. Sections that are toll aren't well marked. Cost isn't clearly defined and changes as a function of time and/or traffic density. So when turning in the rental car there's no way to determine the charges for tolls.
Months after the trip I got a bill from the car rental agency: cost of tolls + several taxes + surcharge by the car rental agency + a billing fee.
Can you tell I'm not a fan of this technology?! Car rental agency added costs were more than twice the cost of tolls.
It's been almost 15 years and I still miss it -- it was great! We had 9 hour days Mon-Thu, either 0 or 8 hours on Friday.
The company originally instituted it in California to meet a mandate to reduce pollution by 20%. They shut down 1 day out of 10 + took credit for 10% reduction in employee commuting. It was popular enough that they spread it to other sites.
One side effect was that the week started/stopped at noon Friday. Part of the plant was unionized and union rules said anything over 40 hours in a week was paid at overtime rates, and if the company scheduled you for less than 40 hours work in the week you still got paid for 40 hours. Nothing in the contract specified when the week started. So it was timecards at noon Friday.
No, we'll only know what they think they want.
Yes, I've found that it's always easier to get somebody to tell you what you did wrong. You'll get more interest if you can get something working out there, even if it's a just a shell to demo the interface. Responses can sometimes be painful, but some of the interest will be constructive.
The goal was not to serve rural regions, but to assure that basic services were affordable & available to all. To also to support poor urban areas and to provide phone service to libraries, schools, and other public facilities. What was originally subsidized was "local dial tone".
And, as we changed what we think of as "basic services" the fund has changed the services that were supported. Rural areas got DSL. Libraries got internet access.
So USF was collected from "telephone companies" and used to support and promote internet communications. It has come full circle. VoIP providers got a free ride while the grew, and now they also are being tapped to support the USF. What will be included in "basic services" in the future?!
And, what is a telecom company today? ATT & Verizon were once "phone companies" but now are also selling broadband network access -- physical access & services. They're building the physical & legal infrastructure to let them compete with the cable companies. And cable companies are now selling phone service.
Have you heard? Phone companies are gone! About the only thing that being the incumbent LEC brings you anymore is that you are required to provide the infrastructure for universal service.
The tax in question is the Universal Service Fund. The idea behind the USF is to make basic service available to everybdoy. It is used to: subsidize phone service to isolated & rural areas; to provide phone service for public schools & libraries; and even to provide internet access for public libraries (as the definition of basic communications has changed over the years).
Previous arguments to exempt VoIP from the Universal Service Fund have centered on the fact that the FCC is also chartered to promote communications. As such, VoIP was exempted not because the USF wasn't applicable to it, but because not taxing VoIP would help it to grow, promoting communications.
So, this must mean that VoIP has become mainstream, that it doesn't need to be protected in order to be financially successful.
IIRC, the FCC charter is to regulate & promote communications for the public good. Changes in the way we now communicate has spread the FFC's sphere of influence. Change should be to the Communications Act itself, the underlying authority from which the FCC derives their regulatory authority.
Now there's an idea! Engineering & Science graduates are decreasing, in the US. A show like this will nicrease interest.
Confuding? Yes.
My original thought was that it'd: make it harder to push since it's soft; harder to figure out where to push since you don't know where the CG is.
Then again, with a sample of one we're like one of the blind men feeling the elephant. We really don't know how typical this is.
It would seem that the data gathered would be critical to any future mission to comets that intended to push a comet off course.