Didn't read the article, but my experience with government entities is that they receive a specific value of funding each year to spend on gear, training, energy costs, etc.
The nature of the funding goes that if you don't use all of it this year, you get a reduced amount next year. Now this may seem logical -- it may seem like a policy that governs spending. Instead what it is is a policy that drives UNNECESSARY SPENDING.
The places I have been were frugal but appropriate in their spending throughout the year. As the funding for the year would approach a close (in October), all-of-a-sudden the leadership would start spending money like crazy because they had a large surplus. Money would be spent on things that were not actually necessary; if they were necessary, why not get them at any other time during the year?
In several cases, seeing this strange frenzy of spending I would ask the leadership what was going on. They explained the 'use it or lose it' policy and that in order to maintain the funding they got this year, for next year, they *must* spend it all. I was in conflict because I was taught integrity/honesty and there is no integrity in spending up dads helpful money on worthless junk so as to appear that you still have 'need'. ------
The reason I bring this up is because I am curious if the units that will save money via IT consolidation will actually save us money or if they will be (by obvious standing procedure) driven to spend it in pointless/needless ways.
---- And to debunk the loose implication that gram negativity might have evolved from human antibiotic applications I will say this: it didn't.
Well, I'm convinced! I will say this: wait, I'm not convinced at all!
I would cite references but I don't have time to teach right now, rather only enough time to echo. You can learn on your own, but I hope you won't take this shameful slashdot post as a measure of truth.
It is true that endotoxin A, which is presented to the human body upon cell lysis is heavily immunogenic and can cause disease and/or death. And it is true that it is found as the intracellular component of the gram negative lipopolysaccharides.
But what isn't true is that gram negative = virulent. Virulence is a measure of an organisms ability to cause disease. Many gram negative bacteria simply cannot survive in the human body, so it is false to state or imply that being gram negative is clearly a threat to human health.
Gram negative bacteria that can colonize in the body are dangerous and may cause disease. The point I was trying to clarify was that the characteristic of being gram negative does not mean the bacteria will cause human disease/death. There are various attributes among species of bacteria that will determine if they can grow in the human body.
I hope my point is more clear.
Gram negative != dangerous to human
gram negative + able to colonize in humans = dangerous to human.
Furthermore, there are many bacteria that are gram negative that exist as symbiotic bacteria in the intestinal flora. Need an example? Escherichia Coli is gram negative. If the simple characteristic of being 'gram negative' made a microbe dangerous, we would all be in danger right now.
There is also the multi-target approach to antibiotics. Since the mode of action of various antibiotics are varied and it is energetically costly to maintain resistance, it is relatively impossible for microbes to develop resistance to all forms of antibiotic. To maintain selective-resistance to antibiotics, microbes require constant presence of it. In the absence of the antibiotic, the non-resistant (more efficient) species will supercede.
Given that no battery of all possible antibiotics will be applied at the same time and maintained perpetually, it is relatively impossible for the bacteria to not only develop, but maintain in the face of competition, a resistance to all possible antibiotics.
The language of the slashdot post seems to suggest that the presence of gram negative bacteria is recent. It also suggests that the gram negative characteristic of the bacteria is the definitive characteristic of its virulence. Also, the Gram test isn't a 'so called' test, which somehow suggests or implies doubt.
The test has been done for decades; our knowledge of the two major types of bacteria (gram positive and gram negative) has been around for decades as well. And while gram negativity is characteristic of bacteria that must be approached with different antibiotic means than gram positive, due to their extracellular topology/materials, it does not mean that being gram negative makes the microbes virulent or specifically dangerous.
And to debunk the loose implication that gram negativity might have evolved from human antibiotic applications I will say this: it didn't.
The point I was getting at is not that private businesses build from the foundations of government funded basic research... that is clearly evident and somewhat widely accepted... I was getting at the point in the main topic wherein the government directly funded the R&D of this optic product and then a private company would directly be given the ability to commercialize it. That is not ok. That is corruption.
2 things. (I am not a banker but I have been to the bank, lol)
1) CDs are not at 5%... that's crazy. Bonds are at somewhere around 5% but not CDs.
2) Don't forget capital gains taxes.
$100k profit != $100k saved. If you save 100k, you saved having to earn the pre-tax income that, after taxes, is 100k. If make 100k in profit, you will pay taxes on that.
Discipline or not, wtf business do they have taking pictures at all? Obviously it had nothing to do with the laptop being missing.... You're downplaying the severity of a school putting (and using) remotely accessible video-recording devices in the privacy of the children's homes, without informing them (I would say deceptively, but maybe just ignorantly).
We do know that ignorance is no excuse for violations of the law; and in this case it would not only be ignorance, but completely recklessness in that the remote access ability could be hacked and abused widely.
Not many posts yet but I already see a LOT of posts pushing the idea of not working for this employer. This is not a solution. If we don't fight it and win, it will be adopted by more and more employers until it snowballs into something too big to fight. If we think this is a bad idea, it needs to be fought now while it's still in its infancy.
I hope you understand that 'not giving them' a fingerprint for privacy concerns is a relatively moot point.
If someone that employs you or works with you (or even not working with you, but knows of you) wants your fingerprint they can simply grab up any of the many things you touch on a daily basis.
Most people don't wear gloves when they leave the house.
Your fingerprints are all over the place. If I wanted them, I could get them.
I live in a coastal humid and mediocre temperature weather area... I have *never* gotten my phone right into water... not even in the rain; I don't use them in the rain.
And yet every single battery-area 'got it wet indicator' that turns red when you get it wet.... yep.. every single one would be triggered and appear like I got it wet or something. I'm not even talking about putting em in sweaty or wet clothes or something, either... I'm pretty careful and this happens usually within the first couple months of owning a phone.
"Well, building an eye implant in the lab is one thing, and the taxpayer pays for that. Putting it out into the field, borrowing all the money and getting investment bankers to pony up for production costs, sales and marketing, all of the insurances required for the inevitable lawsuits, the technical support, tracking, doctor training and all that manufacturing required to get the eye from a factory floor into someone's head, that's what the private sector does."
Yeah, but the gov doesn't need to do all that. They just need to show what they already said they were going to do (the product) to the legislature and call for the follow up. A spending of the public funds to manufacture and distribute the product wherein the costs are not profit oriented and *only* suffice to pay what was paid by the government. And in that way not only will the long term be that the cost was nil, but also that the government intervened only as much as was necessary to catalyze a development and production of a product for its people.
This is not hard to see simply. I have worked for the government and let me tell you, those checks don't bounce.
I see no need for a hand to intervene and put profit between the costs and the consumer (but i'd rather call them a suffering patient than a consumer/customer).
If the DOE (tax dollars) is funding the research, why the hell would the technology produced then become commercialized (capitalized) by a private business? Didn't we all pay for this, and so don't we all deserve to not pay the added costs of capitalization?
Yes, but it isn't murder. Murder is the killing of a person. Most abortions are the killing of a cluster of cells. There is a difference and it isn't semantic.
I am a father as well and I am completely and utterly disgusted that PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE SCHOOLS SOMEHOW EVEN FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN OPTION OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
The only business the school has with watching my child is when she is at school. I don't care if the principal is at the mall on a saturday and my kid is there... he had better not be there to WATCH her... maybe he can come say hi and be cordial like normal people but they have NO FRIKKING BUSINESS MONITORING/SURVEILLING MY CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF THEIR PREMISES.
I know a good few people in that school deserve a helluva lot more than a lawsuit.
Technically, being in line with the constitution as a REAL conservative would be, the government has no place in abortion and is obliged to provide the same and equal/fair rights to all (aka gays treated equally).
But the people who claim to be 'real' conservatives right now are actually just judeo-christian theotards thumping bibles and parading apple pies like they are the true real Americans of constitutions' past. NOT. A real conservative would actually care about the constitutionally founded separation of church and state and enforce it. The people claiming to be real conservatives are far from that...
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't read the article, but my experience with government entities is that they receive a specific value of funding each year to spend on gear, training, energy costs, etc.
The nature of the funding goes that if you don't use all of it this year, you get a reduced amount next year. Now this may seem logical -- it may seem like a policy that governs spending. Instead what it is is a policy that drives UNNECESSARY SPENDING.
The places I have been were frugal but appropriate in their spending throughout the year. As the funding for the year would approach a close (in October), all-of-a-sudden the leadership would start spending money like crazy because they had a large surplus. Money would be spent on things that were not actually necessary; if they were necessary, why not get them at any other time during the year?
In several cases, seeing this strange frenzy of spending I would ask the leadership what was going on. They explained the 'use it or lose it' policy and that in order to maintain the funding they got this year, for next year, they *must* spend it all. I was in conflict because I was taught integrity/honesty and there is no integrity in spending up dads helpful money on worthless junk so as to appear that you still have 'need'.
------
The reason I bring this up is because I am curious if the units that will save money via IT consolidation will actually save us money or if they will be (by obvious standing procedure) driven to spend it in pointless/needless ways.
Discuss? Anyone else experience this?
---- And to debunk the loose implication that gram negativity might have evolved from human antibiotic applications I will say this: it didn't.
Well, I'm convinced! I will say this: wait, I'm not convinced at all!
I would cite references but I don't have time to teach right now, rather only enough time to echo. You can learn on your own, but I hope you won't take this shameful slashdot post as a measure of truth.
+10000
Thanks for the backup.
It is true that endotoxin A, which is presented to the human body upon cell lysis is heavily immunogenic and can cause disease and/or death. And it is true that it is found as the intracellular component of the gram negative lipopolysaccharides.
But what isn't true is that gram negative = virulent. Virulence is a measure of an organisms ability to cause disease. Many gram negative bacteria simply cannot survive in the human body, so it is false to state or imply that being gram negative is clearly a threat to human health.
Gram negative bacteria that can colonize in the body are dangerous and may cause disease. The point I was trying to clarify was that the characteristic of being gram negative does not mean the bacteria will cause human disease/death. There are various attributes among species of bacteria that will determine if they can grow in the human body.
I hope my point is more clear.
Gram negative != dangerous to human
gram negative + able to colonize in humans = dangerous to human.
Furthermore, there are many bacteria that are gram negative that exist as symbiotic bacteria in the intestinal flora. Need an example? Escherichia Coli is gram negative. If the simple characteristic of being 'gram negative' made a microbe dangerous, we would all be in danger right now.
There is also the multi-target approach to antibiotics. Since the mode of action of various antibiotics are varied and it is energetically costly to maintain resistance, it is relatively impossible for microbes to develop resistance to all forms of antibiotic. To maintain selective-resistance to antibiotics, microbes require constant presence of it. In the absence of the antibiotic, the non-resistant (more efficient) species will supercede.
Given that no battery of all possible antibiotics will be applied at the same time and maintained perpetually, it is relatively impossible for the bacteria to not only develop, but maintain in the face of competition, a resistance to all possible antibiotics.
The language of the slashdot post seems to suggest that the presence of gram negative bacteria is recent. It also suggests that the gram negative characteristic of the bacteria is the definitive characteristic of its virulence. Also, the Gram test isn't a 'so called' test, which somehow suggests or implies doubt.
The test has been done for decades; our knowledge of the two major types of bacteria (gram positive and gram negative) has been around for decades as well. And while gram negativity is characteristic of bacteria that must be approached with different antibiotic means than gram positive, due to their extracellular topology/materials, it does not mean that being gram negative makes the microbes virulent or specifically dangerous.
And to debunk the loose implication that gram negativity might have evolved from human antibiotic applications I will say this: it didn't.
General Bacteriology ftmfw.
... about a decade ago.
The point I was getting at is not that private businesses build from the foundations of government funded basic research... that is clearly evident and somewhat widely accepted... I was getting at the point in the main topic wherein the government directly funded the R&D of this optic product and then a private company would directly be given the ability to commercialize it. That is not ok. That is corruption.
The government gets their cut. It's called taxes.
That's an idiotic way to look at it considering that the taxes would be taken with or without government funding of the research/development.
2 things. (I am not a banker but I have been to the bank, lol)
1) CDs are not at 5%... that's crazy. Bonds are at somewhere around 5% but not CDs.
2) Don't forget capital gains taxes.
$100k profit != $100k saved. If you save 100k, you saved having to earn the pre-tax income that, after taxes, is 100k. If make 100k in profit, you will pay taxes on that.
Energy sustenance and abundance is one major key to world peace.
Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.
Just like you!
Discipline or not, wtf business do they have taking pictures at all? Obviously it had nothing to do with the laptop being missing.... You're downplaying the severity of a school putting (and using) remotely accessible video-recording devices in the privacy of the children's homes, without informing them (I would say deceptively, but maybe just ignorantly).
We do know that ignorance is no excuse for violations of the law; and in this case it would not only be ignorance, but completely recklessness in that the remote access ability could be hacked and abused widely.
I think you missed the part where they took a picture using the webcam and attempted to use it for disciplinary action against the child.
Not many posts yet but I already see a LOT of posts pushing the idea of not working for this employer. This is not a solution. If we don't fight it and win, it will be adopted by more and more employers until it snowballs into something too big to fight. If we think this is a bad idea, it needs to be fought now while it's still in its infancy.
I hope you understand that 'not giving them' a fingerprint for privacy concerns is a relatively moot point.
If someone that employs you or works with you (or even not working with you, but knows of you) wants your fingerprint they can simply grab up any of the many things you touch on a daily basis.
Most people don't wear gloves when they leave the house.
Your fingerprints are all over the place. If I wanted them, I could get them.
Coming Q4, 2010
I live in a coastal humid and mediocre temperature weather area... I have *never* gotten my phone right into water... not even in the rain; I don't use them in the rain.
And yet every single battery-area 'got it wet indicator' that turns red when you get it wet.... yep.. every single one would be triggered and appear like I got it wet or something. I'm not even talking about putting em in sweaty or wet clothes or something, either... I'm pretty careful and this happens usually within the first couple months of owning a phone.
"Well, building an eye implant in the lab is one thing, and the taxpayer pays for that. Putting it out into the field, borrowing all the money and getting investment bankers to pony up for production costs, sales and marketing, all of the insurances required for the inevitable lawsuits, the technical support, tracking, doctor training and all that manufacturing required to get the eye from a factory floor into someone's head, that's what the private sector does."
Yeah, but the gov doesn't need to do all that. They just need to show what they already said they were going to do (the product) to the legislature and call for the follow up. A spending of the public funds to manufacture and distribute the product wherein the costs are not profit oriented and *only* suffice to pay what was paid by the government. And in that way not only will the long term be that the cost was nil, but also that the government intervened only as much as was necessary to catalyze a development and production of a product for its people.
This is not hard to see simply. I have worked for the government and let me tell you, those checks don't bounce.
I see no need for a hand to intervene and put profit between the costs and the consumer (but i'd rather call them a suffering patient than a consumer/customer).
Btw, I appreciate your discussion here.
If the DOE (tax dollars) is funding the research, why the hell would the technology produced then become commercialized (capitalized) by a private business? Didn't we all pay for this, and so don't we all deserve to not pay the added costs of capitalization?
Corruption is right out in the open. Look at it.
... and all the silly, heinous, disgusting, awkward, hateful, tragic and horrifying ways that it finds its way to distort human interaction.
Yes, but it isn't murder. Murder is the killing of a person. Most abortions are the killing of a cluster of cells. There is a difference and it isn't semantic.
I am a father as well and I am completely and utterly disgusted that PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE SCHOOLS SOMEHOW EVEN FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN OPTION OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
The only business the school has with watching my child is when she is at school. I don't care if the principal is at the mall on a saturday and my kid is there... he had better not be there to WATCH her... maybe he can come say hi and be cordial like normal people but they have NO FRIKKING BUSINESS MONITORING/SURVEILLING MY CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF THEIR PREMISES.
I know a good few people in that school deserve a helluva lot more than a lawsuit.
Technically, being in line with the constitution as a REAL conservative would be, the government has no place in abortion and is obliged to provide the same and equal/fair rights to all (aka gays treated equally).
But the people who claim to be 'real' conservatives right now are actually just judeo-christian theotards thumping bibles and parading apple pies like they are the true real Americans of constitutions' past. NOT. A real conservative would actually care about the constitutionally founded separation of church and state and enforce it. The people claiming to be real conservatives are far from that...
Ron Paul was a real conservative.
I'm waxing eloquent about your bitchiness, get a clue.
doth, lol