For example, instinctively people think that two-engine airplanes are safer than single-engine ones, because the plane can still fly after one engine failure. Any pilot will tell you the opposite is true, however. All else being equal, a plane with two engines is twice as likely to have an engine failure, and a two-engine plane flying with one engine is less safe than a single-engine plane with its one engine working.
And you also ignore extremely important factors.
You need to quantify the "safety" of the five configurations: 1. SIngle engine plane with the engine working. 2. Single engine plane with the engine failed. 3. Two engine plane with both engines working. 4. Two engine plane with one engine failed. 5. Two engine plane with both engines failed.
You also need to know the probability of an engine failure. And of course the two engines in a two engine plane aren't actually independent if one fails there's a higher than normal chance the other does to (from it will be required to do more work, to that if one engine failed due to icing or running our of fuel the other has a way higher chance than normal of also failing for the same reason, to them likely being identical models and so a design/manufacturing flaw applying to both).
Without knowing the relative numbers claiming either of them is safer is just hand waving bullshit (aside from going by empirical data of safety and engine failures - but then you can estimate the numbers from that data anyway).
Allowing authentication with an application-specific password to give you permissions to change account settings like the email to send password reset information to was unlikely part of the design (it'd happen with the obvious implementations if not doing so wasn't explicit in the design of course).
And you can cross vendors off the list of vendors you will consider for future contracts for doing things which aren't illegal, so how does that make any difference?
None of it is "wasted". Every dollar counts on the GDP side of the ledger and funnels to big business. Exactly as designed. Makes the numbers look better and sends money to those deserving people who funnel money into Washington lobbying.
You missed the looping which is important, what happens is:
Person 1) Here's $3 million to go do X Person 2) OK, I shall do it [ time passes ] Person 2) Ive finished, and I only spent $1 million, so here's $2 million back. [ time passes] Person 1) Here's $1 million to do do Y
Or:
Person 1) Here's $3 million to go do X Person 2) OK, I shall do it [ time passes ] Person 2) We've run out of money but we are almost done. Person 3) OK, here's another $1 million. [ time passes] Person 2) Ive finished. [ time passes] Person 1) Here's $4 million to do do Y
If you've worked in anywhere that sells to large businesses/government you will have seen the end of budget rush as departments rush orders to get billed before the end of the budget year so they can spend their allocated budget before they have to give anything left back and get less next round. It's always our busiest time of year.
Because no one has ever gotten past a guard by wearing a uniform and carrying a large box. Or by bribing them. Or by threatening them or their family (we are talking about chopping people's fingers off to use in a fingerprint scanner). Or by faking an ID. And so on.
Labels are of primary concern when you are comparing score between two such labels.
We go back to the founding of the country. And we count christian terrorists as those who committed their acts on behalf of their god - abortion clinic bombers would count for example. I'm sure there were a bunch in the early days. I don't think the civil war counts since it was a traditional war rather than a set of terrorist actions though there was significant religious rhetoric and if you do count it then the Christians win hands down.
Bush and Obama haven't killed that many Americans in America (remember America is all that matters) and I don't think they've claimed to be doing it on behalf of their god (though I don't pay that much attention to political rhetoric).
Without "autonomous war machines" we've managed to firebomb cities (with a nice 3 hour gap between bombing runs so that fire fighters and so on would be putting out the first run's fires when the second run hit), mass murder civilians, drop atomic bombs on cities, use chemical weapons, and everything in between. I don't think feelings of mercy and pity and an ability to not follow illegal orders makes much of a difference.
You can have your own pet hates and rail against common usage, but the word professional has as one of its meanings: "engaged in one of the learned professions". Your strange distaste for that particular meaning doesn't change the fact that it is a perfectly valid usage.
So you are crap at managing remote workers, that's fine since it's not part of your job. However, not everyone has your lack of ability in that area and hence that isn't an argument against the general concept.
No that isn't what happened. The issue he is complaining about isn't that a mistake was made on the form and that inconvenienced him. It's that he pointed out a mistake on the form and the agent of the Federal government told him to sign it anyway because it's just paper work and he should just lie.
Again the issue isn't the mistake. And it isn't that he can't have his boat this minute. The issue is the federal government asking him to swear that a falsehood was true in a legal document.
And an error becomes a lie when you know it is wrong and swear is it true anyway, so your nitpicking there is completely wrong.
And yes it's sensational language. That's what people use when they want something to be noticed - see any newspaper for many more examples.
So you think that government agents should encourage people to make false statements and swear they are true?
If what happened was "I pointed out that the paperwork the DHS had written was incorrect and the agent said they couldn't correct it now and would have get a higher up to fix it which will take a few days and they'll hold the boat until that is done", then yes you would have a point and he would be being a "whiny rich asshole".
But that isn't what happened. The "they wouldn't let me have my boat right this second" wasn't the point of the whine, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who can read.
How does raising some revenue (and getting some free promotion) by licensing your name and slogan to someone else who will take all the risk and do all the spending stop you focusing on other things?
On the bright side if the Republicans succeed in destroying them it's the rural republican voters who will be affected. Those in the cities will have private enterprises delivering their letters without having to subsidize the more expensive rural deliveries.
Slashdot Mirror
And unemployment is running at about 10%.
What's that Baldrick? You have a cunning plan?
And you also ignore extremely important factors.
You need to quantify the "safety" of the five configurations:
1. SIngle engine plane with the engine working.
2. Single engine plane with the engine failed.
3. Two engine plane with both engines working.
4. Two engine plane with one engine failed.
5. Two engine plane with both engines failed.
You also need to know the probability of an engine failure. And of course the two engines in a two engine plane aren't actually independent if one fails there's a higher than normal chance the other does to (from it will be required to do more work, to that if one engine failed due to icing or running our of fuel the other has a way higher chance than normal of also failing for the same reason, to them likely being identical models and so a design/manufacturing flaw applying to both).
Without knowing the relative numbers claiming either of them is safer is just hand waving bullshit (aside from going by empirical data of safety and engine failures - but then you can estimate the numbers from that data anyway).
Did iDevices suddenly become linux based systems?
The applicable rules were already referenced in another branch, but it's quite possible they can (I haven't actually read the details).
Allowing authentication with an application-specific password to give you permissions to change account settings like the email to send password reset information to was unlikely part of the design (it'd happen with the obvious implementations if not doing so wasn't explicit in the design of course).
Sure, but you get a bigger budget by starting with more and overrunning that than you do starting with less and overrunning.
And you can cross vendors off the list of vendors you will consider for future contracts for doing things which aren't illegal, so how does that make any difference?
None of it is "wasted". Every dollar counts on the GDP side of the ledger and funnels to big business. Exactly as designed. Makes the numbers look better and sends money to those deserving people who funnel money into Washington lobbying.
You missed the looping which is important, what happens is:
Person 1) Here's $3 million to go do X
Person 2) OK, I shall do it
[ time passes ]
Person 2) Ive finished, and I only spent $1 million, so here's $2 million back.
[ time passes]
Person 1) Here's $1 million to do do Y
Or:
Person 1) Here's $3 million to go do X
Person 2) OK, I shall do it
[ time passes ]
Person 2) We've run out of money but we are almost done.
Person 3) OK, here's another $1 million.
[ time passes]
Person 2) Ive finished.
[ time passes]
Person 1) Here's $4 million to do do Y
If you've worked in anywhere that sells to large businesses/government you will have seen the end of budget rush as departments rush orders to get billed before the end of the budget year so they can spend their allocated budget before they have to give anything left back and get less next round. It's always our busiest time of year.
Because no one has ever gotten past a guard by wearing a uniform and carrying a large box. Or by bribing them. Or by threatening them or their family (we are talking about chopping people's fingers off to use in a fingerprint scanner). Or by faking an ID. And so on.
Labels are of primary concern when you are comparing score between two such labels.
We go back to the founding of the country. And we count christian terrorists as those who committed their acts on behalf of their god - abortion clinic bombers would count for example. I'm sure there were a bunch in the early days. I don't think the civil war counts since it was a traditional war rather than a set of terrorist actions though there was significant religious rhetoric and if you do count it then the Christians win hands down.
Bush and Obama haven't killed that many Americans in America (remember America is all that matters) and I don't think they've claimed to be doing it on behalf of their god (though I don't pay that much attention to political rhetoric).
All the way down.
But America is all that matters, and 9/11 has quite a score to catch up to for the christian terrorists.
That's right. It's the religion of peace after all!
I'm sure there will be widespread condemnation of this behavior from all the mainstream Islamic mouthpieces.
Without "autonomous war machines" we've managed to firebomb cities (with a nice 3 hour gap between bombing runs so that fire fighters and so on would be putting out the first run's fires when the second run hit), mass murder civilians, drop atomic bombs on cities, use chemical weapons, and everything in between. I don't think feelings of mercy and pity and an ability to not follow illegal orders makes much of a difference.
You can have your own pet hates and rail against common usage, but the word professional has as one of its meanings: "engaged in one of the learned professions". Your strange distaste for that particular meaning doesn't change the fact that it is a perfectly valid usage.
So you are crap at managing remote workers, that's fine since it's not part of your job. However, not everyone has your lack of ability in that area and hence that isn't an argument against the general concept.
For firefox: network.http.sendRefererHeader, set it to 0 in about:config
Why would you ever need people to come into the office every six weeks or so? I haven't seen my boss for 4 years,
There are health insurers that work at a national level.
No that isn't what happened. The issue he is complaining about isn't that a mistake was made on the form and that inconvenienced him. It's that he pointed out a mistake on the form and the agent of the Federal government told him to sign it anyway because it's just paper work and he should just lie.
Again the issue isn't the mistake. And it isn't that he can't have his boat this minute. The issue is the federal government asking him to swear that a falsehood was true in a legal document.
And an error becomes a lie when you know it is wrong and swear is it true anyway, so your nitpicking there is completely wrong.
And yes it's sensational language. That's what people use when they want something to be noticed - see any newspaper for many more examples.
So you think that government agents should encourage people to make false statements and swear they are true?
If what happened was "I pointed out that the paperwork the DHS had written was incorrect and the agent said they couldn't correct it now and would have get a higher up to fix it which will take a few days and they'll hold the boat until that is done", then yes you would have a point and he would be being a "whiny rich asshole".
But that isn't what happened. The "they wouldn't let me have my boat right this second" wasn't the point of the whine, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who can read.
Or their magazine subscriptions and ability to send mail.
How does raising some revenue (and getting some free promotion) by licensing your name and slogan to someone else who will take all the risk and do all the spending stop you focusing on other things?
No they aren't. No intersection of demand and supply curves is a perfectly feasible situation.
On the bright side if the Republicans succeed in destroying them it's the rural republican voters who will be affected. Those in the cities will have private enterprises delivering their letters without having to subsidize the more expensive rural deliveries.