We didn't have a war on poverty because we hated poverty, we had a war on poverty because we hate poor people. We had reached a stage of enlightenment, though, where we had figured out that enslaving them, shipping them off to colonies or killing them in foreign wars wasn't quite working out, so we figured if we eliminated poverty we'd get rid of poor people.
But make no mistake, it had nothing to do with our dislike of poverty.
Microsoft probably gave away too much to the carriers just to get their phones in their stores and on their networks. They probably have a much harder time getting the carriers to accept end-around updates.
For my money, Comey was saying he wanted to prosecute but couldn't. I think the language of "no reasonable prosecutor would bring these charges" was code for "the DOJ doesn't want to prosecute". I think if Comey and the FBI specifically didn't think it was worth prosecuting, he would have spoken more specifically for the FBI's opinion of the case, not presuming what a prosecutor would or wouldn't do.
We never heard Comey say "The FBI does not believe this case warrants prosecution".
Comey was in an awkward position, politically and historically, really. I can see why he wouldn't want to be the guy that changed an election.
I think Lynch got to skate on the prosecution decision by deferring to the FBI definitively after the Bill Clinton tarmac visit.
Deferring to the FBI makes it look like she's deferring to a sterner, more enforcement-oriented organization, but in reality there's no way the FBI director is going to fall on his sword without DOJ backing to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is slightly less subject to political pressure, but that's more impression than reality. The President can remove the director at any time and you're kidding yourself if you think that there's not oodles of politics for all promotions of any significance in the FBI.
If the case isn't a slam dunk, it's unlikely the agents involved in this case are willing to give up their careers trying to jam up Hillary Clinton.
Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.
That's how you get shot. You turn on your hazard lights, you pull over and you put both hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2 and do NOTHING until the cop walks to your car.
When he asks you for something, you tell him where it is and that you need to reach/move to get it and is he OK with that. You do it slowly and deliberately and one step at a time.
You start digging around in your car before he's come to your window to talk to you? Of course you're hiding evidence, you're grabbing a weapon, you're doing everything that justifies having your brains blown out.
Transparent, user-configurable and multi-cloud tiered storage is very useful.
Non-transparent, non-configurable and single-vendor tiered storage is an awful thing designed to jack up fees for users, spy on their data and an excuse to overprice under-sized local storage on vendor hardware offerings.
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us.
I agree with this, but I think it's kind of always been true. There have always been political bosses with influence and power who broke the law and get away with it because they were able to bullshit their way out of it or others were just too afraid of reprisals.
The reality is Hilary Clinton is highly likely to be the next President. She's extremely influential. She's a former Senator. Her husband was a popular 2-term President. She raised tons of money for the Democratic party. She has the accumulated knowledge, influence and favors of nearly 30 years of high level Washington politics. Moreover, this is "her moment" to be President, she will accept nothing less and she has paid off, twisted arms, and is calling in every marker the Clinton family has to make it happen.
Given all those things, would you be willing to get in her way if it wasn't absolutely a sure thing? She has the juice *now* to ruin lives and careers, let alone as President.
I also think that blaming her for getting away with it is misplacing some of the blame. At least as much can be heaped on the pusillanimous Justice Department for thinking more of their political careers than for administering justice. Lynch recusing herself by agreeing to the FBI recommendations gave her a complete pass on the decision -- Bill Clinton's a political genius for arranging that meeting. Lynch gets out from under owning the prosecution decision, Bill Clinton takes all the heat for his "bad optics", and there is no way the FBI will publicly encourage the prosecution of a likely President on its own with no support from Justice or the sitting President unless it's a guaranteed slam dunk conviction with video evidence looping every 30 minutes on the news.
30 years ago my dad's business had something like this in a few of the company vehicles. It was an electronic keypad where you had to enter a digit code to get the car to start.
These were older cars (early 80's vintage pickups and two Diesel VW Rabbits) so they didn't have extensive (or any?) computers to lock down subsystems, but nothing electrical would work in the car unless the code was entered.
I don't know how it was wired up, my guess is some kind of relay in front of the fusebox.
Comcast is just choosing not to fight with one of its harshest critics. Now that they have co-opted them, Netflix won't bitch about Comcast, Comcast can claim they are "fair" and there's "no conflict of interest between data and content" and who knows, maybe they've figured out a way to distribute Netflix content to their DVR subscribers more efficiently than a generic network stream as well.
Either way, I'd score this as a loss for consumers, a minor win for Comcast and a think-with-your-dick move by Netflix. Whatever they gain by being on a Comcast platform they lose many times over in terms of credibility and moral high ground.
Which executive branch of the government is going to deny the head of the executive branch classified information? Which branch of the military is going to deny a direct order from the commander in chief of the military?
I suppose either could if there were specific laws denying them, but the President would always claim privilege in those situations and that balance of powers concepts prevent Congress from voting to deny the President access to classified information.
[Of course they still won't tell her about the UFOs they've recovered, but we knew that...]
OMG, do you have any idea how much power you need to melt an inch of snow?!? There's a reason we use snowplows!
I've seen lots of heated driveways in Utah, and in the mountains an inch of snow is nothing. I've only seen them while skiing, so I don't know whether the standard practice is to plow/shovel them and then just let the heat melt the residue and keep ice from forming or whether they're capable of melting a full load of snow.
I'm curious how you replace your roof once you have panels on them. I'm guessing the short answer is "take them off" -- but does this including the mounting hardware, too, and how much of a hassle is this -- is a lot of the wiring modular and disconnectable, or is it hardwired for minimal losses?
If the panels last anything like the estimates, it seems likely that a roof replacement would be likely at least once during the PV system lifetime, perhaps more if the roof wasn't brand new. I'm guessing basic bell curve thinking is that anyone who installs them has a roof mostly too new to warrant replacement before installing PV panels.
Of course the ugly scenario sounds like it could be that not only will you pay to replace the roof, you'll pay to have the panels removed and pay to have the panels installed again. It might make sense to just have a new roof installed when you get panels owing to their life span since it may exceed your period of ownership of the house, but that's kind of another serious chunk of money for an already expensive proposition.
I think it was more than just the economic drag caused by the war in Vietnam, you can also blame stagflation, the oil crisis, and so on.
But taking the parent poster at face value and assuming that military spending was part of a zero-sum spending paradigm where war was more profitable than space, I ask why?
A large part of the space program overlaps with both military branches (mostly the Air Force) and military contractors (the aerospace industry), so buying fighters or expanding space operations largely profits the same corporations and adds prestige to the same purchasing people. The Apollo project was $134 billion in 2016-adjusted dollars, the shuttle program close to $200 billion with launches of the latter pushing $400 million at the end.
Basically, there was also *vast* amounts of money to be made from the space program and plenty of overlap into military-only technology areas where additional money could be made. Space involves much more new technology and more R&D than many conventional weapons, thus making it even more profitable than something like an improved artillery shell, whose improvements involve less research and more knowable cost pressures since we've been manufacturing artillery shells for years and years.
You could also argue that NASA spending is also more popular with the general public than military-only spending, especially in the 1970s when NASA funding began to slide. College kids were out protesting the war in Vietnam, not buggy rides on the moon. So expanding NASA funding should have been easier in many ways than expanding military spending.
My best guess isn't that NASA funding lost to military spending per se, but that as budgets and the economy were impacted that military spending was seen as sacrosanct that that NASA funding was seen not in competition with military spending but in competition with social welfare spending. As demands for social welfare equality went up, putting "Whitey on the moon" was seen as wasteful when there were poor people in ghettos.
At this point, though, is it actually of any *surveillance* value?
Or is the kind of thing where they only keep a rolling 7 days worth of audio recorded and don't bother with it unless an incident happens and then start seeing if their recording means anything?
Unless they have some pretty magical, automated software that can clean it up and then turn it into keyword searchable text on a regular basis it doesn't sound much like "surveillance" as much as it is just shot-spotter audio.
My guess is that it would be the standard excuse -- I don't want more mess from installers boring holes.
I'm sort of sympathetic to it, as people doing installs for utilities are often low-rent subcontractors paid in a way where they have every incentive to bang the fucking job out as quickly as possible with as little consideration for the property as possible.
Plus, I would imagine a lot of landlords who aren't big commercial companies with full sized maintenance staff want to maximize rental income. Paying someone to even supervise to make sure the installers can get in, don't wreck the place, etc. lowers their income.
On the other hand, rents do have a cyclical nature and keeping a building desirable for tenants when the rental market sucks would seem to benefit forward thinking landlords who realize that easy upgrades to new utility technologies will allow them to keep rents higher and get better tenants. So they should be figuring out how to make it possible to add new services without shredding the building.
I'm surprised nobody has made money wiring rental buildings for ethernet and then managing multiple telecom services for landlords. The tenant can pick whoever and the utility only has to terminate in the building wire center. The landlord keeps his building intact and tenants can have their pick of technology.
I would argue that the expertness of the system and its rules isn't the problem, but the problem is that there aren't enough sensors, the right kinds, or enough real time processing power to achieve the right solution.
You would probably need radar, laser and probably optical and the ability to track every object within a certain range and calculate their real-time paths against vehicle telemetry.
That's not something you can do with real simple collision avoidance radar and camera systems or the level of processing they're applying.
And as we've seen posted on/., there are cases where there are no good options -- hit something vs. being hit.
I would almost guess that the need to accommodate growth spikes plus redundancy would make cloud providers at best a wash with on premises storage, even accounting for thin provisioning by cloud providers.
The thing that could possibly give cloud providers a real edge is deduplication across storage, but that has a potential performance penalty and a real CPU and I/O cost.
Fault tolerance in VMware is neat and a lot better in v6, but it requires a hell of a lot of network traffic for sync. A four CPU VM running FT eats 60 MB/sec sync, and that's just a bog-standard Win2012r2 VM running updates. It throws warning flags running it on 1 Gbit links.
Even with 10 GBit Ethernet, I'd be wary of trying to rely on FT for a server with any appreciable CPU and disk workload, and even then its recommended to have a second datastore for the FT VM, so the resource requirements for best practices get pretty high. And the second datastore is obviously best being a totally separate storage device.
I still think you're better off with an application or service that runs clustered and can tolerate the loss of a single cluster node VM and remain functional versus relying on a single VM for everything.
True redundant availability is hard and expensive.
I would be surprised if commercial jets didn't have radar integrated into their autopilot systems.
Civilian marine vessels have collision avoidance with integrated autopilot/radar/chartplotting systems. You lay in a course and the system will follow the course and adjust course for obstacles indicated on radar, including tracking moving obstacles to predict collisions.
The advantage over cars is huge, though, because the speeds are almost always under 20 knots and boats have wide freedom of movement -- you can generally adjust speed and course with a lot of freedom, and the distance to objects is in miles, not feet.
Car collision avoidance is far harder because of much higher speeds, limited freedom of movement and speed adjustment and distances often at best in double-digit distances in feet and a huge number of objects to track.
You probably could get close to a marine system in a car, but it would require military style avionics -- 360 radar and laser sensing and a metric shit ton of processing power. I don't know what Tesla has for sensor packages or processing, but I have been totally underwhelmed with even the performance of the in-car display. It updates like a low-end tablet.
We used to commit them to mental institutions. As it turns out, that had some ugliness --we warehoused them and didn't provide treatment, and many we thought didn't need commitment at all.
So we turned them out of mental institutions and reformed commitment laws.
The number of crazy people on the street went up (48 hour emergency holds don't accomplish anything, no ongoing treatment, commitment reform made it vastly more difficult to commit someone). Our solution has turned out to be tossing them in jail instead, or letting to cops shoot them when they get too crazy.
Now we've figured out that the high numbers of crazy people in jail is a problem along with the PR fail of cops blasting raving lunatics with kitchen knives. So I guess we're back to turning them loose on the streets.
My guess is the solution somewhere is a vastly more accessible mental health system, but talk to anyone with "good" insurance about getting mental health services. At best, you get an all-you-can-eat supply of anti-depressants with a side of anti-psychotics, forget counseling as the numbers guys say it's worthless and the insurance companies think its just aimless middle class people whining about their mother at $250/hour.
So for low-income/no insurance people with serious mental health problems? We won't even bother jailing them when they become risky because the data guys say we could use the space better. We for sure won't be providing any treatment short of court-ordered but impossible to enforce anti-psychotic treatment.
If the directors' job is to maximize revenue, how do you justify them approving management buying the shares and taking the company private?
Clearly, if management has some idea on how to run the corporation more profitably they should be doing it *now*, not hoarding the idea and waiting to buy the company out and then increase profits.
Directors that tolerate that kind of self-dealing from management or for their own profit are abrogating their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
We didn't have a war on poverty because we hated poverty, we had a war on poverty because we hate poor people. We had reached a stage of enlightenment, though, where we had figured out that enslaving them, shipping them off to colonies or killing them in foreign wars wasn't quite working out, so we figured if we eliminated poverty we'd get rid of poor people.
But make no mistake, it had nothing to do with our dislike of poverty.
It's maybe a pedantic difference, sure. But, the need to wage war on poverty didn't arise from the fact that the poor were enemies of the state.
Really? You mean it's called class warfare for some other reason?
Microsoft probably gave away too much to the carriers just to get their phones in their stores and on their networks. They probably have a much harder time getting the carriers to accept end-around updates.
For my money, Comey was saying he wanted to prosecute but couldn't. I think the language of "no reasonable prosecutor would bring these charges" was code for "the DOJ doesn't want to prosecute". I think if Comey and the FBI specifically didn't think it was worth prosecuting, he would have spoken more specifically for the FBI's opinion of the case, not presuming what a prosecutor would or wouldn't do.
We never heard Comey say "The FBI does not believe this case warrants prosecution".
Comey was in an awkward position, politically and historically, really. I can see why he wouldn't want to be the guy that changed an election.
The current Democrats are the old Republicans with yoga pants and social justice cause "likes" on Facebook.
I think Lynch got to skate on the prosecution decision by deferring to the FBI definitively after the Bill Clinton tarmac visit.
Deferring to the FBI makes it look like she's deferring to a sterner, more enforcement-oriented organization, but in reality there's no way the FBI director is going to fall on his sword without DOJ backing to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is slightly less subject to political pressure, but that's more impression than reality. The President can remove the director at any time and you're kidding yourself if you think that there's not oodles of politics for all promotions of any significance in the FBI.
If the case isn't a slam dunk, it's unlikely the agents involved in this case are willing to give up their careers trying to jam up Hillary Clinton.
Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.
That's how you get shot. You turn on your hazard lights, you pull over and you put both hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2 and do NOTHING until the cop walks to your car.
When he asks you for something, you tell him where it is and that you need to reach/move to get it and is he OK with that. You do it slowly and deliberately and one step at a time.
You start digging around in your car before he's come to your window to talk to you? Of course you're hiding evidence, you're grabbing a weapon, you're doing everything that justifies having your brains blown out.
The whole technology industry has gone downhill.
Fixes to bugs and problems has been changed to "new version releases" which in many cases means buying the product again.
Useful innovation has dropped off enormously in favor of changes designed to monetize users.
Transparent, user-configurable and multi-cloud tiered storage is very useful.
Non-transparent, non-configurable and single-vendor tiered storage is an awful thing designed to jack up fees for users, spy on their data and an excuse to overprice under-sized local storage on vendor hardware offerings.
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us.
I agree with this, but I think it's kind of always been true. There have always been political bosses with influence and power who broke the law and get away with it because they were able to bullshit their way out of it or others were just too afraid of reprisals.
The reality is Hilary Clinton is highly likely to be the next President. She's extremely influential. She's a former Senator. Her husband was a popular 2-term President. She raised tons of money for the Democratic party. She has the accumulated knowledge, influence and favors of nearly 30 years of high level Washington politics. Moreover, this is "her moment" to be President, she will accept nothing less and she has paid off, twisted arms, and is calling in every marker the Clinton family has to make it happen.
Given all those things, would you be willing to get in her way if it wasn't absolutely a sure thing? She has the juice *now* to ruin lives and careers, let alone as President.
I also think that blaming her for getting away with it is misplacing some of the blame. At least as much can be heaped on the pusillanimous Justice Department for thinking more of their political careers than for administering justice. Lynch recusing herself by agreeing to the FBI recommendations gave her a complete pass on the decision -- Bill Clinton's a political genius for arranging that meeting. Lynch gets out from under owning the prosecution decision, Bill Clinton takes all the heat for his "bad optics", and there is no way the FBI will publicly encourage the prosecution of a likely President on its own with no support from Justice or the sitting President unless it's a guaranteed slam dunk conviction with video evidence looping every 30 minutes on the news.
30 years ago my dad's business had something like this in a few of the company vehicles. It was an electronic keypad where you had to enter a digit code to get the car to start.
These were older cars (early 80's vintage pickups and two Diesel VW Rabbits) so they didn't have extensive (or any?) computers to lock down subsystems, but nothing electrical would work in the car unless the code was entered.
I don't know how it was wired up, my guess is some kind of relay in front of the fusebox.
I think this is right.
Comcast is just choosing not to fight with one of its harshest critics. Now that they have co-opted them, Netflix won't bitch about Comcast, Comcast can claim they are "fair" and there's "no conflict of interest between data and content" and who knows, maybe they've figured out a way to distribute Netflix content to their DVR subscribers more efficiently than a generic network stream as well.
Either way, I'd score this as a loss for consumers, a minor win for Comcast and a think-with-your-dick move by Netflix. Whatever they gain by being on a Comcast platform they lose many times over in terms of credibility and moral high ground.
Which executive branch of the government is going to deny the head of the executive branch classified information? Which branch of the military is going to deny a direct order from the commander in chief of the military?
I suppose either could if there were specific laws denying them, but the President would always claim privilege in those situations and that balance of powers concepts prevent Congress from voting to deny the President access to classified information.
[Of course they still won't tell her about the UFOs they've recovered, but we knew that...]
OMG, do you have any idea how much power you need to melt an inch of snow?!? There's a reason we use snowplows!
I've seen lots of heated driveways in Utah, and in the mountains an inch of snow is nothing. I've only seen them while skiing, so I don't know whether the standard practice is to plow/shovel them and then just let the heat melt the residue and keep ice from forming or whether they're capable of melting a full load of snow.
I'm curious how you replace your roof once you have panels on them. I'm guessing the short answer is "take them off" -- but does this including the mounting hardware, too, and how much of a hassle is this -- is a lot of the wiring modular and disconnectable, or is it hardwired for minimal losses?
If the panels last anything like the estimates, it seems likely that a roof replacement would be likely at least once during the PV system lifetime, perhaps more if the roof wasn't brand new. I'm guessing basic bell curve thinking is that anyone who installs them has a roof mostly too new to warrant replacement before installing PV panels.
Of course the ugly scenario sounds like it could be that not only will you pay to replace the roof, you'll pay to have the panels removed and pay to have the panels installed again. It might make sense to just have a new roof installed when you get panels owing to their life span since it may exceed your period of ownership of the house, but that's kind of another serious chunk of money for an already expensive proposition.
I think it was more than just the economic drag caused by the war in Vietnam, you can also blame stagflation, the oil crisis, and so on.
But taking the parent poster at face value and assuming that military spending was part of a zero-sum spending paradigm where war was more profitable than space, I ask why?
A large part of the space program overlaps with both military branches (mostly the Air Force) and military contractors (the aerospace industry), so buying fighters or expanding space operations largely profits the same corporations and adds prestige to the same purchasing people. The Apollo project was $134 billion in 2016-adjusted dollars, the shuttle program close to $200 billion with launches of the latter pushing $400 million at the end.
Basically, there was also *vast* amounts of money to be made from the space program and plenty of overlap into military-only technology areas where additional money could be made. Space involves much more new technology and more R&D than many conventional weapons, thus making it even more profitable than something like an improved artillery shell, whose improvements involve less research and more knowable cost pressures since we've been manufacturing artillery shells for years and years.
You could also argue that NASA spending is also more popular with the general public than military-only spending, especially in the 1970s when NASA funding began to slide. College kids were out protesting the war in Vietnam, not buggy rides on the moon. So expanding NASA funding should have been easier in many ways than expanding military spending.
My best guess isn't that NASA funding lost to military spending per se, but that as budgets and the economy were impacted that military spending was seen as sacrosanct that that NASA funding was seen not in competition with military spending but in competition with social welfare spending. As demands for social welfare equality went up, putting "Whitey on the moon" was seen as wasteful when there were poor people in ghettos.
At this point, though, is it actually of any *surveillance* value?
Or is the kind of thing where they only keep a rolling 7 days worth of audio recorded and don't bother with it unless an incident happens and then start seeing if their recording means anything?
Unless they have some pretty magical, automated software that can clean it up and then turn it into keyword searchable text on a regular basis it doesn't sound much like "surveillance" as much as it is just shot-spotter audio.
My guess is that it would be the standard excuse -- I don't want more mess from installers boring holes.
I'm sort of sympathetic to it, as people doing installs for utilities are often low-rent subcontractors paid in a way where they have every incentive to bang the fucking job out as quickly as possible with as little consideration for the property as possible.
Plus, I would imagine a lot of landlords who aren't big commercial companies with full sized maintenance staff want to maximize rental income. Paying someone to even supervise to make sure the installers can get in, don't wreck the place, etc. lowers their income.
On the other hand, rents do have a cyclical nature and keeping a building desirable for tenants when the rental market sucks would seem to benefit forward thinking landlords who realize that easy upgrades to new utility technologies will allow them to keep rents higher and get better tenants. So they should be figuring out how to make it possible to add new services without shredding the building.
I'm surprised nobody has made money wiring rental buildings for ethernet and then managing multiple telecom services for landlords. The tenant can pick whoever and the utility only has to terminate in the building wire center. The landlord keeps his building intact and tenants can have their pick of technology.
I would argue that the expertness of the system and its rules isn't the problem, but the problem is that there aren't enough sensors, the right kinds, or enough real time processing power to achieve the right solution.
You would probably need radar, laser and probably optical and the ability to track every object within a certain range and calculate their real-time paths against vehicle telemetry.
That's not something you can do with real simple collision avoidance radar and camera systems or the level of processing they're applying.
And as we've seen posted on /., there are cases where there are no good options -- hit something vs. being hit.
I would almost guess that the need to accommodate growth spikes plus redundancy would make cloud providers at best a wash with on premises storage, even accounting for thin provisioning by cloud providers.
The thing that could possibly give cloud providers a real edge is deduplication across storage, but that has a potential performance penalty and a real CPU and I/O cost.
Fault tolerance in VMware is neat and a lot better in v6, but it requires a hell of a lot of network traffic for sync. A four CPU VM running FT eats 60 MB/sec sync, and that's just a bog-standard Win2012r2 VM running updates. It throws warning flags running it on 1 Gbit links.
Even with 10 GBit Ethernet, I'd be wary of trying to rely on FT for a server with any appreciable CPU and disk workload, and even then its recommended to have a second datastore for the FT VM, so the resource requirements for best practices get pretty high. And the second datastore is obviously best being a totally separate storage device.
I still think you're better off with an application or service that runs clustered and can tolerate the loss of a single cluster node VM and remain functional versus relying on a single VM for everything.
True redundant availability is hard and expensive.
I would be surprised if commercial jets didn't have radar integrated into their autopilot systems.
Civilian marine vessels have collision avoidance with integrated autopilot/radar/chartplotting systems. You lay in a course and the system will follow the course and adjust course for obstacles indicated on radar, including tracking moving obstacles to predict collisions.
The advantage over cars is huge, though, because the speeds are almost always under 20 knots and boats have wide freedom of movement -- you can generally adjust speed and course with a lot of freedom, and the distance to objects is in miles, not feet.
Car collision avoidance is far harder because of much higher speeds, limited freedom of movement and speed adjustment and distances often at best in double-digit distances in feet and a huge number of objects to track.
You probably could get close to a marine system in a car, but it would require military style avionics -- 360 radar and laser sensing and a metric shit ton of processing power. I don't know what Tesla has for sensor packages or processing, but I have been totally underwhelmed with even the performance of the in-car display. It updates like a low-end tablet.
PR Manager: CEO Bob needs a twitter account. Can you set that up for him?
PR Intern: You got it. OK, here's the account and password.
CEO Bob: Hey, I need to get the twitter account on my phone and tablet.
PR Manager: OK, we can add them.
PR Intern: We need to change the password on CEO Bob's twitter account.
PR Manager: We can't, he's in Davos/Aspen/St. Bart's and he won't know how to log back in.
Hacked CEO Bob on Twitter: I suck! My company is a fraud!
We used to commit them to mental institutions. As it turns out, that had some ugliness --we warehoused them and didn't provide treatment, and many we thought didn't need commitment at all.
So we turned them out of mental institutions and reformed commitment laws.
The number of crazy people on the street went up (48 hour emergency holds don't accomplish anything, no ongoing treatment, commitment reform made it vastly more difficult to commit someone). Our solution has turned out to be tossing them in jail instead, or letting to cops shoot them when they get too crazy.
Now we've figured out that the high numbers of crazy people in jail is a problem along with the PR fail of cops blasting raving lunatics with kitchen knives. So I guess we're back to turning them loose on the streets.
My guess is the solution somewhere is a vastly more accessible mental health system, but talk to anyone with "good" insurance about getting mental health services. At best, you get an all-you-can-eat supply of anti-depressants with a side of anti-psychotics, forget counseling as the numbers guys say it's worthless and the insurance companies think its just aimless middle class people whining about their mother at $250/hour.
So for low-income/no insurance people with serious mental health problems? We won't even bother jailing them when they become risky because the data guys say we could use the space better. We for sure won't be providing any treatment short of court-ordered but impossible to enforce anti-psychotic treatment.
If the directors' job is to maximize revenue, how do you justify them approving management buying the shares and taking the company private?
Clearly, if management has some idea on how to run the corporation more profitably they should be doing it *now*, not hoarding the idea and waiting to buy the company out and then increase profits.
Directors that tolerate that kind of self-dealing from management or for their own profit are abrogating their fiduciary duty to shareholders.