> As to the auto makers wanting to have people pay for air-bags, I agree with your point to an extent. However, you continue to present the argument as though air-bags didn't exist before Government regulation. That is factually incorrect!
Of course they existed, but but they were not sold to anyone.
> Market pressure sped up the development and implementation long before the Government made a law to make them mandatory.
No they never. Indeed, the car industry tried thier damndest to blacken anyone who accuse them of being unsafe.
I just wish I could find the information from a documentary I watched, where Ford basically said that they'd rather not sell to the federal government than introduce air bags.
> I would give some credit to Western Governments for fuel emissions, but not safety.
I think you should look a bit more at history - check out the federal governments requirements for air bags (and the auto industries initial response).
Also maybe look at the 3 point seat belt, most western governments have made it a mandatory feature.
I think he was highlighting that having something removed from a diet causes consequences. It doesn't matter if it was on purpose, or by accident. He illustrated this by using the example long sea voyages not having access to vitmin C.
"Entrenched groups who don't want to see it succeed: ERP implementations often fail because the business processes that need to be changed are held up by people or groups that don't want their job changed or automated away, and have powerful friends."
I've been reading a report on the London Ambulance Services fiasco in 1994, and the final report mentioned something similar - you can't expect a computer system to change working practices, the practices have to change first.
There have been a number of MS patches, both on servers and workstations that have caused systems to fail (usually software incompatibility, but there have been enough patches that have then been recalled to be worrying), so yes we do delay MS updates until we have tested them.
We use ChromeFrame extensively with IE8. The reasons are varied for why we are still on IE8, but we found that it was much more complex to "lock down" Firefox (I seem to recall Fiefox developers advising that Firefox isn't for enterprise/lock down) & Chrome, also our MIS system only supports IE7, 8 & 9. As we still have a large number of XP computers IE8 is our only option.
*but* Chrome is now much less complex to control via GPO (in a similar vein as IEs) and google have now introduced a sort of "reverse" ChromeFrame, (with ChromeFrame you can decided what will be the default render, but also force sites to use IE or ChromeFrame) where Chrome is the default, but you can force certain sites to render in a different browser.
Using Chrome as the standard though, brings a number of other problems, not least the fast update cycle of Chrome, which if we allowed automatic updates means that we have 1000 computers trying to update from the internet when they turn on, and likely find no one can access the internet due to a faulty update...
(In the same way we don't have individual computer going to windows update, we use an internal WSUS server, Chrome needs somthing similar, a repository we can point to that is local)
When I was at university, ohh, a long time ago, we were forced to use a mathematical notation for design and testing of software.
Of course, the tests were only as good as they were written, and we all said "no programs are bug free", the lecturer who was an expert in RT systems suggested that a rail signalling system or a fly by wire system should not have unexpected bugs, but his final suggestion, was that you get what you pay for.
If you had a hypothetical gun free zone where it was not possible for a gun to exist, then in that hypothetical gun free zone there would be no "murder" caused by guns.
What you've done, is you've taken "murder", in any of its forms, and said that "murder" happens if there are guns or not, therefore guns should not be regulated.
Lets go for another hypothetical situation, Person A has a legally held gun, and finds his wife has been having an affair with Person B. Person A takes his gun and starts waving it at Person B. Person B has a legally held gun, and shoots at Person A as he was in fear of his life. Person C, also has a legally held gun, sees Person B shoot at Person A, and shoots Person B. Person A sees someone else with a gun and shoots person C, and they all die of gunshot wounds. If none of these people had guns of any sort, no one would be dead by guns.
If an individual had a gun, it would neither make that person more or less likely to be violent, but it would ensure that violence of any kind involving that person is more likely to involve a gun.
A little light reading suggests the system was broken before that, the extra funding was supposed to address the lack of achievement of poorer students. That lack of achievement was already there, not caused by the federal funding grants.
I'm just proposing an alternative view to the comment that education would be better without any federal involvement.
I think blaming the federal government for how local schools spend money or teach is probably not fair, when someone else suggested that 90% of the education budget is at statelocal level (backed up by your wiki article) - possibly the reason the federal government got involved was that the individual states were not achieving what they should.
Yes, when most of the rest of the world (Asia, Africa, South America) were not educating anyone. So you could argue, without federal intervention, you'd be likely even worse off.
Sounds like Web 2.0 to me. Or was that just a marketing term too... anyway according to Nist the essential characteristics of "cloud computing" are : On-demand self services, Broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity and measured service. No mention of redundancy or routes.
> If you want to guarantee a system keeps operating and maintains data integrity when a single computer fails, you need at least another three computers that are still running with no failures. There is a mathematical proof for this.
Can you find this mathematical proof? It'd be most useful.
Slashdot Mirror
And one of the arguments offered by ford "When it goes off it'll damage the cars interior".
Oh it wasn't happening
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19700602&id=tcQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7132,4036595
> As to the auto makers wanting to have people pay for air-bags, I agree with your point to an extent. However, you continue to present the argument as though air-bags didn't exist before Government regulation. That is factually incorrect!
Of course they existed, but but they were not sold to anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag
In the early 1970s, Ford and General Motors began offering cars equipped with air bags, initially in government-issue Chevrolets.
And,
G.M. discontinued the option for its 1977 model year, citing lack of consumer interest.
You might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
> Market pressure sped up the development and implementation long before the Government made a law to make them mandatory.
No they never. Indeed, the car industry tried thier damndest to blacken anyone who accuse them of being unsafe.
I just wish I could find the information from a documentary I watched, where Ford basically said that they'd rather not sell to the federal government than introduce air bags.
> I would give some credit to Western Governments for fuel emissions, but not safety.
I think you should look a bit more at history - check out the federal governments requirements for air bags (and the auto industries initial response).
Also maybe look at the 3 point seat belt, most western governments have made it a mandatory feature.
I think he was highlighting that having something removed from a diet causes consequences. It doesn't matter if it was on purpose, or by accident. He illustrated this by using the example long sea voyages not having access to vitmin C.
"Entrenched groups who don't want to see it succeed: ERP implementations often fail because the business processes that need to be changed are held up by people or groups that don't want their job changed or automated away, and have powerful friends."
I've been reading a report on the London Ambulance Services fiasco in 1994, and the final report mentioned something similar - you can't expect a computer system to change working practices, the practices have to change first.
Its the public sector learning from the private sector.
GDP grew by 0.3%. If I remember GDP figures correctly they usually have a error margin of +/- 0.5.
There have been a number of MS patches, both on servers and workstations that have caused systems to fail (usually software incompatibility, but there have been enough patches that have then been recalled to be worrying), so yes we do delay MS updates until we have tested them.
They do, you can force Chrome to render certain sites in a different browser.
We use ChromeFrame extensively with IE8. The reasons are varied for why we are still on IE8, but we found that it was much more complex to "lock down" Firefox (I seem to recall Fiefox developers advising that Firefox isn't for enterprise/lock down) & Chrome, also our MIS system only supports IE7, 8 & 9. As we still have a large number of XP computers IE8 is our only option.
*but* Chrome is now much less complex to control via GPO (in a similar vein as IEs) and google have now introduced a sort of "reverse" ChromeFrame, (with ChromeFrame you can decided what will be the default render, but also force sites to use IE or ChromeFrame) where Chrome is the default, but you can force certain sites to render in a different browser.
Using Chrome as the standard though, brings a number of other problems, not least the fast update cycle of Chrome, which if we allowed automatic updates means that we have 1000 computers trying to update from the internet when they turn on, and likely find no one can access the internet due to a faulty update ...
(In the same way we don't have individual computer going to windows update, we use an internal WSUS server, Chrome needs somthing similar, a repository we can point to that is local)
Pakistan Small? 6th biggest population on the planet and you call that small?
When I was at university, ohh, a long time ago, we were forced to use a mathematical notation for design and testing of software.
Of course, the tests were only as good as they were written, and we all said "no programs are bug free", the lecturer who was an expert in RT systems suggested that a rail signalling system or a fly by wire system should not have unexpected bugs, but his final suggestion, was that you get what you pay for.
> When a city or state enacts draconian gun control laws - crime goes up
Yes, that'll be because they're now arresting people for carrying Guns as well as all the other normal things they used to get arrested for.
It's a hypothetical situation.
But not difficult to find news reports of similar shootings, jealous husbands/lovers, accidental shootings, mistaken identity.
For example, death facilitated by "law abiding citizens" with guns.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083886/Robin-Heidt-Wife-affair-brother-law-drove-gun-family-speaks-time.html
http://www.durhamregion.com/news/crime/article/1610791--documentary-probes-accidental-shooting-of-former-oshawa-teen
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/20/homeowner-shoots-and-kills-teen-who-entered-wrong-home-after-party/
http://www.spectacle.org/996/who.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270105/Phillip-Walker-Sailers-69-accused-killing-Rodrigo-Abad-Diaz-22-pulled-driveway-house.html
http://theadvocate.com/home/4109368-125/death-of-exchange-student-painful
I suppose, in the end it depends if you consider those deaths "for the greater good" - an acceptable consequence of liberal gun control.
If you had a hypothetical gun free zone where it was not possible for a gun to exist, then in that hypothetical gun free zone there would be no "murder" caused by guns.
What you've done, is you've taken "murder", in any of its forms, and said that "murder" happens if there are guns or not, therefore guns should not be regulated.
Lets go for another hypothetical situation, Person A has a legally held gun, and finds his wife has been having an affair with Person B. Person A takes his gun and starts waving it at Person B. Person B has a legally held gun, and shoots at Person A as he was in fear of his life. Person C, also has a legally held gun, sees Person B shoot at Person A, and shoots Person B. Person A sees someone else with a gun and shoots person C, and they all die of gunshot wounds. If none of these people had guns of any sort, no one would be dead by guns.
If an individual had a gun, it would neither make that person more or less likely to be violent, but it would ensure that violence of any kind involving that person is more likely to involve a gun.
Except for Google
Or advertising agencies
Or, well, anyone who wants to use a picture/photo for free
A little light reading suggests the system was broken before that, the extra funding was supposed to address the lack of achievement of poorer students. That lack of achievement was already there, not caused by the federal funding grants.
I'm just proposing an alternative view to the comment that education would be better without any federal involvement.
I think blaming the federal government for how local schools spend money or teach is probably not fair, when someone else suggested that 90% of the education budget is at statelocal level (backed up by your wiki article) - possibly the reason the federal government got involved was that the individual states were not achieving what they should.
Yes, when most of the rest of the world (Asia, Africa, South America) were not educating anyone. So you could argue, without federal intervention, you'd be likely even worse off.
Sounds like Web 2.0 to me. Or was that just a marketing term too ... anyway according to Nist the essential characteristics of "cloud computing" are : On-demand self services, Broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity and measured service. No mention of redundancy or routes.
> If you want to guarantee a system keeps operating and maintains data integrity when a single computer fails, you need at least another three computers that are still running with no failures. There is a mathematical proof for this.
Can you find this mathematical proof? It'd be most useful.
> shouldn't have any kids!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III_and_his_Grandsons
Except this guy, with his grandchildren. One who is a Bishop. Appointed by him.