As secretary of state, her role/and duty is very specific, IE: outward.. and as a senator, she can try to effect change in her state.. but the reality is the nature of the US governent is you can't wave a hand and make ANYTHING happen. Heck, you can't even get 3 people in the same room that LIKE each other to agree on where to eat lunch.. try it with several hundred people that have their own agendas and some of which are just plain.. I won't work with you because I'm running later and I'm on the other team.
Politics WORKS when people put others (the masses) interests first and their own second.. but that is NEVER how it actually works.. and its only gotten worse over the last 10-11 years.
The US is a CAPITALISTIC democratically elected (Theoretically) Republic.. so if you argument is CAPITALISTS are the issue, then I suggest you toss your hat in the ring for Communism or Monarchy or whatever else you want to use. In a capitalist society, their notion of every man for himself has always been at the crux of it.. heck, half the people voting for Trump like him because they feel he is the very embodiment of capitalism and as such, any actions are first and foremost for him.. (and if it happens to help you too, then.. "yeah, I meant to do that".)
He imposes a tax as a retaliation.. The automakers then just jack their rates to compensate.. it makes foreign makers (honda, toyota, etc..) more attractive since they already have better reliability, reputation, and a better ROI.. and now you add price to the equation..
So ultimately you benefit others..
The classes that CAN afford the car will make their decisions based on price.. the wealthy don't care (but are often not GM/Ford buyers anyway), the poor get screwed because where they COULD have afforded a car are now defiantly going to shift their purchasing to others (or just not purchase).. again, hurting the bottom line which will encourage more automation (reducing headcount which the largest reason for manufacturing jobs gone) and just normal head count reductions. The companies won't die because they can/will sell to other countries, but if it becomes less attractive to sell to the US, then they will evaluate their ROI and shift accordingly..(sell higher value cars and vacate the "economy" car market.. think IBM's departure of the laptop/PC market.. the margins are not worth their time.. so others (Lenovo) can deal with it because they operate with a lower operating cost (china), and many many other companies that have vacated their markets because operating in the US is less attractive (tax wise and regulation/rule wise).
At the end of the day, people tend to forget there are no easy/simple answers to these sorts of problems and its very much a matter of doing a little to help, but not so much that you stifle or kill an industry.
That and the fact that he's unstable.. Yes he will go through most of his aides.. but his public (internal meaning US) communications will undermine any attempts he does via his aides. Given 95% of the world didn't even think he win, and reject him.. And the only people that are voting for rooting for trump (outside the US) are nationalists, isolationists and communists is quite telling (none of who have the best interests of the US as a goal).
I'm glad I emigrated from the US in time.. and took my 20 companies (and assets) and family out of the US in time. (upside we made a fortune selling short)
I hope everyone gets EXACTLY what they voted for.. (which they will).. Trump most definitely will be an agent of change.. but its the case of the wish granting genie.. you got what you wished, just not in the way you wanted or the desired outcome.
Crooked you know what to expect, even if you don't like it.. Crazy... well, you just don't know.. and its not like you can "return" him after 15-30 days.. you are stuck with him for 4 years and the fall out from that forever.
If you read it.. it mentions this little thing called TCO (Total cost of Ownership).. which is not JUST the device (laptop or desktop) or Tech Support its:
Hardware (and the replacement cycle) - Macs tend to be replaced less often Support - Mac's tend to work.. less options/features but for office workers, they use their 2 - 3 applications + email (most of which these days are more web based), not to mention manufacture support. This is a big number depending on the size of the organization. Software costs - A lot of full functioning software comes with OSX, vs. quite a lot in the windows world are add-ons (ie: cost) Backend management costs - This is another big cost, but a LOT of package deployment tools, management/monitoring of the hardware, etc... all these things drive up the TCO. and a lot of others.. all these variables add up.. and depending on the use case makes a strong argument for OSX. It doesn't work in all cases (hey, you are using a windows only app that is core for your business.. not much you can do other than run Windows.. adding VDI/Virtualization drives up cost/complexity).. But again, if you are deploying VDI enmass, then this can impact the numbers as well (ie: less dependency on the user hardware, which means user satisfaction is more important), especially since tightly controlled (by IT) environments running specific applications tend to be viewed more favorably viewed its just "an app" not their work environment.
In short, its a combination of a LOT of variables that is driving the TCO to favour macs.
Security has always been paid lip service because everyone assumes "it won't happen to me" until it does.. so its very difficult to get a CEO to sign off on a few thousand dollars on something that MAY happen (ironically they will purchase insurance and support contracts under the notion that IF something happens they are covered) Since I work in security and its always an issue.. the world is dangerous and since the laws allow them to, as you said.. "opps", wright off the breach as a loss on the taxes, pass on any costs incurred to the consumer, and keep on moving, there is really no incentive for them to actually DO anything.
You do realize that the single biggest complaint people have about the government is "overreach" and "too much government intrusion". So this would just put another nail in the coffin, not to mention the republicans would use it as a cudgel to complain about "the democrats are against the police and due process". Sadly we have a delicate situation that is best left to the courts because anything else is going to get politicized like mad.
And what assurances do you have that the Taxi Driver in the Cab you ordered isn't a serial rapist or murderer, or just plain nuts. At the end of the day you take your chances.. Taxi companies have more incentive to "eliminate" people because they have a limited number of slots with a large number of applicants.. Uber (and other ride sharing apps) don't exactly suffer from saturation of resources.. so their checks are nominal (they do background checks, do they ID verification).. So its quite a bit more secure than a "gypsy cab" but slightly less than a formal taxi company.
My issue with the taxi companies is their refusal to adapt and grow.. Rather than adding support (without massive surcharges) for CCs.. they fight it.. (eliminate cash from the equation and a lot of the taxi assaults and robberies go away. Rather than having a more modern booking system, they still use the old switchboard model.. Rather than using the tracking they already have on some taxis and allow it to be expanded to those requesters.. they close door it. (lets not even get into the Medallion fees, and other items)
But statistically speaking, your chances of running into a murderer driving for uber is the same as running into a murderer as a Bus Driver, or in a Bar. And as a passenger, your position is not "I'm in a taxi, I'm safe".. it should be "I'm in a strangers car, I should be mindful of the driver and my surroundings". Now when robotic (non human) taxis come about, then get cozy.. (I welcome our robotic overlords.. because humans are just problematic) but until that time, stop worrying about a few bad apples when these same bad apples can/do exist in other transportation options (except air).. and I should point out.. MOST of the danger is NOT from the Driver.. its the passengers.. Taxi Driver have the highest murder/death rate of any profession.
1: A CEO’s role (in a publicly traded firm) is to MAKE MONEY.. Jobs just happen to be incidental to that. (ie: we need to expand, and we can’t automate everything.. or the cost to automate would be too high, so we hire people... but if we can get them cheaper, lets do so.. which includes H1B’s, chopping salaries as much as possible, and in the case of Donald.. constant law suits and stiffing those he has a financial obligation to). The president is beholden to the ENTIRE country.. both the big and the small.. and in some cases, can't just abort/reverse course on the military/economic actions of his predecessors.
I’m not trying to sway anything here, but lets be realistic.. its not like the clock resets when a new president enters the office.. and almost NO president has ever “immediately reversed course” from an action of his predecessor.. most roll with the punches, work around it, or let it expire/laps
2: A CEO has (as much as Labor/OSHA laws and other legal/industry rules allow) total control over the a wide number of factors.. however they seldom have direct control over their customers choosing their business.. they can market/advertise/lobby.. but at the of the day, they are beholden to a customer that can be fickle. The president has, in the actual world, very little power.. he can suggest, propose, pen, even push bills through executive order.. but ultimately its going to come down to the Senate and Congress (and in the case of executive order, Judicial review on even if he CAN do that) So the president in most cases is a figure head.. or the king in chess, the most critical piece, but certainly NOT the most powerful.
Oh my goodness.. can people really be this stupid.
No where in the article (I know.. READING THE ARTICLE.. what a concept?) did they say anything about moving "negative" or "critical" comments to the president. They removed "abusive" and "hateful" speech..
There is a difference between someone saying "Your policies are the worst and taking the country into the toilet" vs. "you f**king ni**er c**t, just die why don't you" One is being critical and complaining about the president.. and one is just plain rude and something most sane people would never say to someone's face. You can be negative and critical all day long (which is good when its what you believe) and one is just plain hateful and serves little purpose other than ratcheting up the "meanness" of the country.
Depending on where he is.. and the distance to the hospital.. waiting for an ambulance may be the difference of life and death.. remember, they have to GET you.. load and assess you, and then transport you. Vs.. if you have a vehicle that is quasi-automatic... you can cut at least half of that by heading to the hospital yourself.
I find it amusing that everyone wants to burn Tesla for theoretical problems.. (the hack as an example) but the reality is, NO system is perfect.. and so long as improvements are being made.. its fine.. its listed as a "beta feature that should not be enabled unless you know all the ramifications" after all. I'm not going to entrust my entire life to it.. but turning it on highway driving with minimal obstacles, road condition changes, and people... is perfectly safe.
Now if they said: "Its 100% safe with no possibility of something unexpected happening" then there is news.. but they have never once said that.
The terminals in the US can support Chip and Pin.. its the cards issued that lack the encryption (ie: no pin to decrypt the contents).. so its essentially replacing a easily copied mag stripe with a more difficult still relatively easy chip tech.. the entire point of the PIN is to encrypt the card contents. It would have made more sense to get everyone on Chip and Pin (hey, you are transitioning anyway.. just bite the bullet and go all the way... but somehow the US still ended up with a crappy system.
Most of the speed issues in the US stem from the card terminals support chip, but they take longer because they first attempt a "decrypt", which fails, then it falls back to clear code.. then you add this that its being processed at the Register, not the Card Reader. the Card reader is quick, but they moved the "processing" into the POS which is slower because its converting it back into the data stream that the old mag stripe had.
In short.. crap or get off the pot.. commit to Chip and Pin or don't.. the half-assed solution is what is pissing off people.
Patents that are recognized in China only.. if they sue T-mobile in the US courts for a patent the US doesn't recognize then it opens the books to tons of other copy-cat law suits over similar things.. (hey.. China has a patent on sneezing.. you can't get it in the US, but we can sue to in the US for using our patent).
Precisely my point, there is NO point in history that the relinquishing of such rights has EVER led to something good, no matter how much "sweet talk" they cover it with.
I highly doubt they talk to real people.. I think the people they talk with are the ones that reinforce their beliefs, not both sides.. But they don't... its purely a numbers game to them.. ("Lets see, the people that are all in favour for surveillance are also big gun enthusiasts.. and the NRA can fund me (plus those that are wealthy in that same camp".. so I will kis.. errr.. I mean "support their position as it happens to coincide with my beliefs".)
I work in government and I can't tell you the number of times I've spoken with people that have never even READ the bills they "support".
In short, the answer to your question is no.. they don't talk to REAL people.. they talk to lobbyists and pollsters (which present skewed data for whatever agenda they are pushing this week)..
But that's just the thing.. what he said is not stupid.. At best its poor timing, and at worst, he needed to frame it and put a different spin on it so people understand what he means.
You may not like it, or even agree with it, but I think his point is, not EVERYONE involved and on the mailing list agrees (or condones) the methods used, even if they agree with the sentiment. (for example, I HATE the TSA.. I'm not going to go bomb buildings or even agree those that do, but I agree with the sentiments of those that want to see it dismantled/tossed in the rubbish bin).. Does that mean that if someone DOES do that, I condone it.. of course not. But the problem is, this is a very emotional topic and what everyone seems to want is blood rather than using some clear and rational thinking to figure out how to end this without becoming the enemy (which will NEVER end)
You must be a manager that believes every second a person is not at their desk hacking a away a problem is "lost productivity"... rather than accepting the notion that sometimes, stepping away from a problem SOLVES the problem..
#1: These women are not just randomly walking around interrupting everyone's day.. they are in the breakrooms and company sponsored events.. (no different than most other companies, other than the fact that, THAT is their job)
#2: It offers the mental break I mentioned, which shows that long term you are MORE productive, because your output is higher quality.
Of course will have some people that abuse it and slack off (like ANYTHING).. you feed them, and some people will spend more time eating than doing work. You give them a bathroom, and some people will spend more time using it than their work.. but the majority see it for what it is.. a tool to help bring LIFE back into the "factory floor" and lets them focus on the job rather than worry about all the other things that we do think about (ie: where to eat, where/if I can poo, and in the case of this example, my life is depressing because I ONLY work)
Again, cracking the whip on everyone is not going to make EVERYONE more productive. And it sounds like for YOU, its a distraction (because you want to view it as such).. And I bet very much you are the sort that can't work at home because of "the distractions".
The issue here is not tolerant meaning not trying to offend anyone, because that is an impossible task. (ex: I wear a red tie today, and the women in the elevator says the red tie OFFENDS her.. (its a freaking colour).. but rather trying to be more understanding of the other side that is expressing their individuality (ex: rather than taking offense at again, my colour tie, especially where no offense was given, or even implied, instead choosing to recognize it is in fact, just a TIE, part of any normal apparel by any human, and not look for offense where none in given. If I personally knew the person, or red was culturally insensitive (again, known) then perhaps a slight offense could be claimed.
The issue with this situation is people are getting offended by a cultural difference that does not subject these people to any degradation or offense. (other than what we, the outsiders) want to attach. I think many people said it here already, in most work places (even those outside of china), the mindset is "I don't care about your life, I wand productivity.. work harder or you are fired".. but what some people fail to recognize is programming is an art, and you can write junk code (functional but non elegant which requires more work down the line (QA, bug fixes, etc..) or elegant code.. and yes.. mood and life does enter into it by being inspired).
Simply (as some have suggested).. hire more females to program doesn't turn anyone instantly from shy to outgoing, especially if there is no assistance on HOW to interact. (and the same is true for females as well).. I've worked in programming shops in Japan (some where the ratios have been 60/40 (yes, still higher men than women).. but in ALL cases, both groups were afraid to talk with each other for fear of one, making an faux pas, or worse, an embarrassing mistake which might cost them their job.
The purpose of these "cheerleaders" is to one, break the cycle of monotony.. (yes, it can get dull hacking out code, especially if you are a grunt), two, allow these people (some of who spend 80 - 90% of their lives at work) a chance at a break, and allow them to incorporate some social norms back into their lives without fear of retribution and education. Or to put it another way.. the socially awkward geek(s) gets connected with the socially adept socialite in order to learn how to be cool (ie: almost every teen flick in the past 30 years). Virtually EVERY study indicates a happy employee is a productive employee. (why do you think Google, or Microsoft, etc... all spend so much on employee perks (food, social gatherings, etc..) these are all to bring some normality back into their lives, to forge better team bonding, and for those that are shy a chance to interact in a socially prescribed way that does not require them to use skills they may not have or suck at.
And for those that are arguing these women are being hired SOLELY on their looks, that is not always the case.. yes, their looks are part of the equation.. but their ability to help these folks out of their shells, and in effect become a "Cheerleader" is also a factor.. (not every "hot girl" off the street is going to qualify because they lack the temperament and skills to help others.
flying cars or Mr. Fusion doesn't have a major financial incentive or even a humanitarian one. Those are purely convenience items, so couple that with regulation red-tape and high cost (never mind the technical aspects), and they won't happen anytime soon.. Self-driving cars on the other hand has one very big push.. the car manufactures don't loose out.. if anything they gain access to a new market segment (time shares, rentals, people who don't drive for many reasons (physical or psychological)), that gives them a vested interest in seeing this tech go live.. because the more cars on the road, the more the car manufactures can potentially make. Plus they have a almost built in obsolescence plan (hey, when it becomes required, you HAVE to buy/rent/time slice a "compatible" car).. A good well-maintained "manual" car can run almost forever (there are no requirements to upgrade its safety features if it didn't have it originally and assuming it complies to all current "road worthy" tests).. but when this comes out, you can bet you will have the same upgrading effect that the smartphone industry has.
In short, its a money game. And where there is money to be gained,, the tech will move.
I expect to see more "monitoring" of cars then.. Oh, you shifted to "manual" for a few hours, that is going to cost you extra.. the base rate I suspect will be around the best human statistical rate, and then go up from there (despite the fact that the claims should be substantially lower).. ie: once again, the consumer gets screwed. I am hoping that when self-driving cars hit critical mass insurance becomes more of an option rather than a requirement (like the extended warranty from Best Buy, you can opt out, but if something happens, well, woe be unto you for opting out).. but I doubt it.
True self-driving cars are actually here.. the problem they are dealing with is not the road, its the "transition period" that is the risk (where 90% (and hopefully falling) of the cars that are driven by humans AND computers. I'm positive that the computers can drive on their own (google has already proven that).. but dealing with the other people on the road that are doing who knows what, and may or may not obay the rules of the road + the weather conditions = a bit challenge. The more self-driving cars are used, the easier the problem gets (weather is relatively easy to work around (from a software perspective) because relative to the computer it is slow to change. People... well, I can't even trust my bank to apply credit card points correctly on their own card..
In the words of Futurama: "My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster". That is really the only freedom you have.
Slashdot Mirror
As secretary of state, her role/and duty is very specific, IE: outward.. and as a senator, she can try to effect change in her state.. but the reality is the nature of the US governent is you can't wave a hand and make ANYTHING happen. Heck, you can't even get 3 people in the same room that LIKE each other to agree on where to eat lunch.. try it with several hundred people that have their own agendas and some of which are just plain.. I won't work with you because I'm running later and I'm on the other team.
Politics WORKS when people put others (the masses) interests first and their own second.. but that is NEVER how it actually works.. and its only gotten worse over the last 10-11 years.
The US is a CAPITALISTIC democratically elected (Theoretically) Republic.. so if you argument is CAPITALISTS are the issue, then I suggest you toss your hat in the ring for Communism or Monarchy or whatever else you want to use. In a capitalist society, their notion of every man for himself has always been at the crux of it.. heck, half the people voting for Trump like him because they feel he is the very embodiment of capitalism and as such, any actions are first and foremost for him.. (and if it happens to help you too, then.. "yeah, I meant to do that".)
And you think this is going to help anyone?
He imposes a tax as a retaliation.. The automakers then just jack their rates to compensate.. it makes foreign makers (honda, toyota, etc..) more attractive since they already have better reliability, reputation, and a better ROI.. and now you add price to the equation..
So ultimately you benefit others..
The classes that CAN afford the car will make their decisions based on price.. the wealthy don't care (but are often not GM/Ford buyers anyway), the poor get screwed because where they COULD have afforded a car are now defiantly going to shift their purchasing to others (or just not purchase).. again, hurting the bottom line which will encourage more automation (reducing headcount which the largest reason for manufacturing jobs gone) and just normal head count reductions. The companies won't die because they can/will sell to other countries, but if it becomes less attractive to sell to the US, then they will evaluate their ROI and shift accordingly..(sell higher value cars and vacate the "economy" car market.. think IBM's departure of the laptop/PC market.. the margins are not worth their time.. so others (Lenovo) can deal with it because they operate with a lower operating cost (china), and many many other companies that have vacated their markets because operating in the US is less attractive (tax wise and regulation/rule wise).
At the end of the day, people tend to forget there are no easy/simple answers to these sorts of problems and its very much a matter of doing a little to help, but not so much that you stifle or kill an industry.
That and the fact that he's unstable.. Yes he will go through most of his aides.. but his public (internal meaning US) communications will undermine any attempts he does via his aides. Given 95% of the world didn't even think he win, and reject him.. And the only people that are voting for rooting for trump (outside the US) are nationalists, isolationists and communists is quite telling (none of who have the best interests of the US as a goal).
I'm glad I emigrated from the US in time.. and took my 20 companies (and assets) and family out of the US in time. (upside we made a fortune selling short)
I hope everyone gets EXACTLY what they voted for.. (which they will).. Trump most definitely will be an agent of change.. but its the case of the wish granting genie.. you got what you wished, just not in the way you wanted or the desired outcome.
Best of luck folks.
Crooked you know what to expect, even if you don't like it.. Crazy... well, you just don't know.. and its not like you can "return" him after 15-30 days.. you are stuck with him for 4 years and the fall out from that forever.
If you read it.. it mentions this little thing called TCO (Total cost of Ownership).. which is not JUST the device (laptop or desktop) or Tech Support its:
Hardware (and the replacement cycle) - Macs tend to be replaced less often
Support - Mac's tend to work.. less options/features but for office workers, they use their 2 - 3 applications + email (most of which these days are more web based), not to mention manufacture support. This is a big number depending on the size of the organization.
Software costs - A lot of full functioning software comes with OSX, vs. quite a lot in the windows world are add-ons (ie: cost)
Backend management costs - This is another big cost, but a LOT of package deployment tools, management/monitoring of the hardware, etc... all these things drive up the TCO.
and a lot of others.. all these variables add up.. and depending on the use case makes a strong argument for OSX. It doesn't work in all cases (hey, you are using a windows only app that is core for your business.. not much you can do other than run Windows.. adding VDI/Virtualization drives up cost/complexity).. But again, if you are deploying VDI enmass, then this can impact the numbers as well (ie: less dependency on the user hardware, which means user satisfaction is more important), especially since tightly controlled (by IT) environments running specific applications tend to be viewed more favorably viewed its just "an app" not their work environment.
In short, its a combination of a LOT of variables that is driving the TCO to favour macs.
Security has always been paid lip service because everyone assumes "it won't happen to me" until it does.. so its very difficult to get a CEO to sign off on a few thousand dollars on something that MAY happen (ironically they will purchase insurance and support contracts under the notion that IF something happens they are covered) Since I work in security and its always an issue.. the world is dangerous and since the laws allow them to, as you said.. "opps", wright off the breach as a loss on the taxes, pass on any costs incurred to the consumer, and keep on moving, there is really no incentive for them to actually DO anything.
You do realize that the single biggest complaint people have about the government is "overreach" and "too much government intrusion". So this would just put another nail in the coffin, not to mention the republicans would use it as a cudgel to complain about "the democrats are against the police and due process". Sadly we have a delicate situation that is best left to the courts because anything else is going to get politicized like mad.
Oh I don't know.. why not.. its not like anyone hasn't done that with chicken before.
And what assurances do you have that the Taxi Driver in the Cab you ordered isn't a serial rapist or murderer, or just plain nuts. At the end of the day you take your chances.. Taxi companies have more incentive to "eliminate" people because they have a limited number of slots with a large number of applicants.. Uber (and other ride sharing apps) don't exactly suffer from saturation of resources.. so their checks are nominal (they do background checks, do they ID verification).. So its quite a bit more secure than a "gypsy cab" but slightly less than a formal taxi company.
My issue with the taxi companies is their refusal to adapt and grow.. Rather than adding support (without massive surcharges) for CCs.. they fight it.. (eliminate cash from the equation and a lot of the taxi assaults and robberies go away. Rather than having a more modern booking system, they still use the old switchboard model.. Rather than using the tracking they already have on some taxis and allow it to be expanded to those requesters.. they close door it. (lets not even get into the Medallion fees, and other items)
But statistically speaking, your chances of running into a murderer driving for uber is the same as running into a murderer as a Bus Driver, or in a Bar. And as a passenger, your position is not "I'm in a taxi, I'm safe".. it should be "I'm in a strangers car, I should be mindful of the driver and my surroundings". Now when robotic (non human) taxis come about, then get cozy.. (I welcome our robotic overlords.. because humans are just problematic) but until that time, stop worrying about a few bad apples when these same bad apples can/do exist in other transportation options (except air).. and I should point out.. MOST of the danger is NOT from the Driver.. its the passengers.. Taxi Driver have the highest murder/death rate of any profession.
Let’s set the facts straight.
1: A CEO’s role (in a publicly traded firm) is to MAKE MONEY.. Jobs just happen to be incidental to that. (ie: we need to expand, and we can’t automate everything.. or the cost to automate would be too high, so we hire people... but if we can get them cheaper, lets do so.. which includes H1B’s, chopping salaries as much as possible, and in the case of Donald.. constant law suits and stiffing those he has a financial obligation to). The president is beholden to the ENTIRE country.. both the big and the small.. and in some cases, can't just abort/reverse course on the military/economic actions of his predecessors.
I’m not trying to sway anything here, but lets be realistic.. its not like the clock resets when a new president enters the office.. and almost NO president has ever “immediately reversed course” from an action of his predecessor.. most roll with the punches, work around it, or let it expire/laps
2: A CEO has (as much as Labor/OSHA laws and other legal/industry rules allow) total control over the a wide number of factors.. however they seldom have direct control over their customers choosing their business.. they can market/advertise/lobby.. but at the of the day, they are beholden to a customer that can be fickle. The president has, in the actual world, very little power.. he can suggest, propose, pen, even push bills through executive order.. but ultimately its going to come down to the Senate and Congress (and in the case of executive order, Judicial review on even if he CAN do that) So the president in most cases is a figure head.. or the king in chess, the most critical piece, but certainly NOT the most powerful.
Now on to your "sucking up to Terrorist Bill Ayers" comment. Well, that's just not even remotely true and certainly shows a lack of reading/wanting to understand the facts. So I would suggest some homework. Perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... and even http://www.snopes.com/politics....
And finally the whole "Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright", again, I refer you to some homework: http://www.politifact.com/pund..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh my goodness.. can people really be this stupid.
No where in the article (I know.. READING THE ARTICLE.. what a concept?) did they say anything about moving "negative" or "critical" comments to the president. They removed "abusive" and "hateful" speech..
There is a difference between someone saying "Your policies are the worst and taking the country into the toilet" vs. "you f**king ni**er c**t, just die why don't you" One is being critical and complaining about the president.. and one is just plain rude and something most sane people would never say to someone's face. You can be negative and critical all day long (which is good when its what you believe) and one is just plain hateful and serves little purpose other than ratcheting up the "meanness" of the country.
Depending on where he is.. and the distance to the hospital.. waiting for an ambulance may be the difference of life and death.. remember, they have to GET you.. load and assess you, and then transport you. Vs.. if you have a vehicle that is quasi-automatic... you can cut at least half of that by heading to the hospital yourself.
I find it amusing that everyone wants to burn Tesla for theoretical problems.. (the hack as an example) but the reality is, NO system is perfect.. and so long as improvements are being made.. its fine.. its listed as a "beta feature that should not be enabled unless you know all the ramifications" after all. I'm not going to entrust my entire life to it.. but turning it on highway driving with minimal obstacles, road condition changes, and people... is perfectly safe.
Now if they said: "Its 100% safe with no possibility of something unexpected happening" then there is news.. but they have never once said that.
The terminals in the US can support Chip and Pin.. its the cards issued that lack the encryption (ie: no pin to decrypt the contents).. so its essentially replacing a easily copied mag stripe with a more difficult still relatively easy chip tech.. the entire point of the PIN is to encrypt the card contents. It would have made more sense to get everyone on Chip and Pin (hey, you are transitioning anyway.. just bite the bullet and go all the way... but somehow the US still ended up with a crappy system.
Most of the speed issues in the US stem from the card terminals support chip, but they take longer because they first attempt a "decrypt", which fails, then it falls back to clear code.. then you add this that its being processed at the Register, not the Card Reader. the Card reader is quick, but they moved the "processing" into the POS which is slower because its converting it back into the data stream that the old mag stripe had.
In short.. crap or get off the pot.. commit to Chip and Pin or don't.. the half-assed solution is what is pissing off people.
This is commonly referred to as a test case..
Patents that are recognized in China only.. if they sue T-mobile in the US courts for a patent the US doesn't recognize then it opens the books to tons of other copy-cat law suits over similar things.. (hey.. China has a patent on sneezing.. you can't get it in the US, but we can sue to in the US for using our patent).
Precisely my point, there is NO point in history that the relinquishing of such rights has EVER led to something good, no matter how much "sweet talk" they cover it with.
I highly doubt they talk to real people.. I think the people they talk with are the ones that reinforce their beliefs, not both sides.. But they don't... its purely a numbers game to them.. ("Lets see, the people that are all in favour for surveillance are also big gun enthusiasts.. and the NRA can fund me (plus those that are wealthy in that same camp".. so I will kis.. errr.. I mean "support their position as it happens to coincide with my beliefs".)
I work in government and I can't tell you the number of times I've spoken with people that have never even READ the bills they "support".
In short, the answer to your question is no.. they don't talk to REAL people.. they talk to lobbyists and pollsters (which present skewed data for whatever agenda they are pushing this week)..
But that's just the thing.. what he said is not stupid.. At best its poor timing, and at worst, he needed to frame it and put a different spin on it so people understand what he means.
You may not like it, or even agree with it, but I think his point is, not EVERYONE involved and on the mailing list agrees (or condones) the methods used, even if they agree with the sentiment. (for example, I HATE the TSA.. I'm not going to go bomb buildings or even agree those that do, but I agree with the sentiments of those that want to see it dismantled/tossed in the rubbish bin).. Does that mean that if someone DOES do that, I condone it.. of course not. But the problem is, this is a very emotional topic and what everyone seems to want is blood rather than using some clear and rational thinking to figure out how to end this without becoming the enemy (which will NEVER end)
How are you arriving at that conclusion..
You must be a manager that believes every second a person is not at their desk hacking a away a problem is "lost productivity"... rather than accepting the notion that sometimes, stepping away from a problem SOLVES the problem..
#1: These women are not just randomly walking around interrupting everyone's day.. they are in the breakrooms and company sponsored events.. (no different than most other companies, other than the fact that, THAT is their job)
#2: It offers the mental break I mentioned, which shows that long term you are MORE productive, because your output is higher quality.
Of course will have some people that abuse it and slack off (like ANYTHING).. you feed them, and some people will spend more time eating than doing work. You give them a bathroom, and some people will spend more time using it than their work.. but the majority see it for what it is.. a tool to help bring LIFE back into the "factory floor" and lets them focus on the job rather than worry about all the other things that we do think about (ie: where to eat, where/if I can poo, and in the case of this example, my life is depressing because I ONLY work)
Again, cracking the whip on everyone is not going to make EVERYONE more productive. And it sounds like for YOU, its a distraction (because you want to view it as such).. And I bet very much you are the sort that can't work at home because of "the distractions".
The issue here is not tolerant meaning not trying to offend anyone, because that is an impossible task. (ex: I wear a red tie today, and the women in the elevator says the red tie OFFENDS her.. (its a freaking colour).. but rather trying to be more understanding of the other side that is expressing their individuality (ex: rather than taking offense at again, my colour tie, especially where no offense was given, or even implied, instead choosing to recognize it is in fact, just a TIE, part of any normal apparel by any human, and not look for offense where none in given. If I personally knew the person, or red was culturally insensitive (again, known) then perhaps a slight offense could be claimed.
The issue with this situation is people are getting offended by a cultural difference that does not subject these people to any degradation or offense. (other than what we, the outsiders) want to attach. I think many people said it here already, in most work places (even those outside of china), the mindset is "I don't care about your life, I wand productivity.. work harder or you are fired".. but what some people fail to recognize is programming is an art, and you can write junk code (functional but non elegant which requires more work down the line (QA, bug fixes, etc..) or elegant code.. and yes.. mood and life does enter into it by being inspired).
Simply (as some have suggested).. hire more females to program doesn't turn anyone instantly from shy to outgoing, especially if there is no assistance on HOW to interact. (and the same is true for females as well).. I've worked in programming shops in Japan (some where the ratios have been 60/40 (yes, still higher men than women).. but in ALL cases, both groups were afraid to talk with each other for fear of one, making an faux pas, or worse, an embarrassing mistake which might cost them their job.
The purpose of these "cheerleaders" is to one, break the cycle of monotony.. (yes, it can get dull hacking out code, especially if you are a grunt), two, allow these people (some of who spend 80 - 90% of their lives at work) a chance at a break, and allow them to incorporate some social norms back into their lives without fear of retribution and education. Or to put it another way.. the socially awkward geek(s) gets connected with the socially adept socialite in order to learn how to be cool (ie: almost every teen flick in the past 30 years). Virtually EVERY study indicates a happy employee is a productive employee. (why do you think Google, or Microsoft, etc... all spend so much on employee perks (food, social gatherings, etc..) these are all to bring some normality back into their lives, to forge better team bonding, and for those that are shy a chance to interact in a socially prescribed way that does not require them to use skills they may not have or suck at.
And for those that are arguing these women are being hired SOLELY on their looks, that is not always the case.. yes, their looks are part of the equation.. but their ability to help these folks out of their shells, and in effect become a "Cheerleader" is also a factor.. (not every "hot girl" off the street is going to qualify because they lack the temperament and skills to help others.
flying cars or Mr. Fusion doesn't have a major financial incentive or even a humanitarian one. Those are purely convenience items, so couple that with regulation red-tape and high cost (never mind the technical aspects), and they won't happen anytime soon.. Self-driving cars on the other hand has one very big push.. the car manufactures don't loose out.. if anything they gain access to a new market segment (time shares, rentals, people who don't drive for many reasons (physical or psychological)), that gives them a vested interest in seeing this tech go live.. because the more cars on the road, the more the car manufactures can potentially make. Plus they have a almost built in obsolescence plan (hey, when it becomes required, you HAVE to buy/rent/time slice a "compatible" car).. A good well-maintained "manual" car can run almost forever (there are no requirements to upgrade its safety features if it didn't have it originally and assuming it complies to all current "road worthy" tests).. but when this comes out, you can bet you will have the same upgrading effect that the smartphone industry has.
In short, its a money game. And where there is money to be gained,, the tech will move.
I expect to see more "monitoring" of cars then.. Oh, you shifted to "manual" for a few hours, that is going to cost you extra.. the base rate I suspect will be around the best human statistical rate, and then go up from there (despite the fact that the claims should be substantially lower).. ie: once again, the consumer gets screwed. I am hoping that when self-driving cars hit critical mass insurance becomes more of an option rather than a requirement (like the extended warranty from Best Buy, you can opt out, but if something happens, well, woe be unto you for opting out).. but I doubt it.
True self-driving cars are actually here.. the problem they are dealing with is not the road, its the "transition period" that is the risk (where 90% (and hopefully falling) of the cars that are driven by humans AND computers. I'm positive that the computers can drive on their own (google has already proven that).. but dealing with the other people on the road that are doing who knows what, and may or may not obay the rules of the road + the weather conditions = a bit challenge. The more self-driving cars are used, the easier the problem gets (weather is relatively easy to work around (from a software perspective) because relative to the computer it is slow to change. People... well, I can't even trust my bank to apply credit card points correctly on their own card..
In the words of Futurama: "My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster". That is really the only freedom you have.