When both parties work together toward a common goal, we can put a man on the moon.
When both parties work against each other, and try to stop each other every step of the way purely for their own political agenda, we can't even launch a damn website.
When party A thinks what party B did was an extremely bad idea and very harmful to the country, is it logical or even realistic to expect it just to shrug its shoulders and help out?
If people can't tell if something is red vs pink vs brown vs green, then if this goes into widespread use where they have to be able to distinguish colors in order to answer the questions, they'll be screwed.
... is "the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers". Switch sellers to employers and prices to wages, and you've got what this agreement is, and it should be just as illegal.
They can give them to organizations that accept bitcoins as donations. I don't think that they will pick Wikileaks, the Pirate Party, or even free software with focus in privacy, but i.e. Khan Academy or Sugar Labs are good neutral enough candidates that even they can agree that could give a good use to that donation..
Unless Congress does it, that's called a "gift of public funds" and is, for obvious reasons, illegal.
A more interesting question is why many of the major beltway tech companies one would expect to find attached to a huge government tech project aren't present. My suspicion is that when they saw the specs (or maybe the lack or vagueness of them) and the due date, they declined to participate.
Personally, I'm not that bothered by teething problems. Plenty of sites have experienced them. Yes, there are many ways they could have been avoided, but they weren't, and they will undoubtedl be fixed.
Even assuming that to be true, fixed by when? The law has hard-coded dates in it, and insurers have vast sums at stake predicated on the numbers and types of people signing up, the premiums they'll get, and the subsidies they'll receive. If things slip, lawsuits will fly and it's logical to assume that taxpayers will be on the hook for damages. Not to mention the people who are losing their coverage at work who were expecting to be able to sign up via the exchanges. This disaster has knock-on effects that will resonate thru all sectors of the economy and society, and to call them 'teething problems' is far too dismissive.
.... that this kind of dependence on government funding means that government will increasingly assert control over where and how research will be conducted in the future, and how (or whether) results will be reported? If your project's existence depends on a particular paymaster, are you really going to jeopardize it by angering him? Maybe you're okay with the present party in power, but if you give government this kind of control over your funding, sooner or later people with opposing ideas are going to be in charge and will use those same levers in ways you won't be happy with.
I asked it, "What color is your dog?" and it responded, "That would depend, as a dog can be many colours." Looks like the Turing Test passage is a ways off.
If you want an example of how getting a reputation for even the potential of embedded backdoors in your products can bite you, recall the ban imposed on Huawei network products by the US and Australia's National Broadcast Network. These revelations about the NSA's activities and US companies who roll over for them will definitely hurt sales of US products. I'll bet there are some marketing campaigns already being mulled over that would say, "Unlike our US competition, we aren't subject to demands from the NSA, and if they ever approach us, we'll tell them where to stick it." At least, that's what I'd be considering if I were a foreign telecom manufacturer.
With each new story on this or that problem with implementing some part of the Affordable Care Act, and given how the various parts of it interlocked to keep it from breaking down, I just get the impression that there's going to be chaos when it really gets going. Assuming that it's allowed to. At some point maybe everyone agrees that it's not implementable in its present form, like one of those gigantic software projects that crashes to the ground because it was ill-conceived to begin with and nobody can figure out how to make it work.
However, public broadcaster SWF quoted unnamed sources as saying that the two were studying aeronautics in Stuttgart and were suspected of trying to develop techniques for remotely piloting model planes using GPS technology.
This is how bureaucrats try to connote that a report is riddled with errors, falsehoods, and bad conclusions, without actually saying that. They can't say it because it isn't true, so they have to tap dance around that inconvenient fact by saying a report is 'inaccurate'. 'Inaccuracy' could easily refer to misspellings of people's names, dates off by a day, typos, etc. Unless he says exactly what he's talking about, it's reasonable to assume he's just trying to obfuscate.
... costs a lot less than $280k. It barely costs 1/5th of that, and schools tend to treat PhD students as if they have all the time in the world. This company needs a better pitch line than telling us that it saves a grad student two years of work.
How about this for a pitch: "You're welcome to build your own damned robot if you don't want to pay our price."
Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow...
Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.
It will happen no matter what, but they need an excuse and this is a great one. If you notice how our privacy has been eroded, it generally comes in jumps after big some traumatic event hits the news. Kind of the same way a boa constrictor suffocates you, by tightening each time you exhale. Getting people in a lather about printed firearms being smuggled aboard aircraft or into secure areas would be the opportunity to tighten.
He'd probably do more good by funding a troop of auditors to go over the books of the project and investigators to turn over every rock regarding who's getting paid off and by whom. Just knowing that somebody's scrutinizing every invoice, payment, contract, and load of asphalt delivered would probably build a fire. Then there's the tried-and-true method of making a raft of campaign donations to the politicians involved.
How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?'
There's the real reason. Schmidt is afraid of techno-paparazzi catching him hunting H1B visa holders on his mansion grounds.
This brings to mind something else I've been wondering lately. Are the new electric meters that are going in capable of disconnecting service by remote command? If so, I'd think that would be an even jucier target for hacker disruption.
It just sounds like he, in fact, got pissed off and pulled the plug, and is now trying to justify the decision. Unless he has some sort of contract that says that he is personally guaranteeing appearance fees, travel costs, etc, it's hard to believe that he was particularly endangered by a Twitter controversy.
Isn't an organizer on the hook for the costs? If one or more participants pulled out, wouldn't he risk coming up short and having to personally eat whatever shortfall resulted?
I wouldn't blame him for a "rage quit" in any case. It must be hard enough to organize something like this without having diversity hustlers horn in, saying that you have to have a certain number of people with the right look (external appearance being what's used to classify race).
Yeah, blame it on the union, when in reality it was the executives who looted the company to death and asked the workers to foot the bill. It was intentional mismanagement, and the executives belong in prison.
No, it's not just the gross numbers and how much the raises would cost the company in dollars, but also in morale. Do you think the workers morale and trust in the company improved when they found out high level executives were getting raises while their pay was being cut? Even if they have minimal fiscal impact, they have symbolic impact that affects the outcome of worker actions.
And how is their morale and trust doing today, particularly with their union? I wonder how this would have gone down if the Bakers Union members had been allowed a secret vote instead of their leadership simply folding their arms and refusing to deal.
If you must give them the final version in component form for some reason, how about reducing its scale so that they'd have to seriously enlarge and degrade it in order to produce the required final result?
Slashdot Mirror
When both parties work together toward a common goal, we can put a man on the moon.
When both parties work against each other, and try to stop each other every step of the way purely for their own political agenda, we can't even launch a damn website.
When party A thinks what party B did was an extremely bad idea and very harmful to the country, is it logical or even realistic to expect it just to shrug its shoulders and help out?
If people can't tell if something is red vs pink vs brown vs green, then if this goes into widespread use where they have to be able to distinguish colors in order to answer the questions, they'll be screwed.
... is "the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers". Switch sellers to employers and prices to wages, and you've got what this agreement is, and it should be just as illegal.
They can give them to organizations that accept bitcoins as donations. I don't think that they will pick Wikileaks, the Pirate Party, or even free software with focus in privacy, but i.e. Khan Academy or Sugar Labs are good neutral enough candidates that even they can agree that could give a good use to that donation..
Unless Congress does it, that's called a "gift of public funds" and is, for obvious reasons, illegal.
This statement may be an oversimplification, but "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later". The application in this case would be, why didn't they have enough workers on the project to begin with?
A more interesting question is why many of the major beltway tech companies one would expect to find attached to a huge government tech project aren't present. My suspicion is that when they saw the specs (or maybe the lack or vagueness of them) and the due date, they declined to participate.
Personally, I'm not that bothered by teething problems. Plenty of sites have experienced them. Yes, there are many ways they could have been avoided, but they weren't, and they will undoubtedl be fixed.
Even assuming that to be true, fixed by when? The law has hard-coded dates in it, and insurers have vast sums at stake predicated on the numbers and types of people signing up, the premiums they'll get, and the subsidies they'll receive. If things slip, lawsuits will fly and it's logical to assume that taxpayers will be on the hook for damages. Not to mention the people who are losing their coverage at work who were expecting to be able to sign up via the exchanges. This disaster has knock-on effects that will resonate thru all sectors of the economy and society, and to call them 'teething problems' is far too dismissive.
.... that this kind of dependence on government funding means that government will increasingly assert control over where and how research will be conducted in the future, and how (or whether) results will be reported? If your project's existence depends on a particular paymaster, are you really going to jeopardize it by angering him? Maybe you're okay with the present party in power, but if you give government this kind of control over your funding, sooner or later people with opposing ideas are going to be in charge and will use those same levers in ways you won't be happy with.
Which chapters have the embedded NSA trapdoors?
I asked it, "What color is your dog?" and it responded, "That would depend, as a dog can be many colours." Looks like the Turing Test passage is a ways off.
If you want an example of how getting a reputation for even the potential of embedded backdoors in your products can bite you, recall the ban imposed on Huawei network products by the US and Australia's National Broadcast Network. These revelations about the NSA's activities and US companies who roll over for them will definitely hurt sales of US products. I'll bet there are some marketing campaigns already being mulled over that would say, "Unlike our US competition, we aren't subject to demands from the NSA, and if they ever approach us, we'll tell them where to stick it." At least, that's what I'd be considering if I were a foreign telecom manufacturer.
With each new story on this or that problem with implementing some part of the Affordable Care Act, and given how the various parts of it interlocked to keep it from breaking down, I just get the impression that there's going to be chaos when it really gets going. Assuming that it's allowed to. At some point maybe everyone agrees that it's not implementable in its present form, like one of those gigantic software projects that crashes to the ground because it was ill-conceived to begin with and nobody can figure out how to make it work.
However, public broadcaster SWF quoted unnamed sources as saying that the two were studying aeronautics in Stuttgart and were suspected of trying to develop techniques for remotely piloting model planes using GPS technology.
What, they couldn't find DIY Drones?
This is how bureaucrats try to connote that a report is riddled with errors, falsehoods, and bad conclusions, without actually saying that. They can't say it because it isn't true, so they have to tap dance around that inconvenient fact by saying a report is 'inaccurate'. 'Inaccuracy' could easily refer to misspellings of people's names, dates off by a day, typos, etc. Unless he says exactly what he's talking about, it's reasonable to assume he's just trying to obfuscate.
... I think it's time to bring back the concepts of privateer, and letters of marque and reprisal.
... costs a lot less than $280k. It barely costs 1/5th of that, and schools tend to treat PhD students as if they have all the time in the world. This company needs a better pitch line than telling us that it saves a grad student two years of work.
How about this for a pitch: "You're welcome to build your own damned robot if you don't want to pay our price."
It's my data, and I should be able to keep it private if I want, even if you think that's silly, immaterial, paranoid, or whatever.
Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.
It will happen no matter what, but they need an excuse and this is a great one. If you notice how our privacy has been eroded, it generally comes in jumps after big some traumatic event hits the news. Kind of the same way a boa constrictor suffocates you, by tightening each time you exhale. Getting people in a lather about printed firearms being smuggled aboard aircraft or into secure areas would be the opportunity to tighten.
He'd probably do more good by funding a troop of auditors to go over the books of the project and investigators to turn over every rock regarding who's getting paid off and by whom. Just knowing that somebody's scrutinizing every invoice, payment, contract, and load of asphalt delivered would probably build a fire. Then there's the tried-and-true method of making a raft of campaign donations to the politicians involved.
How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?'
There's the real reason. Schmidt is afraid of techno-paparazzi catching him hunting H1B visa holders on his mansion grounds.
This brings to mind something else I've been wondering lately. Are the new electric meters that are going in capable of disconnecting service by remote command? If so, I'd think that would be an even jucier target for hacker disruption.
Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now. It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.
I usually employ the standard of whether somebody is capable of making a point without resorting to profanity.
It just sounds like he, in fact, got pissed off and pulled the plug, and is now trying to justify the decision. Unless he has some sort of contract that says that he is personally guaranteeing appearance fees, travel costs, etc, it's hard to believe that he was particularly endangered by a Twitter controversy.
Isn't an organizer on the hook for the costs? If one or more participants pulled out, wouldn't he risk coming up short and having to personally eat whatever shortfall resulted?
I wouldn't blame him for a "rage quit" in any case. It must be hard enough to organize something like this without having diversity hustlers horn in, saying that you have to have a certain number of people with the right look (external appearance being what's used to classify race).
Yeah, blame it on the union, when in reality it was the executives who looted the company to death and asked the workers to foot the bill. It was intentional mismanagement, and the executives belong in prison.
So:
1. Buy company.
2. Run it into the ground
3. ???
4. Profit!
Interesting business plan.
No, it's not just the gross numbers and how much the raises would cost the company in dollars, but also in morale. Do you think the workers morale and trust in the company improved when they found out high level executives were getting raises while their pay was being cut? Even if they have minimal fiscal impact, they have symbolic impact that affects the outcome of worker actions.
And how is their morale and trust doing today, particularly with their union? I wonder how this would have gone down if the Bakers Union members had been allowed a secret vote instead of their leadership simply folding their arms and refusing to deal.
If you must give them the final version in component form for some reason, how about reducing its scale so that they'd have to seriously enlarge and degrade it in order to produce the required final result?