I'm sure it's not risky at all from an engineering perspective. Metal is predictable, and if you can predict it you can design to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses for the intended application. And if it's just not possible to make it work, the math will tell you so.
What's risky is the marketing side of it, because people are much harder to predict. If people like it, this may be a huge leg up on the competition for Ford, putting them in the driver's seat for several years while Chevy and GM play catch up, particularly if they can then lobby successfully for turning the regulatory screws on the competition. It could leave the competition having to artificially limit their sales. If people don't like it, Ford could be in a world of hurt for a few years.
If the people interviewing you are "A" players, they won't be threatened. This is the root of the old saw: 'A's hire 'A's. 'B's hire 'C's. 'B's are threatened by 'A's, and even by other 'B's, so they hire 'C's who don't threaten them. People who are at the top of their game enjoy working with similarly capable people. They aren't threatened by a challenge, they like it.
Here's the problem. Grade A people expect to do grade A work. In almost every organization there is a ton of work that doesn't fit into this category but still needs attention. Code gets old and has to be updated, and there's a ton of work that doesn't require the brightest and best but still has to be done.
"Doesn't require" isn't the same as "can't benefit from". You just need some grade A software maintainers, guys who, rather than just plodding through updating all that old code, will build tools to automate the updates, and will do it intelligently so the same tool can easily be applied to the next dozen maintenance problems as well. Code is also data.
The A players that succeed are the ones that can make their 'A' ideas useful.
No, the players that succeed are the ones that can convince their superiors that they are "A players". Most of time it's just knowing how to play office politics rather than actual merit.
Only if the superiors are the ones doing the performance evaluations. Peers are much harder to fool, especially since you need to fool all of them all of the time.
Not if your definition of an "A" player includes being really good at collaboration. If the work environment is highly collaborative, you don't really even have to specifically evaluate that aspect of individual performance... if they can't work well with others they simply won't be as effective as those who can.
"A" players need a lower paid support crew to do the simple stuff while they concentrate on the big picture. If you eliminate all the "B" players you force your highly paid "A" players to waste their expensive time doing stupid stuff- causing frustration and staff turnover.
So you hire "A"-level support staff, people who are really good at getting all of the stupid stuff out of the way. I work for Google and while I'm not going to make any claims about Google only hiring "A" players (I would probably have to consider myself a counterexample to that claim -- though a rare one, because the people I work with are great), it definitely does hire amazing support staff.
I assume by "blocking" their servers you're talking about DNS or firewall-level blocking. That's hit and miss, since it depends on you keeping up with all of the right domains/IPs. A better solution (which can be applied in addition to DNS/firewall blocking; it needn't be "instead of") is to use the opt outs that Google provides. See http://google.com/privacy/tools.
And I repeat my position, deadly force is a valid response if you come up to me and punch me in the face.
I have no idea if you are going to rob me, kill me, punch me again, maybe you think I'm sleeping with your wife, or perhaps you're insane. I know that if I don't stop you, you may well punch me again and try and kill me.
The law says that use of deadly force is "justified to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force" (emphasis mine), or one of the enumerated felonies.
You can only act to defend against deadly force, not any force. Unless the context supports the notion that a punch indicates an attempt to kill, or to commit one of the enumerated crimes, you're not justified in responding to deadly force. If someone walks up and yells "You Glasshole! I'm going to smash that damned thing on your face for taking pictures of me!" and proceeds to punch you in the face to break your Glass, then you have no reason to believe his intent is to kill, rob, rape or kidnap you.
Of course, you can construct other scenarios in which it would be reasonable to believe that was his intent. However, even in those cases, you not only have to prove that you reasonably believed he intended to do the necessary harm, but that he had the capability. Unless you're somehow incapacitated sufficiently to convince the jury that you could not stop him except with deadly force, then you're still going to prison.
The referenced law does include Castle Doctrine provisions in 9.32(b), which change the rules in particular locations, namely your home, vehicle or place of business. In those locations you have greater leeway if the guy broke or snuck into the place. But that doesn't really seem applicable here.
By the way, nothing in the Texas statutes around use of deadly force to protect people differs in any appreciable way from other states. Some don't have the Castle Doctrine provisions (but many do), some don't have the Stand Your Ground provisions (but many do), but the core part of the law is no more permissive than any other state. Texans often seem to have this idea that their self-defense and gun laws are considerably looser than the rest of the nation, but it's not true. In fact, Texas gun laws are more restrictive than most. The one area in which Texas is rather unique is that Texas does authorize some narrow uses of deadly force to protect immovable, high-value property at night, and no other state authorizes deadly force to protect property. FWIW, I think that law is immoral and wrong, and y'all should fix it.
You teach assholes to use a gun, get a permit to carry it with them at all times, and then proclaim that violence isn't the solution?
First, I don't teach assholes. When I get them in my classes (it's actually only happened a couple of times), I pull them aside at a break, give them their money back and tell them I'm not going to certify them, so while they're welcome to sit through the remainder of the class for free, it won't get them a permit. Being assholes, they leave.
Second, absolutely. There's nothing contradictory about carrying a gun and proclaiming that violence should be avoided, any more than there is about having a penis and proclaiming that rape should be avoided. In fact, most people who carry find that having a gun on them makes them dramatically more likely to run away, apologize, or do whatever else it takes to de-escalate a confrontation rather than let it become violent, because the gun makes them so much more aware of the risks of violence.
It's all about safety and so forth correct? Now go read your sig.
The sig is addressing an entirely different situation. In fact, if you want to relate it to firearms, it's really directed at tyrannical anti-gunners who insist that no one should be allowed to have a gun for safety reasons. Trying to apply it to individuals who want to exercise their human rights is nonsensical.
Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch
Counter example: Florida and George Zimmerman
Not a counterexample. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was slamming his head into concrete, which is clearly deadly force. Zimmerman's story may or may not have been true, but it was consistent with the physical evidence so presumption of innocence meant the decision should go his way.
Your CCW instructor was wrong. Mere physical violence is not enough, it has to be physical violence that constitutes deadly force. And, it doesn't need to actually be under way, so he's wrong on that count as well. I strongly suggest you read the law for yourself. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32
Though I actually want a libertarian slide. Both the left and the right are extremely authoritarian, the left worse than the right.
However, if you read my other posts, what I'm suggesting is not "short term" at all. In fact, my recommended strategy will likely take a decade or two... but it has the advantage of having a chance of working, unlike third party voting.
It's never happened. It will never happen. It may get close to happening, but that will propel the major party ideologically furthest from the third party into power, and the third party voters will realize their mistake and the third party will fade away.
Mind you, I don't like this, but it's reality in the United States. If you want to effect political change you have to do it from inside one of the major parties. Or convince both of the major parties to change the voting system.
Consider also that the US has always been a two-party nation, since its founding. Further, the vast majority of our history has been with the current two parties, and the last time we managed to swap out one party for another was during the events leading up to the biggest political cataclysm in the nation's history -- the Civil War. And prior to that, the two parties had been stable since almost the very beginning.
Duverger's law has exceptions, but there is no evidence at all that the US system can be one.
Secondly, the parties are immutable -- the notion that you can change them from within is belied by all the evidence that you can't
Utter nonsense.
The parties shift all the time, and those shifts are driven by the people within them. In fact, people working within the parties have huge leverage, each one is easily worth 100 voters in terms of impact, and the people that actually achieve prominence within the parties have more leverage still.
No, because voting for a third party has the opposite effect from what you want. It does more damage to the major party that is ideologically closest to your opinion (i.e. that one that would have gotten a "lesser-of-evils" vote from you), thereby strengthening the party that is further from your preferences.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the sites using facingbooks and other comment systems ban comments someone, somewhere, in the media property don't like
Cite?
I'm not disputing your point, but AFAICT while this is theoretically an issue, I haven't seen any evidence that it's actually being done.
I'm sure it's not risky at all from an engineering perspective. Metal is predictable, and if you can predict it you can design to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses for the intended application. And if it's just not possible to make it work, the math will tell you so.
What's risky is the marketing side of it, because people are much harder to predict. If people like it, this may be a huge leg up on the competition for Ford, putting them in the driver's seat for several years while Chevy and GM play catch up, particularly if they can then lobby successfully for turning the regulatory screws on the competition. It could leave the competition having to artificially limit their sales. If people don't like it, Ford could be in a world of hurt for a few years.
If that is true, then you are insinuating this Apple product is being sold at a loss.
Either that or OEMs like Apple don't pay retail prices for parts.
If the people interviewing you are "A" players, they won't be threatened. This is the root of the old saw: 'A's hire 'A's. 'B's hire 'C's. 'B's are threatened by 'A's, and even by other 'B's, so they hire 'C's who don't threaten them. People who are at the top of their game enjoy working with similarly capable people. They aren't threatened by a challenge, they like it.
Code doesn't rot like organic matter.
Yes, it does. Well, the mechanisms and the details of the process are different, but the effect is the same.
Here's the problem. Grade A people expect to do grade A work. In almost every organization there is a ton of work that doesn't fit into this category but still needs attention. Code gets old and has to be updated, and there's a ton of work that doesn't require the brightest and best but still has to be done.
"Doesn't require" isn't the same as "can't benefit from". You just need some grade A software maintainers, guys who, rather than just plodding through updating all that old code, will build tools to automate the updates, and will do it intelligently so the same tool can easily be applied to the next dozen maintenance problems as well. Code is also data.
The A players that succeed are the ones that can make their 'A' ideas useful.
No, the players that succeed are the ones that can convince their superiors that they are "A players". Most of time it's just knowing how to play office politics rather than actual merit.
Only if the superiors are the ones doing the performance evaluations. Peers are much harder to fool, especially since you need to fool all of them all of the time.
"A" players tend to be poor team players
Not if your definition of an "A" player includes being really good at collaboration. If the work environment is highly collaborative, you don't really even have to specifically evaluate that aspect of individual performance... if they can't work well with others they simply won't be as effective as those who can.
"A" players need a lower paid support crew to do the simple stuff while they concentrate on the big picture. If you eliminate all the "B" players you force your highly paid "A" players to waste their expensive time doing stupid stuff- causing frustration and staff turnover.
So you hire "A"-level support staff, people who are really good at getting all of the stupid stuff out of the way. I work for Google and while I'm not going to make any claims about Google only hiring "A" players (I would probably have to consider myself a counterexample to that claim -- though a rare one, because the people I work with are great), it definitely does hire amazing support staff.
The context here is concealed carry, and in that world LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer.
Protip: Context depends as much on the content of the thread as on the site.
I assume by "blocking" their servers you're talking about DNS or firewall-level blocking. That's hit and miss, since it depends on you keeping up with all of the right domains/IPs. A better solution (which can be applied in addition to DNS/firewall blocking; it needn't be "instead of") is to use the opt outs that Google provides. See http://google.com/privacy/tools.
You didn't read my post.
I have read it, and I reread it just now...
And I repeat my position, deadly force is a valid response if you come up to me and punch me in the face.
I have no idea if you are going to rob me, kill me, punch me again, maybe you think I'm sleeping with your wife, or perhaps you're insane. I know that if I don't stop you, you may well punch me again and try and kill me.
The law says that use of deadly force is "justified to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force" (emphasis mine), or one of the enumerated felonies.
You can only act to defend against deadly force, not any force. Unless the context supports the notion that a punch indicates an attempt to kill, or to commit one of the enumerated crimes, you're not justified in responding to deadly force. If someone walks up and yells "You Glasshole! I'm going to smash that damned thing on your face for taking pictures of me!" and proceeds to punch you in the face to break your Glass, then you have no reason to believe his intent is to kill, rob, rape or kidnap you.
Of course, you can construct other scenarios in which it would be reasonable to believe that was his intent. However, even in those cases, you not only have to prove that you reasonably believed he intended to do the necessary harm, but that he had the capability. Unless you're somehow incapacitated sufficiently to convince the jury that you could not stop him except with deadly force, then you're still going to prison.
The referenced law does include Castle Doctrine provisions in 9.32(b), which change the rules in particular locations, namely your home, vehicle or place of business. In those locations you have greater leeway if the guy broke or snuck into the place. But that doesn't really seem applicable here.
By the way, nothing in the Texas statutes around use of deadly force to protect people differs in any appreciable way from other states. Some don't have the Castle Doctrine provisions (but many do), some don't have the Stand Your Ground provisions (but many do), but the core part of the law is no more permissive than any other state. Texans often seem to have this idea that their self-defense and gun laws are considerably looser than the rest of the nation, but it's not true. In fact, Texas gun laws are more restrictive than most. The one area in which Texas is rather unique is that Texas does authorize some narrow uses of deadly force to protect immovable, high-value property at night, and no other state authorizes deadly force to protect property. FWIW, I think that law is immoral and wrong, and y'all should fix it.
You teach assholes to use a gun, get a permit to carry it with them at all times, and then proclaim that violence isn't the solution?
First, I don't teach assholes. When I get them in my classes (it's actually only happened a couple of times), I pull them aside at a break, give them their money back and tell them I'm not going to certify them, so while they're welcome to sit through the remainder of the class for free, it won't get them a permit. Being assholes, they leave.
Second, absolutely. There's nothing contradictory about carrying a gun and proclaiming that violence should be avoided, any more than there is about having a penis and proclaiming that rape should be avoided. In fact, most people who carry find that having a gun on them makes them dramatically more likely to run away, apologize, or do whatever else it takes to de-escalate a confrontation rather than let it become violent, because the gun makes them so much more aware of the risks of violence.
It's all about safety and so forth correct? Now go read your sig.
The sig is addressing an entirely different situation. In fact, if you want to relate it to firearms, it's really directed at tyrannical anti-gunners who insist that no one should be allowed to have a gun for safety reasons. Trying to apply it to individuals who want to exercise their human rights is nonsensical.
Wrong. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32
Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch
Counter example: Florida and George Zimmerman
Not a counterexample. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was slamming his head into concrete, which is clearly deadly force. Zimmerman's story may or may not have been true, but it was consistent with the physical evidence so presumption of innocence meant the decision should go his way.
Well, if VRDs had been demonstrated to work. Even the military has decided to go other directions.
Your CCW instructor was wrong. Mere physical violence is not enough, it has to be physical violence that constitutes deadly force. And, it doesn't need to actually be under way, so he's wrong on that count as well. I strongly suggest you read the law for yourself. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32
Better than a leftward slide :-)
Though I actually want a libertarian slide. Both the left and the right are extremely authoritarian, the left worse than the right.
However, if you read my other posts, what I'm suggesting is not "short term" at all. In fact, my recommended strategy will likely take a decade or two... but it has the advantage of having a chance of working, unlike third party voting.
It's never happened. It will never happen. It may get close to happening, but that will propel the major party ideologically furthest from the third party into power, and the third party voters will realize their mistake and the third party will fade away.
Mind you, I don't like this, but it's reality in the United States. If you want to effect political change you have to do it from inside one of the major parties. Or convince both of the major parties to change the voting system.
Consider also that the US has always been a two-party nation, since its founding. Further, the vast majority of our history has been with the current two parties, and the last time we managed to swap out one party for another was during the events leading up to the biggest political cataclysm in the nation's history -- the Civil War. And prior to that, the two parties had been stable since almost the very beginning.
Duverger's law has exceptions, but there is no evidence at all that the US system can be one.
Wrong. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32
Look up "Duverger's Law".
Read David Kahn's "The Codebreakers" for a broad, deep review of the contributions of signals intelligence in general, and the NSA in particular.
Secondly, the parties are immutable -- the notion that you can change them from within is belied by all the evidence that you can't
Utter nonsense.
The parties shift all the time, and those shifts are driven by the people within them. In fact, people working within the parties have huge leverage, each one is easily worth 100 voters in terms of impact, and the people that actually achieve prominence within the parties have more leverage still.
No, because voting for a third party has the opposite effect from what you want. It does more damage to the major party that is ideologically closest to your opinion (i.e. that one that would have gotten a "lesser-of-evils" vote from you), thereby strengthening the party that is further from your preferences.