> I can't see doubling the average as good engineering practice, especially if doubling the average doesn't get you outside the expected maximum range of movement. I think they were allowed to use unconservative numbers, and they got away with it (for which I'm glad).
Yeah, if that's what they actually did then you have to wonder about their engineering qualifications. If the design case could result in 30', they should have allowed for 30'. No ifs, buts, maybes, or averages.
Consider, for example, a system that fails when you get more than twice the average daily rainfall. Where I live that kind of system would fail every time it rains.
Or consider a program that is supposed to work for inputs of a million records, and some PHB rationalizing that on average it will only need to handle a thousand records, so if you implement it to handle two thosand records you have actually satisfied the design requirement...
Design by doubling the average works if-and-only-if the peak does not exceed twice the average.
> Well, you don't need to be an economist to know that the economy tends to be good for people in election years...
Actually, I think the US economy slows down during the run-ups to presidential elections, because people don't like the uncertainty, that dampens consumer confidence, and that in turn slows the economy.
If this is a genuine recovery rather than a blip, it's coming at a very unfortunate time, since the effect described above would dampen it somewhat.
> The more people have available to spend, the more money they will spend and that will add fire to the economy. The more you take away in taxes, the less they have and the economy will not accelarate as much.
The thing is, all that tax money used to get spent too. With the current lack of sufficient tax flow, the Feds are squeezing the states, the states are squeezing the communities, and all three are squeezing the citizens. Lots of people are spending less rather than more, because the tax cuts have directly cut into their economic well being. E.g., if your town decides to slow down on pot-hole repairs, the pot-hole repairmen have less money to spend. The "trickle down" argument works for public money as much as it does for private money, and perhaps even more so, since there is less hoarding to buffer the trickle.
Meanwhile, lots of people are actually spending more money on pseudo-taxes, namely all the new and/or newly increased fees that states and communities have imposed to make up for the shortfall in funds that used to come from tax receipts or trickle down from the Federal or state level.
In short, IMO, all this business about tax cuts is just a shell game intended to confuse the public about what's going on (and obscure the less savory parts of it).
What's really needed is consumer confidence. When people are confident they'll spend what money they have, because they feel sure their will be more rolling in next week. But when confidence is low they cut back on spending and try to hold more in reserve than usual, since they aren't quite so sure that there really will be more next week.
> Bush has increased spending, we're in a pretty nasty decifet (under almost complete GOP control BTW), we've lost quite a few jobs
The interesting thing about the Bush economic policy is that when he inherited a [projected] record surplus his response policy was "tax cuts", and when we discovered whe had a record deficit instead, his response was still "tax cuts".
One suspects that the policy is ideological rather than pragmatic. If tax cuts cure our economic woes, it will be luck rather than a reasoned response.
> In addition to the manufacturing to repair the damages from the war, do not forget the following impacts on the consumer side of the economy:
Increased pay to servicemen and servicewomen for overseas duty, imminent danger pay, hazardous duty pay, FSA (Family Separation Allowance) etc. etc. All of this goes back into the U.S. consumer economy, and most of this will not be taxed.
Actually, the families of many of the National Guard members are suffering a great deal of economic hardship right now, because for many of them their military pay is far less than the civilian jobs they left when they were called up.
> Is that the president has much less effect on the economy than most people think, ask any economist.
Directly, yes. But remember that about 2/3 of the American economy is consumer spending, so consumer confidence is a weighty matter. A friend analyzes it as the President being "the national cheerleader" for the economy. If people think his economic policies are going to benefit them, their confidence goes up and then their spending goes up. And vice versa.
This isn't the whole story, because it's superimposed on the "real" economic situation. But I think it's strong enough an effect to make some difference.
Keep an eye on consumer confidence as the elections approach. And notice that it's what people think the President's policy is doing, which may not be what the policy is really doing.
> We can't have the economy come back, then people will credit Bush and he'll have to get re-elected! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa!:)
> (funniest part is, half the wild-eyed libs are already posting shit like that)
Modulo the screaming, it's a pretty good call. USAians tend to vote for whoever they think will provide them with the highest bank balance. Our society is very polarized over other political and social issues right now, with about a 50/50 split between the two parties that matter, so unless there's another great trauma or scandal, the economy will settle the issue.
If too many people are suffering economic hardship (or fear it), Bush will be out; otherwise he'll be back in.
> supposedly the US growth is around 7% of GDB in the *last quarter* [translation: 'off the charts']
I only turn half an ear to the economic news, but I'm pretty sure I heard the news follow up that report by saying consumer spending had already dropped again during September. It may still be a bit soon for chicken counting.
(...maybe if I put enough spurious text in here I can sneak it past the lameness filter. What shall I use for my filler? Start a flamewar? Link to goatse?...)
> Syria and Iraq had not been friends in recent years, don't forget that Syria was part of the coalition against Iraq back in the first US Iraq conflict.
Also, though it may not be too hard to relocate a small number of weapons across the border without a trace, relocating an entire weapons program is another matter.
> Sometimes the DOJ will serve Justice better by not being capable of doing what they want to do.
The DOJ should be renamed to Department of Enforcement, since even casual observation of which cases they support and which they oppose will reveal that they aren't interested in what we ordinarily think of as Justice.
> Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The recent trend under my state's FOIA is to tie the release up in court long enough for the state legislature to pass yet another special exemption saying that the material does not have to be released.
It has become a complete sham, just like almost everything else the previous generation did to try to enforce open, honest government.
> However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. The current Administration is secretive as a knee-jerk reaction to anything, to the point of looking like a petty third world dictatorship. But were other recent Administrations any different, or just less amateurish about it?
> I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.
Actually, they were obsessed with getting anything they could find on him. It just so happens that after 7 years and $40,000,000 all they could find was dick, so that's what they had to settle for.
You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.
> It appears that Microsoft is trying to threaten Google with "If you don't merge with us, we'll make MSN search built into Longhorn, and everybody will use it instead of you because they won't know any better."
Hasn't MS been making noises about moving in as the #1 search engine?
And isn't this the usual drill when MS is set on moving in on someone else's turf? Try to buy; if that fails, feign interest in cooperation so they can steal some technology and blindside their 'partner' when they roll out their own partner-killer.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon my curmudgeonry.
> I can't see doubling the average as good engineering practice, especially if doubling the average doesn't get you outside the expected maximum range of movement. I think they were allowed to use unconservative numbers, and they got away with it (for which I'm glad).
Yeah, if that's what they actually did then you have to wonder about their engineering qualifications. If the design case could result in 30', they should have allowed for 30'. No ifs, buts, maybes, or averages.
Consider, for example, a system that fails when you get more than twice the average daily rainfall. Where I live that kind of system would fail every time it rains.
Or consider a program that is supposed to work for inputs of a million records, and some PHB rationalizing that on average it will only need to handle a thousand records, so if you implement it to handle two thosand records you have actually satisfied the design requirement...
Design by doubling the average works if-and-only-if the peak does not exceed twice the average.
BTW, nice post.
> > They must really be getting desperate.
> This reminds me of the President claiming the increased rate of attacks in Iraq was a sign of progress.
Whew, I'm so glad to hear we're winning the War on Spam!
Somebody needs to tell my mail service, though.
> Since when does increasing sophistication demonstrate desperation?
When the facts are inconvenient and spin is deemed an acceptable substitute.
> Well, you don't need to be an economist to know that the economy tends to be good for people in election years...
Actually, I think the US economy slows down during the run-ups to presidential elections, because people don't like the uncertainty, that dampens consumer confidence, and that in turn slows the economy.
If this is a genuine recovery rather than a blip, it's coming at a very unfortunate time, since the effect described above would dampen it somewhat.
> The more people have available to spend, the more money they will spend and that will add fire to the economy. The more you take away in taxes, the less they have and the economy will not accelarate as much.
The thing is, all that tax money used to get spent too. With the current lack of sufficient tax flow, the Feds are squeezing the states, the states are squeezing the communities, and all three are squeezing the citizens. Lots of people are spending less rather than more, because the tax cuts have directly cut into their economic well being. E.g., if your town decides to slow down on pot-hole repairs, the pot-hole repairmen have less money to spend. The "trickle down" argument works for public money as much as it does for private money, and perhaps even more so, since there is less hoarding to buffer the trickle.
Meanwhile, lots of people are actually spending more money on pseudo-taxes, namely all the new and/or newly increased fees that states and communities have imposed to make up for the shortfall in funds that used to come from tax receipts or trickle down from the Federal or state level.
In short, IMO, all this business about tax cuts is just a shell game intended to confuse the public about what's going on (and obscure the less savory parts of it).
What's really needed is consumer confidence. When people are confident they'll spend what money they have, because they feel sure their will be more rolling in next week. But when confidence is low they cut back on spending and try to hold more in reserve than usual, since they aren't quite so sure that there really will be more next week.
> Bush has increased spending, we're in a pretty nasty decifet (under almost complete GOP control BTW), we've lost quite a few jobs
The interesting thing about the Bush economic policy is that when he inherited a [projected] record surplus his response policy was "tax cuts", and when we discovered whe had a record deficit instead, his response was still "tax cuts".
One suspects that the policy is ideological rather than pragmatic. If tax cuts cure our economic woes, it will be luck rather than a reasoned response.
> In addition to the manufacturing to repair the damages from the war, do not forget the following impacts on the consumer side of the economy:
Actually, the families of many of the National Guard members are suffering a great deal of economic hardship right now, because for many of them their military pay is far less than the civilian jobs they left when they were called up.
> Is that the president has much less effect on the economy than most people think, ask any economist.
Directly, yes. But remember that about 2/3 of the American economy is consumer spending, so consumer confidence is a weighty matter. A friend analyzes it as the President being "the national cheerleader" for the economy. If people think his economic policies are going to benefit them, their confidence goes up and then their spending goes up. And vice versa.
This isn't the whole story, because it's superimposed on the "real" economic situation. But I think it's strong enough an effect to make some difference.
Keep an eye on consumer confidence as the elections approach. And notice that it's what people think the President's policy is doing, which may not be what the policy is really doing.
> We can't have the economy come back, then people will credit Bush and he'll have to get re-elected! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
> (funniest part is, half the wild-eyed libs are already posting shit like that)
Modulo the screaming, it's a pretty good call. USAians tend to vote for whoever they think will provide them with the highest bank balance. Our society is very polarized over other political and social issues right now, with about a 50/50 split between the two parties that matter, so unless there's another great trauma or scandal, the economy will settle the issue.
If too many people are suffering economic hardship (or fear it), Bush will be out; otherwise he'll be back in.
> supposedly the US growth is around 7% of GDB in the *last quarter* [translation: 'off the charts']
I only turn half an ear to the economic news, but I'm pretty sure I heard the news follow up that report by saying consumer spending had already dropped again during September. It may still be a bit soon for chicken counting.
> Hey does anybody from Purdue know if this is in the Math building or MSEE? (or somewhere else)
What are you going to do, steal it?
(...maybe if I put enough spurious text in here I can sneak it past the lameness filter. What shall I use for my filler? Start a flamewar? Link to goatse?
> Syria and Iraq had not been friends in recent years, don't forget that Syria was part of the coalition against Iraq back in the first US Iraq conflict.
Also, though it may not be too hard to relocate a small number of weapons across the border without a trace, relocating an entire weapons program is another matter.
> > That's because there are no WMD.
> Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?
Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.
> Couldn't you just say "Memory Hole Dacts Redacted DOJ Memo"
Or "DOJ Got Dact By Independent News Source".
> Take resulting full-of-holes document and scan with scanner.
Just make sure it's not stacked on top of the original when you scan it...
> Sometimes the DOJ will serve Justice better by not being capable of doing what they want to do.
The DOJ should be renamed to Department of Enforcement, since even casual observation of which cases they support and which they oppose will reveal that they aren't interested in what we ordinarily think of as Justice.
> Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The recent trend under my state's FOIA is to tie the release up in court long enough for the state legislature to pass yet another special exemption saying that the material does not have to be released.
It has become a complete sham, just like almost everything else the previous generation did to try to enforce open, honest government.
> (Spins handle to fan up flames)
Oh, just what's needed on Slashdot!
> However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. The current Administration is secretive as a knee-jerk reaction to anything, to the point of looking like a petty third world dictatorship. But were other recent Administrations any different, or just less amateurish about it?
> I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.
Actually, they were obsessed with getting anything they could find on him. It just so happens that after 7 years and $40,000,000 all they could find was dick, so that's what they had to settle for.
You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.
> A warning to anyone considering buying a Mac - they make you turn gay.
Great - maybe you can get a date now.
> Heaven forbid that anyone should read the article before posting.
Thanks for the warning - I was about to read it!
"It's not that FNC is conservative, as much as the rest of the news is liberal."
Only if you think 'liberal' means "slightly to the left of Pat Robertson".
"I heard 31% the other day"
So many people are eager to short SCOX that it's actually driving the share prices up. Short-SCOX is a hot commodity!
> It appears that Microsoft is trying to threaten Google with "If you don't merge with us, we'll make MSN search built into Longhorn, and everybody will use it instead of you because they won't know any better."
Hasn't MS been making noises about moving in as the #1 search engine?
And isn't this the usual drill when MS is set on moving in on someone else's turf? Try to buy; if that fails, feign interest in cooperation so they can steal some technology and blindside their 'partner' when they roll out their own partner-killer.
Ware ye, Google.