The house republicans sponsored a budget based on Obama's budget. They did this for a reason. To get senate democrats to go on record as to how they would vote on a potential budget that raised taxes because democrats would not offer up a budget proposal themselves to vote on. Democrats had majorities in both houses for the first two years of Obama's presidency. They could have passed any budget they chose to.
The article you linked to says house republicans put forth a budget based on Obama's February budget. It was Obama's ideas, or ideas he helped shape or agreed with in the budget. Do you disagree with that?
Democrats had majorities in both houses for 2 years. There is no reason they couldn't have passed legislation for their entire agenda.
My point is that the higher tax rates were not responsible for the prosperity we enjoyed in the 90's.
In an economy with little or no growth like it is now, it would be even more stifling to raise taxes on anyone.
Flat tax. You earn a dollar you pay a %, you earn a billion, you pay the same %. That is the essence of fair.
It's more important that what a day is be the same across the globe not what the hour is. Like you said, our time is relative to the where the sun is in the sky. It makes perfect sense.
I don't think/. or the article mean to imply anything other than what you took it to mean.
The headline of the story
Facebook help Israel Blacklist Air Travelers
simply means that Facebook, the service helped Israel compile this blacklist, the same way the activists used it to coordinated their efforts.
The context of how Facebook is used isn't clear from the headline, which actually makes it a good headline because people will read it.
Hopefully they will understand once they do, that they were referring to the service, and not the company when they say Facebook.
This story isn't about Facebook, as a company helping Israel blacklist these activists. This is a story about how Facebook's service was used as a tool to compile this blacklist. Slashdot, nor the linked article mean to imply that FB, the company actively provided any assistance other than what the service already provides, to everyone.
When it's said the Facebook aided Israel in spying on the activist, the correct context again is that Israel used Facebook's services which aided in monitoring these individuals, in the same way FB aided the activists in coordinating their efforts.
#1 Under general description says, "Intelligence analysts in theater do not have the tools required to fully analyze the tremendous amounts of information currently available in theater."
DCGS-A is one of the tools used in theater for this purpose. Is is not?
In the article, former intelligence officers are quoted as saying, "the system is still unusable. “You couldn’t share the data,” says one former officer, and they both agree that the system is “prone to crashes and frequently going off-line." Also in the article the Army issued patches for known problems with little effect.
Is this untrue?
The effective of this system can be qualified and quantified. I would agree the article was slanted if DCSG-A is an effective system, and the author is bringing forth false evidence of it's deficiencies. You indicate there is a motive for undermining this system, because they are backing Palantir, but the failures the article outlines are either true or false. Can you show me the system is effective, and if it's not, can you show me that it was never intended to be used to meet the needs outlined in the memo?
Is it possible for someone who did have that information, and who understood it thoroughly, to make a generalized assessment of whether what is being sought is unattainable at the moment within the budget available and current or in development tech, or whether the concept is sound,and just not ready at this point, and not cost effective to iron out the kinks?
Should someone have realized this would have been a waste of money beforehand, or is it something where we would have had to spend the money to find out?
The government hemorrhages so much money on failed IT projects. Is this the cost of innovation, or the result of incompetence, and bad management?
On page 1, #2 of the memorandum Michael Flynn does in fact state that the ineffectiveness of the system leads to lost lives, however I feel he is blaming the reliance on a broken system as being the cause, as opposed to blaming the system itself. He is saying the system is not comprehensive enough to rely on operationally, but they are forced to rely on it anyway. If he were a mechanic informing a racing team of faulty equipment on their car, effectively rendering it unable to compete in a race, and the team owners decide to run it anyway, the continued reliance on the faulty equipment would be the factor for losing races. Switch out the car, and you've mitigated the problem, the ineffectiveness of the system no longer effects operations.
Could you elaborate generally on why you feel the system is ineffective? One former officer is quoted as saying the system couldn't share data. What were some of the major hurdles that prevented this? Logistics and connectivity, security, systems integration?
On page 1, #2 of the memorandum Michael Flynn does in fact state that the ineffectiveness of the system leads to lost lives, however I feel he is blaming the reliance on a broken system as being the cause, as opposed to blaming the system itself. He is saying the system is not comprehensive enough to rely on operationally, but they are forced to rely on it anyway. If he were a mechanic informing a racing team of faulty equipment on their car, effectively rendering it unable to compete in a race, and the team owners decide to run it anyway, the continued reliance on the faulty equipment would be the factor for losing races. Switch out the car, and you've mitigated the problem, the ineffectiveness of the system no longer effects operations.
I do not speak to fools, because they will scorn the wisdom of my words. Flame bait is an option given to me as a temporary moderator to tag comments I deem as such. Flamers are called that for a reason. They have no interest in having meaningful discussions, so I do not wish to waste my time or theirs, or my mod points. I almost did not waste my time on this comment due to your Anonymous Coward status, but at least you gave your reasons, however misguided. Slashdot encourages moderators not to mod down comments because you simply disagree, so I am being mindful of that. I also chose not to mod up a comment that I agreed with regarding how i felt; there were some I did agree with. I decided to start my own discussion and explain to those who wish to have a conversation why I felt the way I did, and proceed from there. My foundation for a conversation is a sturdier one. I tell you what I think, and explain why. Many comments lacked even a fraction of reason. I was thinking I would find more logical commentary to events being that slashdot is geared more toward tech oriented people. People who are taught to solve problems by laying things out in rational and logical way. My disappointment is not for the sentiments expressed, I see them everywhere, but from the lack of logic and reason that these sentiments contained.
I am more than happy to have a conversation, I am having one now. I won't however be baited by flamers. Your pedantry is on point, you found a grammatical mistake in my post, however your reason for why I say what I say is way off the mark. Frustrating would be engaging the flamers, disappointed is a better assessment because they are just conversation that could have been had, but are not worth the time.
That last line sounds like a threat. i will continue on exactly as I have been, I'll see where that takes me.
I just received mod points and I was torn on whether to mod a comment up for a sentiment I agree with regarding this topic, or to post myself. I don't really want to mod down those I disagree with, I would like to. but I will be satisfied if their score remained 0.
I understand the diversity in political opinions, and realize people's opinions of this will cover the spectrum, myself included, however I think a lot of these opinions lack objectivity. I understand Fox is a right leaning news org, and most of their employees have opposite ideals and political leanings than that of the President, however I highly doubt that the disgusting msgs tweeted from their account originated from anyone at Fox News. It would do nothing to serve their interests, and they stand to gain nothing from this, they could only lose. Their enemies are a many, and seek to discredit them in anyway they can. Go to Media Matters website. The last time I was there, not ONE story was about anything other than Fox News, and not one was positive, nor would I expect it to be knowing the sources behind it. It stands to reason that this is a result of the ideology behind sites such as that as opposed to Fox News using their brand and power to shout out something so obviously untrue. Think about it. Even if you hate Fox, it just doesn't make sense for anyone working their to think that this would serve any agenda. If I could believe that someone at Fox did this, it is an incredible stretch to think that anyone in a management or supervisory role would think this was a good idea. The most likely offense they are guilty of in this situation, is having a weak password protecting their twitter account. Of course I can't say with certitude who is responsible for this, but this stinks of opposition tactics, and it's not even well done. I am disappointed in many of the comments I am seeing here, but I will save my mod points for comments more worthy of them.
MS gets your money I understand, but it still is the most cost effective option. The alternatives will cost you more.
If you get them to refund your money, then you wouldn't have paid for any service to begin with. If they don't refund your money, then your entitled to have it serviced.
I have a feeling you can service your own computers.
The how is MS allowed to bundle their software is the statement I disagreed with most though, because it's a result of two private companies making a partnership that in the end benefits the consumers whether they want Windows or not, because the hardware and software can be sold cheaper as a result. 1, there is no authority that can rightfully and justifiably stop this, and 2, without the partnerships, the hardware would cost so much more.
Is this a result of MS and OEM partnerships, or is this imposed by the government for any LT purchase? You said there were very few vendors that don't bundle with LT's. If you found one in the UK that doesn't bundle, do you still have to pay the MS tax? That would be unfair.
We benefit as consumers because of the partnerships between MS and OEM's. The hardware and software can be sold cheaper because of it.
Two things; if you're not buying a mac, or chromebook, you don't have many OS options left to begin with. My question to the other guy was why does it bother him so much that Windows is pre-loaded on machines? Especially we talk about laptops. LT's are not as easily built as a desktop, which makes the pre-loaded OS even more of a bargain price. He couldn't build a consumer grade LT from components for cheaper than he could buy one with an OS and wipe the drive.
If it wasn't idealogy that makes him hate giving MS his money, then there really isn't any reason for him to hold on to that hatred. Can u dig?
He also said he doesn't know why MS is allowed to do this, like there is something underhanded going on.
Slashdot Mirror
The house republicans sponsored a budget based on Obama's budget. They did this for a reason. To get senate democrats to go on record as to how they would vote on a potential budget that raised taxes because democrats would not offer up a budget proposal themselves to vote on. Democrats had majorities in both houses for the first two years of Obama's presidency. They could have passed any budget they chose to.
The article you linked to says house republicans put forth a budget based on Obama's February budget. It was Obama's ideas, or ideas he helped shape or agreed with in the budget. Do you disagree with that? Democrats had majorities in both houses for 2 years. There is no reason they couldn't have passed legislation for their entire agenda.
I agree with that, but since Romney is the only alternative right now, they'll still with Obama.
Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post, not the Times.
The story being a NYT article, I don't think you can cry spin on this one.
My point is that the higher tax rates were not responsible for the prosperity we enjoyed in the 90's. In an economy with little or no growth like it is now, it would be even more stifling to raise taxes on anyone. Flat tax. You earn a dollar you pay a %, you earn a billion, you pay the same %. That is the essence of fair.
dot com boom?
1, 2, 3......what's really fair?
so we are still trading, the computer is just doing the grunt work.
It's more important that what a day is be the same across the globe not what the hour is. Like you said, our time is relative to the where the sun is in the sky. It makes perfect sense.
Why should time ;)
Facebook help Israel Blacklist Air Travelers
simply means that Facebook, the service helped Israel compile this blacklist, the same way the activists used it to coordinated their efforts. The context of how Facebook is used isn't clear from the headline, which actually makes it a good headline because people will read it. Hopefully they will understand once they do, that they were referring to the service, and not the company when they say Facebook.
This story isn't about Facebook, as a company helping Israel blacklist these activists. This is a story about how Facebook's service was used as a tool to compile this blacklist. Slashdot, nor the linked article mean to imply that FB, the company actively provided any assistance other than what the service already provides, to everyone. When it's said the Facebook aided Israel in spying on the activist, the correct context again is that Israel used Facebook's services which aided in monitoring these individuals, in the same way FB aided the activists in coordinating their efforts.
If your inbox were your house, it would be standing room only.
#1 Under general description says, "Intelligence analysts in theater do not have the tools required to fully analyze the tremendous amounts of information currently available in theater." DCGS-A is one of the tools used in theater for this purpose. Is is not? In the article, former intelligence officers are quoted as saying, "the system is still unusable. “You couldn’t share the data,” says one former officer, and they both agree that the system is “prone to crashes and frequently going off-line." Also in the article the Army issued patches for known problems with little effect. Is this untrue? The effective of this system can be qualified and quantified. I would agree the article was slanted if DCSG-A is an effective system, and the author is bringing forth false evidence of it's deficiencies. You indicate there is a motive for undermining this system, because they are backing Palantir, but the failures the article outlines are either true or false. Can you show me the system is effective, and if it's not, can you show me that it was never intended to be used to meet the needs outlined in the memo?
I town hall where being saved by the bell is the format.
Is it possible for someone who did have that information, and who understood it thoroughly, to make a generalized assessment of whether what is being sought is unattainable at the moment within the budget available and current or in development tech, or whether the concept is sound,and just not ready at this point, and not cost effective to iron out the kinks? Should someone have realized this would have been a waste of money beforehand, or is it something where we would have had to spend the money to find out? The government hemorrhages so much money on failed IT projects. Is this the cost of innovation, or the result of incompetence, and bad management?
On page 1, #2 of the memorandum Michael Flynn does in fact state that the ineffectiveness of the system leads to lost lives, however I feel he is blaming the reliance on a broken system as being the cause, as opposed to blaming the system itself. He is saying the system is not comprehensive enough to rely on operationally, but they are forced to rely on it anyway. If he were a mechanic informing a racing team of faulty equipment on their car, effectively rendering it unable to compete in a race, and the team owners decide to run it anyway, the continued reliance on the faulty equipment would be the factor for losing races. Switch out the car, and you've mitigated the problem, the ineffectiveness of the system no longer effects operations.
Could you elaborate generally on why you feel the system is ineffective? One former officer is quoted as saying the system couldn't share data. What were some of the major hurdles that prevented this? Logistics and connectivity, security, systems integration?
On page 1, #2 of the memorandum Michael Flynn does in fact state that the ineffectiveness of the system leads to lost lives, however I feel he is blaming the reliance on a broken system as being the cause, as opposed to blaming the system itself. He is saying the system is not comprehensive enough to rely on operationally, but they are forced to rely on it anyway. If he were a mechanic informing a racing team of faulty equipment on their car, effectively rendering it unable to compete in a race, and the team owners decide to run it anyway, the continued reliance on the faulty equipment would be the factor for losing races. Switch out the car, and you've mitigated the problem, the ineffectiveness of the system no longer effects operations.
I do not speak to fools, because they will scorn the wisdom of my words. Flame bait is an option given to me as a temporary moderator to tag comments I deem as such. Flamers are called that for a reason. They have no interest in having meaningful discussions, so I do not wish to waste my time or theirs, or my mod points. I almost did not waste my time on this comment due to your Anonymous Coward status, but at least you gave your reasons, however misguided. Slashdot encourages moderators not to mod down comments because you simply disagree, so I am being mindful of that. I also chose not to mod up a comment that I agreed with regarding how i felt; there were some I did agree with. I decided to start my own discussion and explain to those who wish to have a conversation why I felt the way I did, and proceed from there. My foundation for a conversation is a sturdier one. I tell you what I think, and explain why. Many comments lacked even a fraction of reason. I was thinking I would find more logical commentary to events being that slashdot is geared more toward tech oriented people. People who are taught to solve problems by laying things out in rational and logical way. My disappointment is not for the sentiments expressed, I see them everywhere, but from the lack of logic and reason that these sentiments contained. I am more than happy to have a conversation, I am having one now. I won't however be baited by flamers. Your pedantry is on point, you found a grammatical mistake in my post, however your reason for why I say what I say is way off the mark. Frustrating would be engaging the flamers, disappointed is a better assessment because they are just conversation that could have been had, but are not worth the time. That last line sounds like a threat. i will continue on exactly as I have been, I'll see where that takes me.
I just received mod points and I was torn on whether to mod a comment up for a sentiment I agree with regarding this topic, or to post myself. I don't really want to mod down those I disagree with, I would like to. but I will be satisfied if their score remained 0. I understand the diversity in political opinions, and realize people's opinions of this will cover the spectrum, myself included, however I think a lot of these opinions lack objectivity. I understand Fox is a right leaning news org, and most of their employees have opposite ideals and political leanings than that of the President, however I highly doubt that the disgusting msgs tweeted from their account originated from anyone at Fox News. It would do nothing to serve their interests, and they stand to gain nothing from this, they could only lose. Their enemies are a many, and seek to discredit them in anyway they can. Go to Media Matters website. The last time I was there, not ONE story was about anything other than Fox News, and not one was positive, nor would I expect it to be knowing the sources behind it. It stands to reason that this is a result of the ideology behind sites such as that as opposed to Fox News using their brand and power to shout out something so obviously untrue. Think about it. Even if you hate Fox, it just doesn't make sense for anyone working their to think that this would serve any agenda. If I could believe that someone at Fox did this, it is an incredible stretch to think that anyone in a management or supervisory role would think this was a good idea. The most likely offense they are guilty of in this situation, is having a weak password protecting their twitter account. Of course I can't say with certitude who is responsible for this, but this stinks of opposition tactics, and it's not even well done. I am disappointed in many of the comments I am seeing here, but I will save my mod points for comments more worthy of them.
MS gets your money I understand, but it still is the most cost effective option. The alternatives will cost you more. If you get them to refund your money, then you wouldn't have paid for any service to begin with. If they don't refund your money, then your entitled to have it serviced. I have a feeling you can service your own computers. The how is MS allowed to bundle their software is the statement I disagreed with most though, because it's a result of two private companies making a partnership that in the end benefits the consumers whether they want Windows or not, because the hardware and software can be sold cheaper as a result. 1, there is no authority that can rightfully and justifiably stop this, and 2, without the partnerships, the hardware would cost so much more.
Is this a result of MS and OEM partnerships, or is this imposed by the government for any LT purchase? You said there were very few vendors that don't bundle with LT's. If you found one in the UK that doesn't bundle, do you still have to pay the MS tax? That would be unfair. We benefit as consumers because of the partnerships between MS and OEM's. The hardware and software can be sold cheaper because of it.
Two things; if you're not buying a mac, or chromebook, you don't have many OS options left to begin with. My question to the other guy was why does it bother him so much that Windows is pre-loaded on machines? Especially we talk about laptops. LT's are not as easily built as a desktop, which makes the pre-loaded OS even more of a bargain price. He couldn't build a consumer grade LT from components for cheaper than he could buy one with an OS and wipe the drive. If it wasn't idealogy that makes him hate giving MS his money, then there really isn't any reason for him to hold on to that hatred. Can u dig? He also said he doesn't know why MS is allowed to do this, like there is something underhanded going on.