Good point. That's true, he's not hands-off in the sense that he becomes isolated and unaware of operations, only understanding things in terms of major departments. A LOT of CEOs only know the financial numbers of each subsidiary, but haven't looked at in-the-field operations for 20 years.
While Trump gives his direct hires a good degree of autonomy, he also tours hotel under construction and notices details like having three hinges installed on each door vs two hinges. He's in touch with operations, while still trusting his hires. I'm glad you pointed this out because there may be a lesson for managers here. Trumps hybrid management style may be a significant factor in his success.*
* There was some FUD going around claiming "Trump inherited his money". His father, Fred Trump, did make millions buying fourplexes and such. Donald Trump made BILLIONS building (and promoting!) world-class casino hotels and luxury condos.
Yeah this campaign has been more bumper stickers and slogans than specific policy proposals, so we really don't know yet.
Having studied Trump as a businessman, I strongly suspect he doesn't know which policies he'll propose - that will depend on what he hears from the experts he hires. In his long business career, he hired really smart people and trusted their judgement, rather than micro-managing, thinking he knew everything betterv than everyone else. His role was threefold a) the public face, drumming up publicity, b) negotiating major deals and c) overall leadership. He largely left the operational details to the very competent people he hired.
Let's HOPE he does the same as President, signing off on foreign policy developed by foreign policy experts, economic policy developed by experts in economics, etc.
Also one in particular - another Republican leader, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a budget nerd, who actually wrote several federal budgets and knows the federal budget perhaps better than anyone else. There's been tension between Trump and Paul Ryan during the campaign. Hopefully that tension is healed and Trump respects Ryan's significant expertise.
They make head units ("radios") with Android Auto, and an adapter cable for your car, so you *could* have a very nice installation done in about 20 minutes. My brother who does auto electronics for a living says the aftermarket Android Auto units are really great.
If you want to spend more time, you can also hook them up to your obd2 or whatever other sites for extra features.
> You don't mess with of our elections for free - you face consequences
That very much depends on who you are (or who your husband used to be). Also WHERE you are. In some counties, the local Democrat party is openly committing felony vote buying- the votes bought include the local prosecutor etc.
I don't know that this is at all feasible, but mostly because building the track is so expensive. Once you have the tube in place, early estimates say each tube should have about the same carrying capacity per hour as two freeway lanes. Because each pod makes the trip so quickly, each pod would make many more trips per hour than one automobile would.
Two freeway lanes is roughly what you'd want for capacity- you're replacing the long-haul express lane, not carrying the people who only want to travel 5 or 10 miles.
I use four different models of RAID cards, from two different manufacturers. I'm fairly sure neither is supported by Windows 10, and all will be supoorted by Linux for another ten years. That's true of a lot of hardware I use, but I use heavy-duty hardware, not some toy from Best Buy.
If your interest is in the latest new toy from Best Buy, Windows has a slight advantage. For serious, big boy hardware that you plan to use for many years, Linux has a HUGE advantage.
> That's called "demand". > No, that's value. "demand" is the number of positions available.
So you think that how much someone values, or desires, a thing, is not part of demand? Oxford Reference says:
Demand: The desire and ability to acquire a good or service.
Yep, how much it is desired (valued) is the first Oxford definition of "demand". HOWEVER, you're not AS mistaken as Oxford suggests. Demand is a curve, with TWO axes. The first axis is the one Oxford highlights - the value (the price someone is willing to pay); the second axis is the quantity they'll buy at that price (the axis you're thinking of).
The demand for CEOs is two-dimensional, how many will be hired at which price point: > $10 million: 6 $5-$10 million: 150 $1 - $ 5 million: 2500
$1 million: 25,000
That makes perfect sense, doesn't it. Except it's not true. A US pint of water weighs 1.04375 pounds. An English pint 1.25 pounds. On the other hand, 1 liter of water is 1kg. 1cc of water is 1 gram.
It would make sense for 1x of water to weigh 1y, and in metric it does.
You seem to have missed the point. Both of your posts here are less than 140 characters.
According to you, anything less than 140 characters is "trolling", "baiting", "bragging", and "posturing". Which of those describes your posts here? They are under 140 characters, so they must be one of the types you listed.
The Saturn design process, with the various competing proposals from different branches of the military, is a bit complex and confusing. Anyway they ended up with a Frankenmissile, using the engines from the Thor and Jupiter missles with small upgrades, and various parts from other missiles. Originally it was designed for launching spy satellites. So military technology through and through.
That specific configuration of missile parts wasn't designed to have a warhead attached, just spy gear, but it was still a bunch of missile parts.
> When people at a sporting event chant U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. that's just hubris.
Perhaps sometimes it is. It's interesting you say "at a sporting event." You may have noticed at a sporting event they also yell "Go Jaguars!", knowing quite well that their Jaguars are 2-6, tied for worst team in the league. Is that hubris, or perhaps something else?
I'm no physicist myself, and physicists don't understand this thing anyway, but here's my understanding:
Yes, appears that the only input is electricity, and it seems to produce thrust. So if electricity is free, a tiny amount of thrust is free. I say it APPEARS that the only input is electricity- many reactions which we now understand include oxygen from ambient air as an input, and that might have easily go unnoticed in an experiment before the reaction was understood. Similarly, it's possible that this thruster is using some non-obvious input, such as ambient radiation.
We don't know if one could be built much larger, or what the current capacity is for a given size. Maybe a 100,000 watt one could be small, maybe it would need to be very large. Maybe it would be far more efficient, maybe far less. We're still trying to confirm that the thing works at all.
> would I be right in thinking this thing would incredibly slowly start moving the ship and over a ridiculous amount of time, eventually be moving very rapidly and in theory (?) just keep on accelerating?
Yes, in theory, up to near the speed of light. Or maybe not. 1500 years ago someone discovered that if you burned charcoal mixed with livestock poop in a bamboo shoot, you got a similarly weak thrust. Later we figured out it was the dried pee, not the poop, that mattered and adding sulfur helped. So a thousand years ago they had black powder rockets, which kept accelerating through the air as long as the engine kept burning. Now we know that a rocket won't keep accelerating forever in air, but it took a thousand years to figure that out. We're still in the "poop in a tube" stage of EM drives, so we really don't know what the potential is.
Ps a timely analogy for "a billion people would be willing to be CEO" is the CEO of the United States. Sure many, many people would be *willing to be president. Yet it seems we're unable to find even one who is qualified for the job and willing to apply (run). The supply of *suitable* applicants is approximately zero.
I'm WILLING to be a world-class pianist, but because I'm not ABLE to, I'm not part of the supply of world-class pianists.
What exactly do you think that economic term, "supply and demand", means that's in some way different from what you described? It sure sounds to me like you could have copy-pasted your post from Economics 101, page 3 "Supply and Demand".
> but it hardly explains the idea of American exceptionalism in the 20th century.
American Exceptionalism does NOT mean "America is better." Somewhat the opposite, in fact. If the US government and the govetnment Spain both spy on their citizens, the US has failed to live up to it's responsibilities, while Spain has not necessarily failed, according to American Exceptionalism. AE says that due to certain historical facts, the US has responsibilities that other nations don't have.
Most states are also nations, the borders of France (the state) define the area controlled by the French people, the ( ~ ethnic) nation. American Exceptionalism is the historical fact that the US is a state (country) founded not based on a nation (ethnic group), but rather on a set of ideals; and that fact creates different responsibilities. Japan (the state) is basically the area controlled by ethnic Japanese, so they would be expected to preserve and defend Japanese culture. Germany is the area controlled by Germans, so they would be expected to preserve and protect German culture. The US is not a state, not an ethnic group; it was explicitly founded on the ideals that each person is endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc. The US claims to be "the brightest beacon of freedom", therefore the US should be expected to defend and preserve freedom and liberty. Spain wasn't founded as a bold experiment in individual freedom, so they have no special responsibility to do that- Spain is supposed to be Spanish, that's all. The US government, being founded for a particular purpose, has a special responsibility to honor that purpose. When we fail to preserve and protect freedom, we fail at our national identity, at our national purpose. That's American Exceptionalism.
> Value sets the cap. If the person doing the job creates $1M in value for the company, then that position is worth $1M
That's called "demand".
> But if 1M people could do that job
That's called "supply".
So paraphrasing your post: It's not supply and demand, it's demand and supply.
> there are billions of people that would work as a CEO for $20M a year
There's about one person available who has experience as CEO of a large car marker and did so succesfully. The supply side is people who are willing and able (ie qualified and available), not people who are willing but unable (unqualified).
A house fire produces temperatures up to about 550C. The surface of a diamond will oxidize, necesitating polishing, between 700C and 1700C. With normal oxygen levels it's about 700C, in an oxygen-depleted environment such as a fire diamonds can be unharmed up to 1700C.
> At some point, anyone bent on malicious programming _wants_ to be detected -- when the payload does whatever malice intended.
Not at all. Espionage is a clear example. Surely the target will notice when their ship gets blown up, but you don't want them to know it was due to espionage, much less computer, and certainly you don't want them to know WHICH computers you have compromised.
With industrial control specifically, you may want to make the final device fail, perhaps have an ICBM explode at launch, but you don't want them to know that it failed because you've caused their CNC machine to cut a slot to have wider clearance than specified.
> It is well known that the oil companies are lying about their "proven reserves" because the end of oil means the end of their business.
Reserves controlled by an oil company are a taxable asset. The more they have, the more taxes they pay. Do you think they're lying so they pay MORE taxes?
One of the biggest "oil company tax subsidies" that the tinfoil crowd whines about is that as those reserves are used up, oil companies no longer pay taxes on the reserves that they no longer have.
Thanks for those ideas. Discovery and legal proceedings generally may well be an area I should look at. It fits in with some of my other experience as a private investigator and my interest in forensics as well. For example, recently a Democrat party official claimed that her leaked emails may have been altered. I would have noticed the DKIM signature proving they were unaltered.
We ALREADY have people who don't know who the vice president is voting. In 2008, around half of Obama*voters* didn't know who Dick Cheney was (he was the vice president). We say "you must vote" and many do. Lacking any relevant information, they fall back to choosing based on skin complexion, gender, or other irrelevant "flip a coin" things. I wouldn't be suprised if half of Trump and Clinton voters can't name the current vice president, or their governor.
Again, there's nothing WRONG with not knowing who your governor is- maybe you have more important things to worry about. However, you wouldn't want someone who doesn't know what Windows is to select a computer for you; you wouldn't choose a car based on suggestions from a guy who hasn't heard of Toyota or Ford. Similarly, those who don't know who Mike Pence is probably shouldn't be voting for him or against him.
In the US, about half the populace isn't at all interested in politics and political affairs. They spend their time on other things, so they don't know who the current vice president is or who the incumbent governor is. This isn't necessarily *bad*; maybe they are spending their time looking for a cancer cure or feeding homeless people. In any event, they haven't paid any attention to politics and don't know who the governor is, and they couldn't name a single treaty signed in the last ten years. Knowing nothing about politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc, they end up supporting a reality TV star or something.
It seems to me there are two general ways to do it:
A) Have the president chosen by people basing their decision on "I saw a commercial once" or based purely on race and gender.
B) Have the president chosen by people who are interested enough to learn a bit about the candidates and the issues, and make the effort to show up on election day.
It would seem, from my perspective, that compulsory voting means "people who have no interest in, and no knowledge of the issues, who don't even want to vote, must flip a coin and choose a candiate- and those clueless disinterested votes count just as much as votes from people who researched the issues". That seems like a TERRIBLE idea. Is it that different in Australia? Do people actually know anything about the issues and the candidates, or is it purely a battle of the 2-second sound clips, each candidate fighting for the 50% of voters who haven't a clue?
Here, it's popular to say "voting is important. I won't tell you who to vote for, but it's critical that you go vote." I say the opposite. I say "if you don't know who the vice president is, if you'd rather play video games than learn the name of your governor, you don't need to select the next governor. Go ahead and play video games on Tuesday. You can leave the voting to people who care."
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. That's true, he's not hands-off in the sense that he becomes isolated and unaware of operations, only understanding things in terms of major departments. A LOT of CEOs only know the financial numbers of each subsidiary, but haven't looked at in-the-field operations for 20 years.
While Trump gives his direct hires a good degree of autonomy, he also tours hotel under construction and notices details like having three hinges installed on each door vs two hinges. He's in touch with operations, while still trusting his hires. I'm glad you pointed this out because there may be a lesson for managers here. Trumps hybrid management style may be a significant factor in his success.*
* There was some FUD going around claiming "Trump inherited his money". His father, Fred Trump, did make millions buying fourplexes and such. Donald Trump made BILLIONS building (and promoting!) world-class casino hotels and luxury condos.
Yeah this campaign has been more bumper stickers and slogans than specific policy proposals, so we really don't know yet.
Having studied Trump as a businessman, I strongly suspect he doesn't know which policies he'll propose - that will depend on what he hears from the experts he hires. In his long business career, he hired really smart people and trusted their judgement, rather than micro-managing, thinking he knew everything betterv than everyone else. His role was threefold a) the public face, drumming up publicity, b) negotiating major deals and c) overall leadership. He largely left the operational details to the very competent people he hired.
Let's HOPE he does the same as President, signing off on foreign policy developed by foreign policy experts, economic policy developed by experts in economics, etc.
Also one in particular - another Republican leader, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a budget nerd, who actually wrote several federal budgets and knows the federal budget perhaps better than anyone else. There's been tension between Trump and Paul Ryan during the campaign. Hopefully that tension is healed and Trump respects Ryan's significant expertise.
They make head units ("radios") with Android Auto, and an adapter cable for your car, so you *could* have a very nice installation done in about 20 minutes. My brother who does auto electronics for a living says the aftermarket Android Auto units are really great.
If you want to spend more time, you can also hook them up to your obd2 or whatever other sites for extra features.
> You don't mess with of our elections for free - you face consequences
That very much depends on who you are (or who your husband used to be). Also WHERE you are. In some counties, the local Democrat party is openly committing felony vote buying- the votes bought include the local prosecutor etc.
I don't know that this is at all feasible, but mostly because building the track is so expensive. Once you have the tube in place, early estimates say each tube should have about the same carrying capacity per hour as two freeway lanes. Because each pod makes the trip so quickly, each pod would make many more trips per hour than one automobile would.
Two freeway lanes is roughly what you'd want for capacity- you're replacing the long-haul express lane, not carrying the people who only want to travel 5 or 10 miles.
> hardware that doesn't work properly on Linux
I use four different models of RAID cards, from two different manufacturers. I'm fairly sure neither is supported by Windows 10, and all will be supoorted by Linux for another ten years. That's true of a lot of hardware I use, but I use heavy-duty hardware, not some toy from Best Buy.
If your interest is in the latest new toy from Best Buy, Windows has a slight advantage. For serious, big boy hardware that you plan to use for many years, Linux has a HUGE advantage.
> That's called "demand".
> No, that's value. "demand" is the number of positions available.
So you think that how much someone values, or desires, a thing, is not part of demand? Oxford Reference says:
Demand: The desire and ability to acquire a good or service.
Yep, how much it is desired (valued) is the first Oxford definition of "demand". HOWEVER, you're not AS mistaken as Oxford suggests. Demand is a curve, with TWO axes. The first axis is the one Oxford highlights - the value (the price someone is willing to pay); the second axis is the quantity they'll buy at that price (the axis you're thinking of).
The demand for CEOs is two-dimensional, how many will be hired at which price point:
> $10 million: 6
$5-$10 million: 150
$1 - $ 5 million: 2500
$1 million: 25,000
That makes perfect sense, doesn't it. Except it's not true. A US pint of water weighs 1.04375 pounds. An English pint 1.25 pounds. On the other hand, 1 liter of water is 1kg. 1cc of water is 1 gram.
It would make sense for 1x of water to weigh 1y, and in metric it does.
You seem to have missed the point. Both of your posts here are less than 140 characters.
According to you, anything less than 140 characters is "trolling", "baiting", "bragging", and "posturing". Which of those describes your posts here? They are under 140 characters, so they must be one of the types you listed.
The Saturn design process, with the various competing proposals from different branches of the military, is a bit complex and confusing. Anyway they ended up with a Frankenmissile, using the engines from the Thor and Jupiter missles with small upgrades, and various parts from other missiles. Originally it was designed for launching spy satellites. So military technology through and through.
That specific configuration of missile parts wasn't designed to have a warhead attached, just spy gear, but it was still a bunch of missile parts.
You might find it interesting to spend even 30 seconds reading the history of rockets. Hint- they went to the moon atop a missile.
> When people at a sporting event chant U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. that's just hubris.
Perhaps sometimes it is. It's interesting you say "at a sporting event." You may have noticed at a sporting event they also yell "Go Jaguars!", knowing quite well that their Jaguars are 2-6, tied for worst team in the league. Is that hubris, or perhaps something else?
I'm no physicist myself, and physicists don't understand this thing anyway, but here's my understanding:
Yes, appears that the only input is electricity, and it seems to produce thrust. So if electricity is free, a tiny amount of thrust is free. I say it APPEARS that the only input is electricity- many reactions which we now understand include oxygen from ambient air as an input, and that might have easily go unnoticed in an experiment before the reaction was understood. Similarly, it's possible that this thruster is using some non-obvious input, such as ambient radiation.
We don't know if one could be built much larger, or what the current capacity is for a given size. Maybe a 100,000 watt one could be small, maybe it would need to be very large. Maybe it would be far more efficient, maybe far less. We're still trying to confirm that the thing works at all.
> would I be right in thinking this thing would incredibly slowly start moving the ship and over a ridiculous amount of time, eventually be moving very rapidly and in theory (?) just keep on accelerating?
Yes, in theory, up to near the speed of light. Or maybe not. 1500 years ago someone discovered that if you burned charcoal mixed with livestock poop in a bamboo shoot, you got a similarly weak thrust. Later we figured out it was the dried pee, not the poop, that mattered and adding sulfur helped. So a thousand years ago they had black powder rockets, which kept accelerating through the air as long as the engine kept burning. Now we know that a rocket won't keep accelerating forever in air, but it took a thousand years to figure that out. We're still in the "poop in a tube" stage of EM drives, so we really don't know what the potential is.
Ps a timely analogy for "a billion people would be willing to be CEO" is the CEO of the United States. Sure many, many people would be *willing to be president. Yet it seems we're unable to find even one who is qualified for the job and willing to apply (run). The supply of *suitable* applicants is approximately zero.
I'm WILLING to be a world-class pianist, but because I'm not ABLE to, I'm not part of the supply of world-class pianists.
What exactly do you think that economic term, "supply and demand", means that's in some way different from what you described? It sure sounds to me like you could have copy-pasted your post from Economics 101, page 3 "Supply and Demand".
> My most memorable snip of code from the Indian team was a line of perl
That reminds me of a line I fixed the other day:
my $time = `date "+%s"`
Uhm, did you mean?:
my $time = time();
This was written by a senior architect, formerly director of engineering. he's actually a good software architect, but a terrible coder.
You made a good point.
> but it hardly explains the idea of American exceptionalism in the 20th century.
American Exceptionalism does NOT mean "America is better." Somewhat the opposite, in fact. If the US government and the govetnment Spain both spy on their citizens, the US has failed to live up to it's responsibilities, while Spain has not necessarily failed, according to American Exceptionalism. AE says that due to certain historical facts, the US has responsibilities that other nations don't have.
Most states are also nations, the borders of France (the state) define the area controlled by the French people, the ( ~ ethnic) nation. American Exceptionalism is the historical fact that the US is a state (country) founded not based on a nation (ethnic group), but rather on a set of ideals; and that fact creates different responsibilities. Japan (the state) is basically the area controlled by ethnic Japanese, so they would be expected to preserve and defend Japanese culture. Germany is the area controlled by Germans, so they would be expected to preserve and protect German culture. The US is not a state, not an ethnic group; it was explicitly founded on the ideals that each person is endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc. The US claims to be "the brightest beacon of freedom", therefore the US should be expected to defend and preserve freedom and liberty. Spain wasn't founded as a bold experiment in individual freedom, so they have no special responsibility to do that- Spain is supposed to be Spanish, that's all. The US government, being founded for a particular purpose, has a special responsibility to honor that purpose. When we fail to preserve and protect freedom, we fail at our national identity, at our national purpose. That's American Exceptionalism.
> Value sets the cap. If the person doing the job creates $1M in value for the company, then that position is worth $1M
That's called "demand".
> But if 1M people could do that job
That's called "supply".
So paraphrasing your post:
It's not supply and demand, it's demand and supply.
> there are billions of people that would work as a CEO for $20M a year
There's about one person available who has experience as CEO of a large car marker and did so succesfully. The supply side is people who are willing and able (ie qualified and available), not people who are willing but unable (unqualified).
A house fire produces temperatures up to about 550C. The surface of a diamond will oxidize, necesitating polishing, between 700C and 1700C. With normal oxygen levels it's about 700C, in an oxygen-depleted environment such as a fire diamonds can be unharmed up to 1700C.
> At some point, anyone bent on malicious programming _wants_ to be detected -- when the payload does whatever malice intended.
Not at all. Espionage is a clear example. Surely the target will notice when their ship gets blown up, but you don't want them to know it was due to espionage, much less computer, and certainly you don't want them to know WHICH computers you have compromised.
With industrial control specifically, you may want to make the final device fail, perhaps have an ICBM explode at launch, but you don't want them to know that it failed because you've caused their CNC machine to cut a slot to have wider clearance than specified.
> Vaporizing the sample to look at it? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
It's kinda like "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
> It is well known that the oil companies are lying about their "proven reserves" because the end of oil means the end of their business.
Reserves controlled by an oil company are a taxable asset. The more they have, the more taxes they pay. Do you think they're lying so they pay MORE taxes?
One of the biggest "oil company tax subsidies" that the tinfoil crowd whines about is that as those reserves are used up, oil companies no longer pay taxes on the reserves that they no longer have.
Thanks for those ideas. Discovery and legal proceedings generally may well be an area I should look at. It fits in with some of my other experience as a private investigator and my interest in forensics as well. For example, recently a Democrat party official claimed that her leaked emails may have been altered. I would have noticed the DKIM signature proving they were unaltered.
We ALREADY have people who don't know who the vice president is voting. In 2008, around half of Obama*voters* didn't know who Dick Cheney was (he was the vice president). We say "you must vote" and many do. Lacking any relevant information, they fall back to choosing based on skin complexion, gender, or other irrelevant "flip a coin" things. I wouldn't be suprised if half of Trump and Clinton voters can't name the current vice president, or their governor.
Again, there's nothing WRONG with not knowing who your governor is- maybe you have more important things to worry about. However, you wouldn't want someone who doesn't know what Windows is to select a computer for you; you wouldn't choose a car based on suggestions from a guy who hasn't heard of Toyota or Ford. Similarly, those who don't know who Mike Pence is probably shouldn't be voting for him or against him.
In the US, about half the populace isn't at all interested in politics and political affairs. They spend their time on other things, so they don't know who the current vice president is or who the incumbent governor is. This isn't necessarily *bad*; maybe they are spending their time looking for a cancer cure or feeding homeless people. In any event, they haven't paid any attention to politics and don't know who the governor is, and they couldn't name a single treaty signed in the last ten years. Knowing nothing about politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc, they end up supporting a reality TV star or something.
It seems to me there are two general ways to do it:
A) Have the president chosen by people basing their decision on "I saw a commercial once" or based purely on race and gender.
B) Have the president chosen by people who are interested enough to learn a bit about the candidates and the issues, and make the effort to show up on election day.
It would seem, from my perspective, that compulsory voting means "people who have no interest in, and no knowledge of the issues, who don't even want to vote, must flip a coin and choose a candiate- and those clueless disinterested votes count just as much as votes from people who researched the issues". That seems like a TERRIBLE idea. Is it that different in Australia? Do people actually know anything about the issues and the candidates, or is it purely a battle of the 2-second sound clips, each candidate fighting for the 50% of voters who haven't a clue?
Here, it's popular to say "voting is important. I won't tell you who to vote for, but it's critical that you go vote." I say the opposite. I say "if you don't know who the vice president is, if you'd rather play video games than learn the name of your governor, you don't need to select the next governor. Go ahead and play video games on Tuesday. You can leave the voting to people who care."