CA is fine, the problem is the old actresses wanting to disguise their age because they're not being selected to audition. They were fine when they were young and attractive, and being on the receiving end of the system; but now they're not they've started complaining and using their wealth (gained from their youthful years) to change the system. Hahaha, touch titties!
Possible? I suppose. But car makers can't manage to figure that part out then why would we expect appliance makers to do so? Someone will want to be able to adjust the temperature from their phone while they are out of town for some reason.
There are a lot of things that are good and an end in their own right, but I don't necessarily think we should be subsidizing those sorts of things while people go hungry and are sleeping out in the streets; while people can't afford good healthcare; while people can't get a decent primary and secondary education.
Please stop applying statistics to things that are not related. Raw GDP is meaningless in this context of what the President did or didn't do. Clinton legacy: 2000 USA GDP $10.3 Trillion. By your measure Bush grew the economy! WooHoo! and by more than Obama! We love Bush! Bush is Good!
USPS left a card in my mailbox for me to fill out with delivery preferences like : only leave with a person, leave on the porch, leave with X neighbor, hold at the office,
They, through technological means, detect the presence of something that meets a set of parameters which depend on the type of mine. Then they detonate themselves with the goal of destroying whatever it was that triggered them. All without any consent or intervention required by the party that placed it. Oh wait, landmines are already banned by the UN. Well at least they tried.
Yes, you read it the same way I did. The appeals court judge in this case said he failed to see the distinction and disagreed with the earlier supreme court ruling. So he wants the higher courts to reconsider, apparently.
Technically true, however if they don't think there is any way you can't do the job, they still do the PIP for a reason. They want to avoid lawsuits. The former employee can sue for wrongful termination, even in Washington state.
terminations in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Wrongful termination also includes terminations in violation of federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws.
Maybe, but I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. The Republicans had the right idea, they just executed it in the most stupid, miserable, incompetent, way possible. The Republicans went anti-establishment and the Democrats doubled down on establishment.
I think he's mad because the Democrats wanted to face Trump and did everything they could to help get him nominated so at least the Democrat anointed queen had a chance in hell of being elected. They miscalculated.
It's the thing with fins, a GPS and a little actuators to move the fins, attached to a projectile isn't it?
If they can make drones for a few hundred dollars, it isn't the true cost of the projectile, its the price the company thinks the military would value it at. They guessed wrong it seems.
I sort of guess, the company figured that estimating the price at 80k, the military would buy the guns, and then get stiffed with the 800k price tagged once they were locked in, rather than admit they'd been screwed over.
Clearly you may aswell buy a missile and get better accuracy, range and more launch options than this. So the munitions supply priced it wrong and the military decided to cut their losses on the project.
The government has a very keen insight into how much it costs to produce these projectiles. This isn't a car lot where they just show you some bullshit invoice. Even the government doesn't think the contractor is over-charging, just that the cost dramatically exceeds the original estimate. FWIW the guns and projectiles are built by different companies. This is a classic cost spiral. When the ships cost too much they reduce the quantity, making each copy cost more to build. When you only have three ships you reduce the quantity of the projectiles and will not ever receive the economy of scale. For example, Small Diameter Bomb II: Initial production run unit cost was double what the latest unit cost is in production. That improvement happened in a couple of years with an order of ~3000 units. In the original AGS plan, a cheaper, non-rocket propelled, round was also to be developed for the gun, that was canceled early in the program. Don't know why.
A lot of people like to think cost over-runs are just slimy contractors grabbing for the brass ring. Sometimes, but it is usually much more complicated than that. Science projects: both the government and the contractor reaching too far forward for technology that isn't ready for prime time. This isn't just being over-sold by contractors, the government has subject matter experts of their own that assess the state of the art. Requirements creep: When originally conceived a weapons system is designed to do a particular mission and counter a particular set of threats; missions and threats evolve. LCS is a good example. Originally intended by the procurement organization to be a cheap to produce using commercial standards (COTS use where not appropriate is a recurring theme in defense procurement, leading to cost growth later). The contracts for the original two ships for the competition were awarded. Only afterwards did the Navy come back with "the people who actually have to operate the ships in harms way have told us that commercial standards for hull construction are not adequate." Funding profile: When a contractor bids a project, they, along with the government, put together a plan. The contractor has to assume that the post-negotiation contract will be funded per the negotiated plan. Unfortunately, politicians don't have any skin in the game (unless it is being built in their district) and have a habit of diverting funds to cover the latest fire or a deal with an overall decreased budget (remember sequestration?). Obviously this is being penny wise pound foolish because in the long run it cost the contractor a lot more money to slow things down and then ramp them back up. Which leads us to budget proofing: regardless of efficiency, contractors are driven to spread out production across as many congressional districts as possible. Don't blame the contractors here, this is just them responding to pork barrel politics. Which is our own fault for electing representatives, not based on what they will do for the country, but how much money they can bring back to the district, whether the project is needed or not. These are just a few examples of cooperative inefficiency between the DoD and defense contractors.
Hopefully you don't think that legislating from the bench is a uniquely British thing. We have plenty of that in the US also. We just say that the US Supreme Court "interprets" the laws and the Constitution.
The subject is more complex than you imagine. The F-16 and F-15 both use the same engine. If you compare engine flight hours for the latest engine, the -229 I think, the F-15 has had more ENGINE RELATED class A mishaps than the F-16. If the F-16 had the same ENGINE mishap rate as the F-15 they should have lost 5 air frames / lives in a period where engine problems cost them zero. That's right none. So it is much more complex than just making the assumption that two is better than one. Think about it this way, two engines have twice the possibility of catching fire in the air or catastrophic failure with enough collateral damage that the plane can't be landed.
The most amazing thing about this is that they actually got someone to pay them to do this study, as if there was really any doubt, and as if it makes any difference anyway. I'd like to get a grant to study whether, on average, cats or dogs are happier to see you when you get home if they have already been fed. (But I'll only use two actual cats, and a few dogs that self identify as cats)
If you want to get pedantic... On the highways in Colorado (65MPH two lanes in your direction in our example), if there is a vehicle in the right hand lane doing the speed limit, and you are in the left hand lane, also doing the speed limit, you are by definition not passing and are in violation of the law and can be cited. The law in CO does not allow for running in the passing lane slower than other traffic, even if you are doing the speed limit.
Same old story. Compelling interest and interstate commerce are the two biggest bullshit phrases ever to grace a court room. You know why they can set up a temporary checkpoint stopping vehicles for no reason and demand to see all the Driver's licenses and insurance for everyone driving a car through there? Compelling interest. DUI checkpoints forcing everyone to stop whether there is reason to suspect drinking or not, compelling interest, immigration checkpoint 75 miles inside the border, compelling interest, patriot act, compelling interest. Want to lock some US citizens in camps because of their ethnic background, compelling interest.
No, it is not overblown.
Stop for a moment and think about the bigger picture. What happens when everything is automated? Where will you work? How will you pay your mortgage? Do you think that engineering cannot be automated? In time, it will be.
Are you a manager? Do you think all those managers will be needed when there are workers?
It does not take a crystal ball to see that this is the path we are on.
Right, so we should have never automated anything because it would have never lead to more interesting fields of work that improved productivity and lead to higher qualities of life. If we listened to your logic we would still be pulling seeds out of cotton by hand. Efficiency means we get to spend more effort on things that go beyond our needs and improve our leisure time, which the automation will give us more of. The fact is that we have no idea what is next in terms of technology and what fields will open up 100 years from now so it isn't really justified to say that it will eventually be automated away. On the other hand, if we did get to the point where everything was automated to the point where everyone was supplied what they want or need without anyone having to work, then I'd celebrate and take the rest of my life off enjoying all the free stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
CA is fine, the problem is the old actresses wanting to disguise their age because they're not being selected to audition. They were fine when they were young and attractive, and being on the receiving end of the system; but now they're not they've started complaining and using their wealth (gained from their youthful years) to change the system. Hahaha, touch titties!
Paging Dr. Freud...
Possible? I suppose. But car makers can't manage to figure that part out then why would we expect appliance makers to do so? Someone will want to be able to adjust the temperature from their phone while they are out of town for some reason.
Interesting. Curiously, where is "around here?"
There are a lot of things that are good and an end in their own right, but I don't necessarily think we should be subsidizing those sorts of things while people go hungry and are sleeping out in the streets; while people can't afford good healthcare; while people can't get a decent primary and secondary education.
Please stop applying statistics to things that are not related. Raw GDP is meaningless in this context of what the President did or didn't do. Clinton legacy: 2000 USA GDP $10.3 Trillion. By your measure Bush grew the economy! WooHoo! and by more than Obama! We love Bush! Bush is Good!
He didn't say Liberal, he said Democrat. As far as the economy and business there is a big difference and has been for some time.
USPS left a card in my mailbox for me to fill out with delivery preferences like : only leave with a person, leave on the porch, leave with X neighbor, hold at the office,
They, through technological means, detect the presence of something that meets a set of parameters which depend on the type of mine. Then they detonate themselves with the goal of destroying whatever it was that triggered them. All without any consent or intervention required by the party that placed it. Oh wait, landmines are already banned by the UN. Well at least they tried.
Yes, you read it the same way I did. The appeals court judge in this case said he failed to see the distinction and disagreed with the earlier supreme court ruling. So he wants the higher courts to reconsider, apparently.
Technically true, however if they don't think there is any way you can't do the job, they still do the PIP for a reason. They want to avoid lawsuits. The former employee can sue for wrongful termination, even in Washington state.
terminations in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Wrongful termination also includes terminations in violation of federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws.
Excellent point. They could even use it for this since rising sea levels could impact trade.
Maybe, but I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. The Republicans had the right idea, they just executed it in the most stupid, miserable, incompetent, way possible. The Republicans went anti-establishment and the Democrats doubled down on establishment.
I think he's mad because the Democrats wanted to face Trump and did everything they could to help get him nominated so at least the Democrat anointed queen had a chance in hell of being elected. They miscalculated.
This makes sense. Hell, if you could pull it off and add in other third parties you could call it the "non-establishment party."
Since I don't have any mod points at the moment, and as much as I hate to use it, I will say "what he said!"
It's the thing with fins, a GPS and a little actuators to move the fins, attached to a projectile isn't it?
If they can make drones for a few hundred dollars, it isn't the true cost of the projectile, its the price the company thinks the military would value it at. They guessed wrong it seems.
I sort of guess, the company figured that estimating the price at 80k, the military would buy the guns, and then get stiffed with the 800k price tagged once they were locked in, rather than admit they'd been screwed over.
Clearly you may aswell buy a missile and get better accuracy, range and more launch options than this. So the munitions supply priced it wrong and the military decided to cut their losses on the project.
The government has a very keen insight into how much it costs to produce these projectiles. This isn't a car lot where they just show you some bullshit invoice. Even the government doesn't think the contractor is over-charging, just that the cost dramatically exceeds the original estimate. FWIW the guns and projectiles are built by different companies. This is a classic cost spiral. When the ships cost too much they reduce the quantity, making each copy cost more to build. When you only have three ships you reduce the quantity of the projectiles and will not ever receive the economy of scale. For example, Small Diameter Bomb II: Initial production run unit cost was double what the latest unit cost is in production. That improvement happened in a couple of years with an order of ~3000 units. In the original AGS plan, a cheaper, non-rocket propelled, round was also to be developed for the gun, that was canceled early in the program. Don't know why.
A lot of people like to think cost over-runs are just slimy contractors grabbing for the brass ring. Sometimes, but it is usually much more complicated than that. Science projects: both the government and the contractor reaching too far forward for technology that isn't ready for prime time. This isn't just being over-sold by contractors, the government has subject matter experts of their own that assess the state of the art. Requirements creep: When originally conceived a weapons system is designed to do a particular mission and counter a particular set of threats; missions and threats evolve. LCS is a good example. Originally intended by the procurement organization to be a cheap to produce using commercial standards (COTS use where not appropriate is a recurring theme in defense procurement, leading to cost growth later). The contracts for the original two ships for the competition were awarded. Only afterwards did the Navy come back with "the people who actually have to operate the ships in harms way have told us that commercial standards for hull construction are not adequate." Funding profile: When a contractor bids a project, they, along with the government, put together a plan. The contractor has to assume that the post-negotiation contract will be funded per the negotiated plan. Unfortunately, politicians don't have any skin in the game (unless it is being built in their district) and have a habit of diverting funds to cover the latest fire or a deal with an overall decreased budget (remember sequestration?). Obviously this is being penny wise pound foolish because in the long run it cost the contractor a lot more money to slow things down and then ramp them back up. Which leads us to budget proofing: regardless of efficiency, contractors are driven to spread out production across as many congressional districts as possible. Don't blame the contractors here, this is just them responding to pork barrel politics. Which is our own fault for electing representatives, not based on what they will do for the country, but how much money they can bring back to the district, whether the project is needed or not. These are just a few examples of cooperative inefficiency between the DoD and defense contractors.
Hopefully you don't think that legislating from the bench is a uniquely British thing. We have plenty of that in the US also. We just say that the US Supreme Court "interprets" the laws and the Constitution.
The subject is more complex than you imagine. The F-16 and F-15 both use the same engine. If you compare engine flight hours for the latest engine, the -229 I think, the F-15 has had more ENGINE RELATED class A mishaps than the F-16. If the F-16 had the same ENGINE mishap rate as the F-15 they should have lost 5 air frames / lives in a period where engine problems cost them zero. That's right none. So it is much more complex than just making the assumption that two is better than one. Think about it this way, two engines have twice the possibility of catching fire in the air or catastrophic failure with enough collateral damage that the plane can't be landed.
The most amazing thing about this is that they actually got someone to pay them to do this study, as if there was really any doubt, and as if it makes any difference anyway. I'd like to get a grant to study whether, on average, cats or dogs are happier to see you when you get home if they have already been fed. (But I'll only use two actual cats, and a few dogs that self identify as cats)
If you want to get pedantic... On the highways in Colorado (65MPH two lanes in your direction in our example), if there is a vehicle in the right hand lane doing the speed limit, and you are in the left hand lane, also doing the speed limit, you are by definition not passing and are in violation of the law and can be cited. The law in CO does not allow for running in the passing lane slower than other traffic, even if you are doing the speed limit.
And since, for practical purposes, it is a two party system the stench permeates the general election.
We didn't let the companies create the artificial monopolies, our government created them.
Same old story. Compelling interest and interstate commerce are the two biggest bullshit phrases ever to grace a court room. You know why they can set up a temporary checkpoint stopping vehicles for no reason and demand to see all the Driver's licenses and insurance for everyone driving a car through there? Compelling interest. DUI checkpoints forcing everyone to stop whether there is reason to suspect drinking or not, compelling interest, immigration checkpoint 75 miles inside the border, compelling interest, patriot act, compelling interest. Want to lock some US citizens in camps because of their ethnic background, compelling interest.
and with an add-on can operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks simultaneously
I do like the fact that it is expandable.
No, it is not overblown. Stop for a moment and think about the bigger picture. What happens when everything is automated? Where will you work? How will you pay your mortgage? Do you think that engineering cannot be automated? In time, it will be. Are you a manager? Do you think all those managers will be needed when there are workers? It does not take a crystal ball to see that this is the path we are on.
Right, so we should have never automated anything because it would have never lead to more interesting fields of work that improved productivity and lead to higher qualities of life. If we listened to your logic we would still be pulling seeds out of cotton by hand. Efficiency means we get to spend more effort on things that go beyond our needs and improve our leisure time, which the automation will give us more of. The fact is that we have no idea what is next in terms of technology and what fields will open up 100 years from now so it isn't really justified to say that it will eventually be automated away. On the other hand, if we did get to the point where everything was automated to the point where everyone was supplied what they want or need without anyone having to work, then I'd celebrate and take the rest of my life off enjoying all the free stuff.