"It's also reasonable to think that if they were that sloppy/incompetent/crooked in one area, that other areas of the project were equally affected, like the engineering."
I am in agreement here. Orthogonal to the question of what motivated the problems in NEON's budget the quantity of problems is more than enough to make the whole thing a problem.
This is of course why the NSF' inspector-general orders audits in the first place.
a) Strawman. No one is arguing that the expenses should just get a pass.
b) The article says "there was no legal wrongdoing, DCAA director Anita Bales told the hearing".
c) The cited expenses, which the parent refers to, are all in the range of categorization error rather than corruption. However, the article say that "36% of NEON’s budget proposal was questionable or undocumented". The article was silent on how much of the budget spent to date was questionable or undocumented, or whether the problems with the budget proposal were very many instances similar to the cited expenses or larger unmentioned problems were needed to get to the 36%. SO the article fails to give insight on whether the proximate problem is sloppy budgeting or something more nefarious (though you can make the case that sufficiently advances incompetence is indistinguishable from malice).
Except you have hidden in the word "efficiency" the fact that you actually use different metrics for the different problems you pose.
In the first case you want to maximize kWH. In the second case you are trying to maximize the net of the product of the instantaneous power production and the instantaneous price from the utility. In the third case you are trying to minimize the net power consumption only during the times where instantaneous power consumption is greater than 0.
Then there is the question of what is the limiting factor that you are taking your efficiency ration against. Is it purely materials cost? Is it area consumed by the array? is it the transport cost of the materials to the site?
Because people offering grants are only interested in "new-shiny" not ordinary books and teachers and people voting for school budgets are only interested in "new-shiny" and not ordinary books and teachers.
Schools have to pursue the money that is offered with the hope that they can turn a bit into something useful.
But we don't just give them money, we give them money dedicated to specific items. If there is grant money available for computer equipment then you have to write a proposal for computing equipment and you can't spend it on ordinary teachers salaries. If you turn down a grant because it is too specific then you get your budget cut because you obviously have enough already.
The point of those naming regimes is specifically to a) carry no implicit information and to be a pure identifier while b) still being pronounceable and memorable. What are advantageous of a) in the case of security vulnerabilities?
It is in your interest for everyone else to be prompted to respond to security issues, by whatever means is available, the same way it is in everyone else's interest for you to be prompted to respond to security issues. For example, how many people found all instances of the "Heartbleed" bug that affected them by code review? Did you?
Whether Brown punched Wilson was actually one of the matters in question. Note that the claims about Wilson's fractured eye socket turned out to be incorrect.
Certainly none of Wilson's behavior *before* he claimed to be punched by Brown can be justified by his being punched.
I will thank you to note that I did not say that the video did or did not show violent behavior on the part of Brown. I did not even mention the content.
What I *did* say is that the police could not have any information about the content of the store video since at the time the incident had not been reported. Since Wilson could not have known what was in the video, the video could not have informed his decision to fire his weapon.
The former would be irrelevant to the case since there was no way the cops could have had that information at the time of the shooting. The latter would be irrelevant since it involves no on in the case.
A grand jury is given the facts that the prosecution want to present. If the prosecution feels pressured to present the case to a grand jury but doesn't want to prosecute they just need to sandbag the evidence presented. The proceedings are secret, there is no judge, and there definitely is no representation for the dead jaywalker.
"why does Amazon get to set the price, and not Apple or the publishers?"
Amazon does not get to set prices through coercive pressure due to its monopsony, the same as how the publishers do not get to set prices through coercive pressure due to collusion. However, this cases was not about Amazon so it cannot be used as a statement on whether or not Amazon can or should uses a monopsony to set market prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the US government is not ordering a search outside of the US, why should we listen to any other claim that Microsoft US makes after that point?
"And what do you think of MS's rebuttal of that position?"
I think that an analogy that dissimilar in the essential point is not instructive.
The US Government is not sending any orders to any entity outside of the US.
"It's also reasonable to think that if they were that sloppy/incompetent/crooked in one area, that other areas of the project were equally affected, like the engineering."
I am in agreement here. Orthogonal to the question of what motivated the problems in NEON's budget the quantity of problems is more than enough to make the whole thing a problem.
This is of course why the NSF' inspector-general orders audits in the first place.
"there was no legal wrongdoing, DCAA director Anita Bales told the hearing."
36% of the *proposed budget* which was audited before it went into effect.
The article does now say what percentage of expenditures to date is represented by these improper expenses.
My department gets $25 per head for a *quarterly* event, and we have about 1,000 people.
a) Strawman. No one is arguing that the expenses should just get a pass.
b) The article says "there was no legal wrongdoing, DCAA director Anita Bales told the hearing".
c) The cited expenses, which the parent refers to, are all in the range of categorization error rather than corruption. However, the article say that "36% of NEON’s budget proposal was questionable or undocumented". The article was silent on how much of the budget spent to date was questionable or undocumented, or whether the problems with the budget proposal were very many instances similar to the cited expenses or larger unmentioned problems were needed to get to the 36%. SO the article fails to give insight on whether the proximate problem is sloppy budgeting or something more nefarious (though you can make the case that sufficiently advances incompetence is indistinguishable from malice).
Thank you for the clarification. I tripped over the the double negatives.
This is the second comment I've seen that says "no" and then proceeds to give the "yes" argument.
How is your argument consistent with your title of "A big fat no!"?
Except you have hidden in the word "efficiency" the fact that you actually use different metrics for the different problems you pose.
In the first case you want to maximize kWH.
In the second case you are trying to maximize the net of the product of the instantaneous power production and the instantaneous price from the utility.
In the third case you are trying to minimize the net power consumption only during the times where instantaneous power consumption is greater than 0.
Then there is the question of what is the limiting factor that you are taking your efficiency ration against. Is it purely materials cost? Is it area consumed by the array? is it the transport cost of the materials to the site?
Wind loads
Self-shadowing
Increased failure rate
Because people offering grants are only interested in "new-shiny" not ordinary books and teachers and people voting for school budgets are only interested in "new-shiny" and not ordinary books and teachers.
Schools have to pursue the money that is offered with the hope that they can turn a bit into something useful.
But we don't just give them money, we give them money dedicated to specific items. If there is grant money available for computer equipment then you have to write a proposal for computing equipment and you can't spend it on ordinary teachers salaries. If you turn down a grant because it is too specific then you get your budget cut because you obviously have enough already.
The public derives a non-excludable benefit from reducing DUI.
The point of those naming regimes is specifically to a) carry no implicit information and to be a pure identifier while b) still being pronounceable and memorable. What are advantageous of a) in the case of security vulnerabilities?
It is in your interest for everyone else to be prompted to respond to security issues, by whatever means is available, the same way it is in everyone else's interest for you to be prompted to respond to security issues. For example, how many people found all instances of the "Heartbleed" bug that affected them by code review? Did you?
Self-righteousness is not a security protocol.
The lawyer for the store said that no one from the store called 911 to report the incident: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news...
Whether Brown punched Wilson was actually one of the matters in question. Note that the claims about Wilson's fractured eye socket turned out to be incorrect.
Certainly none of Wilson's behavior *before* he claimed to be punched by Brown can be justified by his being punched.
I will thank you to note that I did not say that the video did or did not show violent behavior on the part of Brown. I did not even mention the content.
What I *did* say is that the police could not have any information about the content of the store video since at the time the incident had not been reported. Since Wilson could not have known what was in the video, the video could not have informed his decision to fire his weapon.
You need to find a cop with a broken eye socket first, since that description turns out not to apply to Wilson.
"an unarmed person who is suspected of a felony "
He could not have been suspected of a felony at the time since the police had no knowledge of the incident at the store at the time of the shooting.
The former would be irrelevant to the case since there was no way the cops could have had that information at the time of the shooting.
The latter would be irrelevant since it involves no on in the case.
"a grand jury who had ALL the facts"
-1, uninformative.
A grand jury is given the facts that the prosecution want to present. If the prosecution feels pressured to present the case to a grand jury but doesn't want to prosecute they just need to sandbag the evidence presented. The proceedings are secret, there is no judge, and there definitely is no representation for the dead jaywalker.
"why does Amazon get to set the price, and not Apple or the publishers?"
Amazon does not get to set prices through coercive pressure due to its monopsony, the same as how the publishers do not get to set prices through coercive pressure due to collusion. However, this cases was not about Amazon so it cannot be used as a statement on whether or not Amazon can or should uses a monopsony to set market prices.