Good, wouldn't want you straining yourself. It's important to stop reading when it conflicts with your long held beliefs. Don't bother considering it. We need you in prime condition.
It's not like the guy has a book where he explains anything.
When the public is allowed comment, they typically reply using terrible logic. And I mean logic that terrifies the reader. The arguments are not thought through, and only seem like rational thoughts because the author believed the premise. Any legitimate evaluation of the general public opinion would have the same effect as tossing 80% of replies at random, due to poorly laid out arguments which boil down to "my opinion is based on the news I get from one or two aggregators and I have not considered real world implications even to myself". I cannot distinguish failure to consider public opinion, from considering it and finding it useless. Or another way, if we could trust the public to make coherent arguments, we could disregard the conclusions as a setup job. In far too many cases, I actually think 'I agreed with you, but when you started talking your logic made me change my opinion." Specifically, pure opinion is irrelevant because it is not a vote. Personal experience can rarely be generalized, especially when corporate experience can be so much more easily. Redundant mass verbatim copies are just "me too" opinions. You can argue that this is intentionally designed to get the most ignorable feedback. But is there an alternative? Until we can make neutral arguments using the target audience's language, it seems unfair to expect to have any effect
Repeatability. Productivity must be repeatable if any measured claims can be made, and no one does the same thing twice.
Even if you write similar code for a similar purpose, you have the backing of experience. The results are different even if you end up with the same code.
And, there are the os and third party libraries. I can save time by using such features, if I take time to learn them.
There is a post below about maintainability, securability, etc, all of which are good points, but will rarely be done exactly the same way. Especially since some are intended to be server side, where obscurity is possible, and some client side where you may need real security.
Any such study will have questionable conclusions due to the number of variables. Writing new code vs inheriting, where the choice might be maintain or rewrite in a new language.
But none of these will be applicable to an entirely new situation, and any study results irrelevant. Repeatability in code means studying something that will probably never happen again, or something so basic it will never represent normal professional usage.
This is not intended for the audience that would find it burdensome. It is meant for people who want to do exactly this, it just isn't legal. Chances are good these businesses already have the documents because they would be shopping to venture capital and angel investors, who require this stuff to even start talking to an unknown. This allows them to add another way to gain investors, legally, that they would not have otherwise.
If you can find people to do the required documentation with a percentage ceiling, you are free to use them. Getting investors to trust them, and hoping you don't get jailed for fraud, is then up to you.
The article is not clear, but this is traditional investing via crowdsourcing. Selling securities or equity, like a normal IPO. This makes the same rules apply everywhere, and closes a loophole advantageous to people who could go the traditional route but decide not to. Kickstarter, where you pre-order merchandise, does not seem to be affected. Do you think the SEC should regulate investing any differently because it happens on the web? I'm assuming the answer is "oh, I misunderstood."
You said it would be a supply issue. This was not a supply issue. You weren't necessarily wrong then, but you are definitely wrong about being right then. Seems you have plenty of company, so don't feel bad about not understanding what happened here.
It's not an American thing, that's why there is a law. It had to be waived because unimportant parts from the supply chain were not domestic-only, and replacing the parts on principal is a stupid waste of time and money. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. This is the best I can do. I'm pulling for ya, kid- just hang in there.
I'm sure if there are sourcers for purchasing military approved reading Slashdot, and they happen to read your comment, and are allowed to post such information, you will feel stupid. Until then you have basically said "I operate in completely different circles" much like using your social connections to prove Kardashians don't exist because they are not at your gatherings.
In other words, your industry sounds like consumer goods, not military hardware. Consumers won't pay domestic prices, military sourcing will. Ergo, I give your first hand experience zero relevance.
Considering: The heritage piece was an opportunist hatchet job to discredit all democratic presidential candidates, based on a Clinton advisor leaving. Drudge up the past to the politically connected woman loses because no one is going to vote for the black guy.
And Kos is so vague that I would argue it is wrong, and clearly given the date a pro-Obama job.
I considered it, but given different agendas and audience, I see editorial opportunism in both. So what is the point? Are they both right?
You did not mention closing the mine instead of having the processing come up to regulations. Without sourcing, no one can care about domestic suppliers. Magnequench might be a non issue at this point. Neither article went there, inexplicably- Kos due to missing facts, and Heritage because it would have weakened the Asia connection which was key to its presentation. So I still don't think I have a clear picture, and yet you feel that you do
Because the intent of the law is to ensure domestic sourcing, and a foreign supplier could decide to end America's military power by refusing to sell magnets. The law covers all parts, including things like helium and rare earth metals which actually are a problem, in addition to magnets that are no issue.
The waiver does not change the law. It recognizes that an unintentional inclusion of $2 magnets harms no one, and the rare metals were of no consequence. They were installed, then discovered and reported. Here's the article...
------ The documents reviewed by Reuters show that Northrop first discovered the use of non-compliant Japanese magnets on the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar it builds for the F-35 in August 2012, alerting the prime contractor, Lockheed, which then told the Pentagon.
A subsequent investigation of all parts on the F-35 turned up two more cases in which non-U.S. specialty metals were used on the F-35's radar, and on target assemblies built by Honeywell that are used for positioning doors and landing gear.
Northrop's radar was also found to contain $2 magnets made by Chengdu Magnetic Material Science & Technology Co, in China's Sichuan region, according to the documents.
The magnets used on the Honeywell target assemblies were acquired through Illinois-based Dexter Magnetic Technologies Inc.
I think you have strong feelings about customs stealing things, and built this post around that. Because destroying what looks like decorative bamboo to an untrained eye is not anywhere close to what you described. People tend to put the most specious arguments together when it seems obvious in their own head. I'm wondering if I missed the satire because it is so absurd, yet here you are at +5 so the satire was lost. Do you really think a clarinet or violin would be seized and destroyed based on one story of decorative bamboo?
Well then you're both stupid. A government could be described as such with continued crackdowns of the same type. In this case, it seems one automaton had a strict interpretation of rules, and rather than admit that they could have bent the rules, the decision makers backed the rules. You can't count on a lack of previous enforcement indicating a future lack of same. And, without multiple cases that I don't know about because I don't follow the handmade flute material importing scandals, it makes no sense to use this as the opening for relabeling a government. Before you argue male sure you got your facts straight, thenproceed.
Being imperfect removes freedom of religion? Because the only other way I can read this is petty sniping on your part. Or ignorance I suppose. Care to clarify how this us relevant in a way that I missed? Sure there are some pushing a personal agenda via religion. Personal and orthodox views get all mixed up in religion, that's kind of the point, and a given in these arguments.
Cmmi is going from a federally funded entity, aka a cost center, to a profit center. Instead of bring supported by taxes it earns its own keep. And how is this bad?
Only in the context of Obamacare. Did we not have the argument to prizatize NASA? It was terribly argued, but there were good points made. When you put it as it is in tfs, it sounds horrible. Saying it is privatized sounds way better.
And Obamacare was poor legislation all the way through, to the point that supporters didn't know what they were getting until it was too late. Completely different, as it is not privatizing like this bit with cmmi is.
You just eliminated the upper middle class from making any stock investments. Lower middle would only do investments as part of a 401k. Upper might dabble here and there. But consider a decent 10% gain taxed at 25%. That is a real 7.5% gain, disregarding inflation. Including inflation, it may be closer to 5% depending on the length of investment. It's basically not worth it for less than 10% per year, since losses are probable. I know what you are after, but looking at it across the board is not appropriate.
Not wrong, necessarily. But it is good for page views because the normal people will post predictable rants and replies without regard to context. That's the hive mind that loves these stories. And, of course, those trying to beat sense into the senseless.
If every person who cared wrote twice, it would not be enough.
Fear makes people want this. Even if they say out loud that the gvmt has no business in their business, privately they add "except to catch terrorists".
Numbers and logic are irrelevant here, because they were invented after fear and instinct.
Quote without relevance. When read elsewhere, they are not deducting a payment. That was the point, not putting the account on the card. And, it seems to be part of traffic management, so I don't see a major security issue here. Whatever point you had, it got missed completely.
Slashdot Mirror
Network efficiency, not internet. Big difference. Context is important, as I keep telling you fuckers.
So you said "Durr I didn't read anything but I'm going to dismiss this as a small portion of the superset of things being discussed."
You're awesome. I heart you to death.
Good, wouldn't want you straining yourself. It's important to stop reading when it conflicts with your long held beliefs. Don't bother considering it. We need you in prime condition.
It's not like the guy has a book where he explains anything.
However, none of this applies to your friend's profile picture appearing in an ad in your Facebook feed.
Really, then why did I read it?
Seriously, anyone explains this to me? I'm a idiot.
Mortal Kombat V? Thats the best one to stream. Mash any button and get a randomized video, no lag.
When the public is allowed comment, they typically reply using terrible logic. And I mean logic that terrifies the reader. The arguments are not thought through, and only seem like rational thoughts because the author believed the premise.
Any legitimate evaluation of the general public opinion would have the same effect as tossing 80% of replies at random, due to poorly laid out arguments which boil down to "my opinion is based on the news I get from one or two aggregators and I have not considered real world implications even to myself".
I cannot distinguish failure to consider public opinion, from considering it and finding it useless. Or another way, if we could trust the public to make coherent arguments, we could disregard the conclusions as a setup job.
In far too many cases, I actually think 'I agreed with you, but when you started talking your logic made me change my opinion."
Specifically, pure opinion is irrelevant because it is not a vote. Personal experience can rarely be generalized, especially when corporate experience can be so much more easily. Redundant mass verbatim copies are just "me too" opinions.
You can argue that this is intentionally designed to get the most ignorable feedback. But is there an alternative? Until we can make neutral arguments using the target audience's language, it seems unfair to expect to have any effect
Repeatability. Productivity must be repeatable if any measured claims can be made, and no one does the same thing twice.
Even if you write similar code for a similar purpose, you have the backing of experience. The results are different even if you end up with the same code.
And, there are the os and third party libraries. I can save time by using such features, if I take time to learn them.
There is a post below about maintainability, securability, etc, all of which are good points, but will rarely be done exactly the same way. Especially since some are intended to be server side, where obscurity is possible, and some client side where you may need real security.
Any such study will have questionable conclusions due to the number of variables. Writing new code vs inheriting, where the choice might be maintain or rewrite in a new language.
But none of these will be applicable to an entirely new situation, and any study results irrelevant. Repeatability in code means studying something that will probably never happen again, or something so basic it will never represent normal professional usage.
This is not intended for the audience that would find it burdensome. It is meant for people who want to do exactly this, it just isn't legal.
Chances are good these businesses already have the documents because they would be shopping to venture capital and angel investors, who require this stuff to even start talking to an unknown.
This allows them to add another way to gain investors, legally, that they would not have otherwise.
If you can find people to do the required documentation with a percentage ceiling, you are free to use them.
Getting investors to trust them, and hoping you don't get jailed for fraud, is then up to you.
The article is not clear, but this is traditional investing via crowdsourcing. Selling securities or equity, like a normal IPO. This makes the same rules apply everywhere, and closes a loophole advantageous to people who could go the traditional route but decide not to.
Kickstarter, where you pre-order merchandise, does not seem to be affected.
Do you think the SEC should regulate investing any differently because it happens on the web? I'm assuming the answer is "oh, I misunderstood."
Accountants would get the money, not the government.
You misunderstand the word augment, because no they do not.
You said it would be a supply issue. This was not a supply issue. You weren't necessarily wrong then, but you are definitely wrong about being right then.
Seems you have plenty of company, so don't feel bad about not understanding what happened here.
It's not an American thing, that's why there is a law. It had to be waived because unimportant parts from the supply chain were not domestic-only, and replacing the parts on principal is a stupid waste of time and money.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. This is the best I can do. I'm pulling for ya, kid- just hang in there.
I'm sure if there are sourcers for purchasing military approved reading Slashdot, and they happen to read your comment, and are allowed to post such information, you will feel stupid. Until then you have basically said "I operate in completely different circles" much like using your social connections to prove Kardashians don't exist because they are not at your gatherings.
In other words, your industry sounds like consumer goods, not military hardware. Consumers won't pay domestic prices, military sourcing will. Ergo, I give your first hand experience zero relevance.
Considering: The heritage piece was an opportunist hatchet job to discredit all democratic presidential candidates, based on a Clinton advisor leaving. Drudge up the past to the politically connected woman loses because no one is going to vote for the black guy.
And Kos is so vague that I would argue it is wrong, and clearly given the date a pro-Obama job.
I considered it, but given different agendas and audience, I see editorial opportunism in both. So what is the point? Are they both right?
You did not mention closing the mine instead of having the processing come up to regulations. Without sourcing, no one can care about domestic suppliers. Magnequench might be a non issue at this point. Neither article went there, inexplicably- Kos due to missing facts, and Heritage because it would have weakened the Asia connection which was key to its presentation. So I still don't think I have a clear picture, and yet you feel that you do
Because the intent of the law is to ensure domestic sourcing, and a foreign supplier could decide to end America's military power by refusing to sell magnets. The law covers all parts, including things like helium and rare earth metals which actually are a problem, in addition to magnets that are no issue.
The waiver does not change the law. It recognizes that an unintentional inclusion of $2 magnets harms no one, and the rare metals were of no consequence. They were installed, then discovered and reported. Here's the article...
------
The documents reviewed by Reuters show that Northrop first discovered the use of non-compliant Japanese magnets on the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar it builds for the F-35 in August 2012, alerting the prime contractor, Lockheed, which then told the Pentagon.
A subsequent investigation of all parts on the F-35 turned up two more cases in which non-U.S. specialty metals were used on the F-35's radar, and on target assemblies built by Honeywell that are used for positioning doors and landing gear.
Northrop's radar was also found to contain $2 magnets made by Chengdu Magnetic Material Science & Technology Co, in China's Sichuan region, according to the documents.
The magnets used on the Honeywell target assemblies were acquired through Illinois-based Dexter Magnetic Technologies Inc.
As I said before, no to censorship, meaning yes to everything, including that one.
If the call is recorded an individual yes is acceptable at that point, and if its not no one will care.
Did I miss something? Do you still think the chilling effect exists?
I think you have strong feelings about customs stealing things, and built this post around that. Because destroying what looks like decorative bamboo to an untrained eye is not anywhere close to what you described.
People tend to put the most specious arguments together when it seems obvious in their own head.
I'm wondering if I missed the satire because it is so absurd, yet here you are at +5 so the satire was lost.
Do you really think a clarinet or violin would be seized and destroyed based on one story of decorative bamboo?
Well then you're both stupid. A government could be described as such with continued crackdowns of the same type. In this case, it seems one automaton had a strict interpretation of rules, and rather than admit that they could have bent the rules, the decision makers backed the rules.
You can't count on a lack of previous enforcement indicating a future lack of same.
And, without multiple cases that I don't know about because I don't follow the handmade flute material importing scandals, it makes no sense to use this as the opening for relabeling a government.
Before you argue male sure you got your facts straight, thenproceed.
Being imperfect removes freedom of religion? Because the only other way I can read this is petty sniping on your part. Or ignorance I suppose.
Care to clarify how this us relevant in a way that I missed?
Sure there are some pushing a personal agenda via religion. Personal and orthodox views get all mixed up in religion, that's kind of the point, and a given in these arguments.
Cmmi is going from a federally funded entity, aka a cost center, to a profit center. Instead of bring supported by taxes it earns its own keep. And how is this bad?
Only in the context of Obamacare. Did we not have the argument to prizatize NASA? It was terribly argued, but there were good points made. When you put it as it is in tfs, it sounds horrible. Saying it is privatized sounds way better.
And Obamacare was poor legislation all the way through, to the point that supporters didn't know what they were getting until it was too late. Completely different, as it is not privatizing like this bit with cmmi is.
You just eliminated the upper middle class from making any stock investments.
Lower middle would only do investments as part of a 401k. Upper might dabble here and there. But consider a decent 10% gain taxed at 25%. That is a real 7.5% gain, disregarding inflation.
Including inflation, it may be closer to 5% depending on the length of investment. It's basically not worth it for less than 10% per year, since losses are probable.
I know what you are after, but looking at it across the board is not appropriate.
Not wrong, necessarily. But it is good for page views because the normal people will post predictable rants and replies without regard to context.
That's the hive mind that loves these stories. And, of course, those trying to beat sense into the senseless.
If every person who cared wrote twice, it would not be enough.
Fear makes people want this. Even if they say out loud that the gvmt has no business in their business, privately they add "except to catch terrorists".
Numbers and logic are irrelevant here, because they were invented after fear and instinct.
Quote without relevance. When read elsewhere, they are not deducting a payment. That was the point, not putting the account on the card.
And, it seems to be part of traffic management, so I don't see a major security issue here.
Whatever point you had, it got missed completely.