is that when you're looking for precedent there are always those two little words: "it depends". You can't count on history to repeat itself.
I don't think there's a fundamental economic principle that says, "productivity increases actually increases employment." Yes, it *tends* to do so. If the next dollar of labor produces fifty cents of income, a firm won't lay out that next dollar; but if it produces *two* dollars of income it will.
However that scenario assumes that demand for the product is "elastic"; that if you drop the price a little you'll sell more, and make more profit. Suppose demand for a product is *inelastic*, that dropping the price won't get you much more in units sold. If the market won't buy more widgets at a lower price, then it makes sense for a firm to lay off workers as productivity goes up.
In the past the fear that greater productivity would result in job loss tended not to come true. At the outset of the industrial revolution nearly everybody would be considered materially poor by modern standards. Even in my granfather's generation it was common to by new clothing just once a year, and nearly everybody mended their own clothing. When computers were introduced to do things like payroll, yes the people who manually processed paychecks lost their jobs, but businesses responded by demanding far more complex and timely financial information products.
Now we live in a different world now. Almost nobody darns socks or turns collars; they throw worn or even stained garments away. Clothes shopping has become a pastime, not an annual ritual; many people shop every week. Financial products turn on split-millisecond timing, and are so complex you need an advanced degree in math to understand them. It makes me wonder whether we might be approaching a kind of productivity/demand singularity.
The biggest problem with predicting the future isn't *what*, it's *when*. People were attempting computer tablets decades before the iPad, but until the processor, battery, software and user interface technology were all available it was an exercise in futility. Much of Steve Jobs' genius was a matter of timing, of sensing when there was an opportunity to be created. I think there may be a productivity singularity in our future, a point where our established wisdom based on past experience fails. But I can't say when that will occur. I'm certain the market has surprises in store for us, but in the short term at least they'll probably tend to confirm established wisdom.
disclaimer: I am not an economist. But I *do* write science fiction.
By established constitutional case law. A president doesn't have a line item veto, either formal (striking something down with a signature) or informal (pretending it isn't there).
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
First of all, we should be thinking median income rather than average. On average, you and I and Bill Gates never have to work another day in our lives.
The median household income in the US is about $29,000. Suppose you're a family of four with that median income, and you live in a relatively cheap urban neighborhood. You're probably paying $1400/month (average in Mattapan, Boston's cheapest neighborhood) in rent and $1000/mo (average for US family of four). That leaves you a grand total of $16/month for things like clothing and transportation. So you economize. You live in the worst slum in the worst neighborhood and save $200/mo there. You cut down on your food purchases and save maybe another $200. You deduct utilities, clothing, transport, and the conclusion is that the "average" American is living pretty close to paycheck to paycheck.
Of course the average federal employee is doing considerably better, with a median salary of $74,000. But going with out pay for a month would be a major hardship for a lot of those workers who fall beneath the median line -- the janitors, groundskeepers and maintenance guys at the bottom of the pay scale. A lot of these guys are "non-essential", and if the shutdown goes for more than a few weeks they'll be hurting.
The Democrat-controlled Senate and White House are voting down and threatening to veto these budgets, and thus the partial government "shutdown".
The next step to re-open government is for the Republican Speaker to bring a continuing resolution bill to the floor of the Republican House, so the ball is in the Republican court.
Your post conflates a continuing resolution with budgeting. A continuing resolution authorizes the government to continue under the old budget (that's why it's called "continuing") while a new budget is worked out. Using a continuing resolution to enact budget changes defeats the purpose. The Senate is not constitutionally required to rubber stamp the House's budget; the House and Senate have to negotiate a compromise. While they're working out their differences it is customary to pass a continuing resolution.
What's going on here is that the House is attempting to coerce the Senate into rubber stamping its budget priorities -- priorities the Republicans don't have the votes to carry in the Senate.
In my business experience, there's never been a lawyer who could write a contract that will make a business deal entirely safe. The first and most important thing in any business deal is to have trustworthy partners. Most of that lawyer-ese stuff in contracts is a safety net, provisions against a future day when the deal goes sour and fingers are pointed. That stuff is important, but no contract can completely protect you from a business partner who's acting in bad faith. It so happens that the House is technically within its rights to withhold a continuing resolution but they're abusing a technical feature of how the government keeps running during budget negotiations to do an end run around those negotiations. They're acting in bad faith.
Since congress already voted to pay all furloughed workers for the days they missed, what is exactly the point of not having them come into work anymore?
Er... have you been reading the news haven't you? OK, I'll explain.
It's never been about saving money. The GOP wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but doesn't have the votes in the Senate to do it, much less override the veto that would inevitably provoke.
So plan B was to take funding for implementing ACA out of the budget. But they don't have the votes to do that either.
Now when you are arguing over the budget, you still have to keep things running; soldiers and air traffic controllers have to be paid. But the president doesn't have the constitutional power to spend money; he has to spend what Congress tells him to spend, neither more nor less (a lot of Americans don't seem to understand this). He has a lot of influence over the budget, but ultimately Congress has the power of the purse.
So what Congress does when it can't resolve its budget differences on time is pass something called a "continuing resolution". It pretty much says "continue on as you were under the last budget for so many days or until we hash this out." Congress is behind on its budget work so, it's time for a continuing resolution.
What the House Republicans tried to do was slip the budget stuff they didn't have the votes to pass into the continuing resolution. When the Senate stripped that stuff out and sent the CR back to the House, the Republican leadership refused to bring the CR to a vote until their demands were met. Those demands have been a moving target, running from a long laundry list of priorities (including stuff like the Keystone pipeline), to anything that will allow them to claim victory. Boehner has also floated a cut of a certain size to yet-to-be-named budget items as a condition, but this was precisely the gambit that was tried in 2011. Those cuts never materialized, triggering the sequestration cuts across the board this year, including defense. That's not very credible. So the only way the House Republicans come out of this with something that looks like a victory would be to get ACA de-funded, which is not going to happen.
The House Republicans are technically within their rights not to bring an continuing resolution to the floor, but they're using it to undermine the Constitution. They don't have the votes to get what they want, nor have they anything offer in exchange that will persuade anyone else to vote with them, so they're trying to *compel* the Senate to vote the way they want by shutting down the government.
Honestly, it feels like final years of the Roman Republic, when wealthy, ambitious men competed to carve power bases for themselves out of what had been offices of service to the Republic. Crassus Boehner, anyone?
Now they basically get a free paid vacation. If the taxpayer is on the hook for their salaries, they should be doing their jobs.
I agree with you. They should be back at their jobs, and being paid on payday as usual (you do know that essential employees aren't getting paid). But that's not going to happen until one side or another cracks under the political pressure. Already the US Chamber of Commerce is wading in with promises of primary support to Republicans who vote for a clean CR.
I disagree. It's lot quicker and easier to glance at my watch than it is to dig my smartphone out of my pocket and wake up the screen. For that matter living in New England, when it's winter I've got to figure out which pocket the phone's in.
What having a phone with you means is that it's no longer *compulsory* to have a watch for telling time. A watch is still a heck of a lot more convenient than a phone. I think that a phone companion watch that did caller id and notified me of incoming messages and upcoming appointments would be awesome, provided that it could go a couple days between charges. The Samsung device, I think, is a bit over an overreach; it tries to do too much and does some of it not so well.
I do agree that people aren't wearing watches as much as they used to. My daughter carries a pocket watch. One day at school she popped it open to check the time, and a girl asked, "What's that?"
Well, one has to ask, why did horses go out of fashion in warfare in the first place? The supplanting of draft animals with gasoline vehicles happened extremely rapidly as such things go. Consider the gasoline powered military vehicles of WW1, and that these all came into use less than a decade after the introduction of the first successfully mass produced automobile.
The reason for the rapid changeover to internal combustion was that the logistical demands of supporting draft animals is overwhelming. Pre-mechanized warfare was seasonal. You could mount small guerrilla actions on foot, but winter mobility was severely limited, particularly for cavalry and artillery. Lack of winter forage is why the powerful British army could not successfully put down the American Revolution right away. Not (as I was mendaciously taught) because the Brits were too stupid to hide behind rocks in a firefight.
What's worse is that a draft animal has to eat even when it's not in use, unlike a gasoline powered vehicle. Moving and protecting hay took up a huge share of a pre-mechanized army's time and effort.
Now the idea of a draft animal in *limited* modern use is an intriguing one. I could easily imagine squads patrolling Afghanistan with specially trained mules or mountain ponies to carry extra gear. But the casualty rate for the animals would be high, and I think it would be politically impossible to sustain as soon as the first video of a screaming, wounded horse was released -- ironic though that may be.
A gasoline powered horse might well fit the bill for the kinds of asymmetrical warfare situations US troops are now facing, where they have a fortified forward base that's practically impenetrable to the insurgent enemy, but are forced to patrol outside that base. The mystery to me is, why not some kind of autonomous wheeled vehicle? You could put the wheels on legs to give it the ability to move its wheels over obstacles.
Really? Do you honestly believe there will be some disease outbreak because a government bureaucrat wasn't present to check a box on a form that only the allowable level of rat feces was present?
As a matter of fact, I do. It's not like outbreaks of foodborne illnesses are rare. Major outbreaks happen in the US every year or two, and smaller outbreaks are contained all the time before they get big. If there's an E. coli outbreak in lettuce or listeria in hamburger, who do you think tracks it down to the source and tells all the supermarkets which food to take off the shelves? The food safety fairies?
You can be complacent about food borne illness because government bureaucrats (and scientists, engineers and information technologists) keep contamination in American food to manageable levels. Worldwide, the third most common cause of death is diarrhoeal diseases, most of which are food or water borne,
I've never worked with the FDA, but I've worked with the CDC as a contractor. I happened to be at the Fort Collins DVBID one time when they were scrambling a team to investigate an outbreak of some mysterious hemorrhagic fever in Africa. People were fleeing the area but the CDC's team was going in. Why do they do that kind of thing? So whatever it was that had people bleeding out of their eyeballs never finds its way over here. People just *assume* that things like Yellow Fever, Dengue or Malaria just don't happen here in the US. They never stop to consider that this is not a natural state of affairs. We used to have that stuff all the time. You just don't see all the hard work that goes into making Yellow Fever something most Americans have never heard of. I have -- the zoologists, epidemiologists,physicians and veterinarians who provide this "non-essential service."
I've had this very same argument with a guy who was blase about losing one of our meteorological satellites. "Hurricanes don't kill many people," he said. I wanted to grab the blockhead by the collar and shake him. What would have happened if people only had two days notice with Sandy? Or with Katrina or Hurricane Andrew? Complacent idiot.
Would I take a few weeks of extra paid vacation for a comparable delay in receiving my paycheck? You bet!
That's fine for you, if you've got plenty of cash sitting in the bank. The people who empty the trash bins and wash the floors probably aren't sitting on a couple of months of living expenses in cash.
And what about the "essential" employees? The police and the park rangers and animal keepers at the zoo? Just what are they getting out of this?
There's nothing for Obama to compromise with here; we're talking about a "continuing resolution", whose function is to keep things running *as-is* until Congress works out a new budget. If the Tea Party wants to de-fund Obamacare, they can put that into the *budget*. Nothing is stopping them, except their lack of votes.
All that stuff's still going to get built, it'll just end up costing us more money because the contractors will bill us for delay related costs. Some clouds just don't have a silver lining.
This includes employees who are unable to work because the government facility where they perform their work is closed, or their work requires a government inspection that cannot be completed, or we’ve received a stop work order.
It seems reasonable to furlough people if they have no place to work or if they can't get anything done during the shutdown. Which is not to say that Lockheed isn't *also* taking advantage of the situation to do other stuff
Still people have to accept that the bad things that happen after a government shutdown aren't *all* just PR and political posturing. You can't shut down the government and expect everything to continue as if nothing happened, although evidently some people did expect exactly that.
Well, let's take the WW2 memorial barricades. As the linked article says it's supposed to be open 24 hours/day, even though it's only staffed during the daytime. So why put up barricades to prevent people from visiting?
My question is this: do you people think the trash visitors leave behind disposes of itself? Or do you think that groundskeepers should be forced to work without pay?
Both sides won't compromise so its both party's fault.
One does not logically follow from the other. The details matter.
Suppose I'm holding three apples that belong to you. When you ask for them back, I announce that I'm going to keep two of them. By your logic both of us are at fault, because there's a compromise position: I give you two apples and keep one of them. Both of us get less than we want, but more than we might get if we continue bickering until the apples rot.
By *my* logic, I'd be at fault because I failed to do something I ought to have done, namely give you back your apples.
I hear these false equivalency arguments all the time, and quite frankly they're idiotic. They could only be true if both sides in a dispute were always equally right.
I once worked for a company that ran a deficit ten years running, and stayed in business. The secret was that it was growing; income and expenditures were on parallel growth tracks, but income lagged slightly. By the time the bills came due there was cash on hand to pay them.
When governments do this, it's called "Reaganomics".
So -- Obama should order even more national park employees to work without pay? You do realize that the folks policing the barricades aren't being paid, right? Congress holds the power of the purse, and for now the purse is closed.
If it were *your* paycheck that was being withheld, you wouldn't call not being forced to work without pay "pure politics".
It's not a matter of Obama choosing to "cut" some things and not others. He can't pay anyone to work, but as president he can order some of them to work nonetheless. Even that is regulated by Federal law, since making somebody work incurs an obligation that must be paid later, something Obama can't do on his own. At most he has some leeway in interpreting which jobs are essential, and a lot of that is common sense. The park ranger who patrols the WW2 memorial is essential to public safety. The groundskeeper who picks up their trash is not.
It's dangerous and futile to assign blame in a suicide to anyone other than a victim. Swartz's death is not MIT's fault.
That doesn't mean that mean that MIT is off the hook for killing a plea bargain deal that JSTOR was happy with. That was wrong, but it would have been wrong even had Swartz not taken his life.
They've furloughed IRS employees. Does *that* make financial sense? They've shut down FDA food inspection. Does *that* make financial sense, if we count the cost to the nation of food borne illness? This shutdown is about many things, but "financial sense" is not one of them.
We live in a country full of idiots who say things like "Keep the government out of my Medicare," without realizing that Medicare *is* a government program. Many more understand that things like the military or NIH cancer research are part of the gummint, but only on an intellectual level. On a visceral level they only associate the government with things they don't like, such as pollution regulation. The stuff they *do* like apparently just happens, as far as they're concerned.
So put yourself in the shoes of the zookeeper who has to take care of the pandas as the National Zoo. Pandas don't stop eating or shitting because Speaker of the House doesn't have the balls to bring a clean continuing resolution bill to the floor. So you've still got to show up to feed them and muck out their enclosure, only now you're not being paid. Your landlord still wants paying; the grocery store still wants paying, the daycare center you leave your kids at so you can go to this job still wants paying, but *you* don't get paid.
Wouldn't *you* pull the plug on the panda-cam? If you *don't*, people *will* say, "look, we shut the government down but things are still working." Yes they *are* that stupid. So you pull the plug so they'll understand that things like the pandas being cared for just don't "happen" on their own. Sure, people get pissed off, but they're not paying for the panda cam so they can lump it. Not seeing Mei Xiang and her cub isn't going to kill anyone. They weren't paying for panda cam anyway; that was paid for with a grant from corporate sponsorship, so if anyone has a beef with this, it'd be Ford Motor Company.
Well, I think gunfire on the capitol. grounds *is* a legitimate news story that Americans need to know about. However it's far too early to have an opinion on the events. What bugs me isn't that the event is *covered*, it's that in lieu of facts news outlets spread speculation. There's very little factual information as of yet to report upon.
I know in the U.S.A. you can barred from being a Police Officer if your I.Q. is to [sic] high.
Whereas you can say condescending things about the intelligence of public employees without suffering the discomfort of ironic self-awareness. Smells like freedom to me.
Simply because you embed your dictionary in something you choose to call a vector doesn't make it any less of a dictionary.
True, but calling a dictionary a vector space doesn't make it so. For example how "close" are the definitions of "happiness" and "joy"? In a dictionary, the only concept of "closeness" is the lexical ordering of the word itself, and in that sense "happiness" and "joy" are quite far apart (as far apart as words beginning h-a are from words beginning with j-o are in the dictionary). But in some kind of adjacency matrix which show how often these words appear in some relation to other words, they might be quite close in vector-space; "guilt" and "shame" might likewise be closer to each other than either is from "happiness", and each of the four words ("happiness", "joy", "guilt", "shame") would be closer to any other of those words than they would be to "crankshaft"; probably close to "crankshaft" (a noun) than they'd be to "chewy" (an adjective).
Anyhow, if you'd read the paper, at least as far as the abstract, you'd see that this is about *generating* likely dictionary entries for unknown words using analysis of some corpus of texts.
Well, this is somewhat different. Small businesses usually don't have lucrative cash cow businesses that they can use to underwrite strategic efforts.
Microsoft used cashcow funding to crush Palm out of existence, only to be crushed in turn by Apple. Apple beat MS by breaking the cardinal rule of pre-iPhone smartphone market -- focus on making carriers like Sprint happy, rather than users. Apple didn't get into a futile war of attrition with Microsoft across the board, they picked one of the weaker carriers (AT&T) and gave them an exclusive deal in which they brought Apple's fanbase to the table in exchange for control over the platform and secondary markets (iTunes store).
Using a cash cow to underwrite a strategic business isn't necessarily an exercise in futility. It makes sense if you see some strategic vulnerabilty. Palm was vulnerable; because of Moore's law, the price of a standalone PDA was dropping into the throwaway commodity range. In order to maintain their market position, Palm had to convince its users to transition to more complex and therefore more expensive devices. This was an opening and Microsoft established a beachhead with its deep pockets. Then Palm was forced into yet another repositioning by convergence of PDAs and phones, and that's where MS drove a stake through their heart.
Apple and Android on tablets today are a different story. Or at least they may be. They're entrenched competitors. It makes sense to go up against them if you see some disruptive development on the horizon. Offhand, I don't see what that might be, but possibly someone at MS does. "We did it before and we can do it again," in contrast, isn't a strategy.
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be... the economic system where they ignore the long term environmental consequences of your actions in order to maximize short term gains?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's disaggregate the data by US State, so we can find out which of them are dragging us down. Any wagers?
is that when you're looking for precedent there are always those two little words: "it depends". You can't count on history to repeat itself.
I don't think there's a fundamental economic principle that says, "productivity increases actually increases employment." Yes, it *tends* to do so. If the next dollar of labor produces fifty cents of income, a firm won't lay out that next dollar; but if it produces *two* dollars of income it will.
However that scenario assumes that demand for the product is "elastic"; that if you drop the price a little you'll sell more, and make more profit. Suppose demand for a product is *inelastic*, that dropping the price won't get you much more in units sold. If the market won't buy more widgets at a lower price, then it makes sense for a firm to lay off workers as productivity goes up.
In the past the fear that greater productivity would result in job loss tended not to come true. At the outset of the industrial revolution nearly everybody would be considered materially poor by modern standards. Even in my granfather's generation it was common to by new clothing just once a year, and nearly everybody mended their own clothing. When computers were introduced to do things like payroll, yes the people who manually processed paychecks lost their jobs, but businesses responded by demanding far more complex and timely financial information products.
Now we live in a different world now. Almost nobody darns socks or turns collars; they throw worn or even stained garments away. Clothes shopping has become a pastime, not an annual ritual; many people shop every week. Financial products turn on split-millisecond timing, and are so complex you need an advanced degree in math to understand them. It makes me wonder whether we might be approaching a kind of productivity/demand singularity.
The biggest problem with predicting the future isn't *what*, it's *when*. People were attempting computer tablets decades before the iPad, but until the processor, battery, software and user interface technology were all available it was an exercise in futility. Much of Steve Jobs' genius was a matter of timing, of sensing when there was an opportunity to be created. I think there may be a productivity singularity in our future, a point where our established wisdom based on past experience fails. But I can't say when that will occur. I'm certain the market has surprises in store for us, but in the short term at least they'll probably tend to confirm established wisdom.
disclaimer: I am not an economist. But I *do* write science fiction.
By established constitutional case law. A president doesn't have a line item veto, either formal (striking something down with a signature) or informal (pretending it isn't there).
Once again, a denialist conflates seasonal *sea* ice with permanent *land* ice.
Be free people.
Freedom of conscience doesn't mean freedom from consequences, as much as we'd wish it so.
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
First of all, we should be thinking median income rather than average. On average, you and I and Bill Gates never have to work another day in our lives.
The median household income in the US is about $29,000. Suppose you're a family of four with that median income, and you live in a relatively cheap urban neighborhood. You're probably paying $1400/month (average in Mattapan, Boston's cheapest neighborhood) in rent and $1000/mo (average for US family of four). That leaves you a grand total of $16/month for things like clothing and transportation. So you economize. You live in the worst slum in the worst neighborhood and save $200/mo there. You cut down on your food purchases and save maybe another $200. You deduct utilities, clothing, transport, and the conclusion is that the "average" American is living pretty close to paycheck to paycheck.
Of course the average federal employee is doing considerably better, with a median salary of $74,000. But going with out pay for a month would be a major hardship for a lot of those workers who fall beneath the median line -- the janitors, groundskeepers and maintenance guys at the bottom of the pay scale. A lot of these guys are "non-essential", and if the shutdown goes for more than a few weeks they'll be hurting.
The next step to re-open government is for the Republican Speaker to bring a continuing resolution bill to the floor of the Republican House, so the ball is in the Republican court.
Your post conflates a continuing resolution with budgeting. A continuing resolution authorizes the government to continue under the old budget (that's why it's called "continuing") while a new budget is worked out. Using a continuing resolution to enact budget changes defeats the purpose. The Senate is not constitutionally required to rubber stamp the House's budget; the House and Senate have to negotiate a compromise. While they're working out their differences it is customary to pass a continuing resolution.
What's going on here is that the House is attempting to coerce the Senate into rubber stamping its budget priorities -- priorities the Republicans don't have the votes to carry in the Senate.
In my business experience, there's never been a lawyer who could write a contract that will make a business deal entirely safe. The first and most important thing in any business deal is to have trustworthy partners. Most of that lawyer-ese stuff in contracts is a safety net, provisions against a future day when the deal goes sour and fingers are pointed. That stuff is important, but no contract can completely protect you from a business partner who's acting in bad faith. It so happens that the House is technically within its rights to withhold a continuing resolution but they're abusing a technical feature of how the government keeps running during budget negotiations to do an end run around those negotiations. They're acting in bad faith.
Since congress already voted to pay all furloughed workers for the days they missed, what is exactly the point of not having them come into work anymore?
Er... have you been reading the news haven't you? OK, I'll explain.
It's never been about saving money. The GOP wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but doesn't have the votes in the Senate to do it, much less override the veto that would inevitably provoke.
So plan B was to take funding for implementing ACA out of the budget. But they don't have the votes to do that either.
Now when you are arguing over the budget, you still have to keep things running; soldiers and air traffic controllers have to be paid. But the president doesn't have the constitutional power to spend money; he has to spend what Congress tells him to spend, neither more nor less (a lot of Americans don't seem to understand this). He has a lot of influence over the budget, but ultimately Congress has the power of the purse.
So what Congress does when it can't resolve its budget differences on time is pass something called a "continuing resolution". It pretty much says "continue on as you were under the last budget for so many days or until we hash this out." Congress is behind on its budget work so, it's time for a continuing resolution.
What the House Republicans tried to do was slip the budget stuff they didn't have the votes to pass into the continuing resolution. When the Senate stripped that stuff out and sent the CR back to the House, the Republican leadership refused to bring the CR to a vote until their demands were met. Those demands have been a moving target, running from a long laundry list of priorities (including stuff like the Keystone pipeline), to anything that will allow them to claim victory. Boehner has also floated a cut of a certain size to yet-to-be-named budget items as a condition, but this was precisely the gambit that was tried in 2011. Those cuts never materialized, triggering the sequestration cuts across the board this year, including defense. That's not very credible. So the only way the House Republicans come out of this with something that looks like a victory would be to get ACA de-funded, which is not going to happen.
The House Republicans are technically within their rights not to bring an continuing resolution to the floor, but they're using it to undermine the Constitution. They don't have the votes to get what they want, nor have they anything offer in exchange that will persuade anyone else to vote with them, so they're trying to *compel* the Senate to vote the way they want by shutting down the government.
Honestly, it feels like final years of the Roman Republic, when wealthy, ambitious men competed to carve power bases for themselves out of what had been offices of service to the Republic. Crassus Boehner, anyone?
Now they basically get a free paid vacation. If the taxpayer is on the hook for their salaries, they should be doing their jobs.
I agree with you. They should be back at their jobs, and being paid on payday as usual (you do know that essential employees aren't getting paid). But that's not going to happen until one side or another cracks under the political pressure. Already the US Chamber of Commerce is wading in with promises of primary support to Republicans who vote for a clean CR.
I disagree. It's lot quicker and easier to glance at my watch than it is to dig my smartphone out of my pocket and wake up the screen. For that matter living in New England, when it's winter I've got to figure out which pocket the phone's in.
What having a phone with you means is that it's no longer *compulsory* to have a watch for telling time. A watch is still a heck of a lot more convenient than a phone. I think that a phone companion watch that did caller id and notified me of incoming messages and upcoming appointments would be awesome, provided that it could go a couple days between charges. The Samsung device, I think, is a bit over an overreach; it tries to do too much and does some of it not so well.
I do agree that people aren't wearing watches as much as they used to. My daughter carries a pocket watch. One day at school she popped it open to check the time, and a girl asked, "What's that?"
"A pocket watch," daughter answers.
"What does it do?" the girl asks.
Well, one has to ask, why did horses go out of fashion in warfare in the first place? The supplanting of draft animals with gasoline vehicles happened extremely rapidly as such things go. Consider the gasoline powered military vehicles of WW1, and that these all came into use less than a decade after the introduction of the first successfully mass produced automobile.
The reason for the rapid changeover to internal combustion was that the logistical demands of supporting draft animals is overwhelming. Pre-mechanized warfare was seasonal. You could mount small guerrilla actions on foot, but winter mobility was severely limited, particularly for cavalry and artillery. Lack of winter forage is why the powerful British army could not successfully put down the American Revolution right away. Not (as I was mendaciously taught) because the Brits were too stupid to hide behind rocks in a firefight.
What's worse is that a draft animal has to eat even when it's not in use, unlike a gasoline powered vehicle. Moving and protecting hay took up a huge share of a pre-mechanized army's time and effort.
Now the idea of a draft animal in *limited* modern use is an intriguing one. I could easily imagine squads patrolling Afghanistan with specially trained mules or mountain ponies to carry extra gear. But the casualty rate for the animals would be high, and I think it would be politically impossible to sustain as soon as the first video of a screaming, wounded horse was released -- ironic though that may be.
A gasoline powered horse might well fit the bill for the kinds of asymmetrical warfare situations US troops are now facing, where they have a fortified forward base that's practically impenetrable to the insurgent enemy, but are forced to patrol outside that base. The mystery to me is, why not some kind of autonomous wheeled vehicle? You could put the wheels on legs to give it the ability to move its wheels over obstacles.
Really? Do you honestly believe there will be some disease outbreak because a government bureaucrat wasn't present to check a box on a form that only the allowable level of rat feces was present?
As a matter of fact, I do. It's not like outbreaks of foodborne illnesses are rare. Major outbreaks happen in the US every year or two, and smaller outbreaks are contained all the time before they get big. If there's an E. coli outbreak in lettuce or listeria in hamburger, who do you think tracks it down to the source and tells all the supermarkets which food to take off the shelves? The food safety fairies?
You can be complacent about food borne illness because government bureaucrats (and scientists, engineers and information technologists) keep contamination in American food to manageable levels. Worldwide, the third most common cause of death is diarrhoeal diseases, most of which are food or water borne,
I've never worked with the FDA, but I've worked with the CDC as a contractor. I happened to be at the Fort Collins DVBID one time when they were scrambling a team to investigate an outbreak of some mysterious hemorrhagic fever in Africa. People were fleeing the area but the CDC's team was going in. Why do they do that kind of thing? So whatever it was that had people bleeding out of their eyeballs never finds its way over here. People just *assume* that things like Yellow Fever, Dengue or Malaria just don't happen here in the US. They never stop to consider that this is not a natural state of affairs. We used to have that stuff all the time. You just don't see all the hard work that goes into making Yellow Fever something most Americans have never heard of. I have -- the zoologists, epidemiologists,physicians and veterinarians who provide this "non-essential service."
I've had this very same argument with a guy who was blase about losing one of our meteorological satellites. "Hurricanes don't kill many people," he said. I wanted to grab the blockhead by the collar and shake him. What would have happened if people only had two days notice with Sandy? Or with Katrina or Hurricane Andrew? Complacent idiot.
Would I take a few weeks of extra paid vacation for a comparable delay in receiving my paycheck? You bet!
That's fine for you, if you've got plenty of cash sitting in the bank. The people who empty the trash bins and wash the floors probably aren't sitting on a couple of months of living expenses in cash.
And what about the "essential" employees? The police and the park rangers and animal keepers at the zoo? Just what are they getting out of this?
There's nothing for Obama to compromise with here; we're talking about a "continuing resolution", whose function is to keep things running *as-is* until Congress works out a new budget. If the Tea Party wants to de-fund Obamacare, they can put that into the *budget*. Nothing is stopping them, except their lack of votes.
All that stuff's still going to get built, it'll just end up costing us more money because the contractors will bill us for delay related costs. Some clouds just don't have a silver lining.
Well, according to TFA:
This includes employees who are unable to work because the government facility where they perform their work is closed, or their work requires a government inspection that cannot be completed, or we’ve received a stop work order.
It seems reasonable to furlough people if they have no place to work or if they can't get anything done during the shutdown. Which is not to say that Lockheed isn't *also* taking advantage of the situation to do other stuff
Still people have to accept that the bad things that happen after a government shutdown aren't *all* just PR and political posturing. You can't shut down the government and expect everything to continue as if nothing happened, although evidently some people did expect exactly that.
Well, let's take the WW2 memorial barricades. As the linked article says it's supposed to be open 24 hours/day, even though it's only staffed during the daytime. So why put up barricades to prevent people from visiting?
My question is this: do you people think the trash visitors leave behind disposes of itself? Or do you think that groundskeepers should be forced to work without pay?
Both sides won't compromise so its both party's fault.
One does not logically follow from the other. The details matter.
Suppose I'm holding three apples that belong to you. When you ask for them back, I announce that I'm going to keep two of them. By your logic both of us are at fault, because there's a compromise position: I give you two apples and keep one of them. Both of us get less than we want, but more than we might get if we continue bickering until the apples rot.
By *my* logic, I'd be at fault because I failed to do something I ought to have done, namely give you back your apples.
I hear these false equivalency arguments all the time, and quite frankly they're idiotic. They could only be true if both sides in a dispute were always equally right.
I once worked for a company that ran a deficit ten years running, and stayed in business. The secret was that it was growing; income and expenditures were on parallel growth tracks, but income lagged slightly. By the time the bills came due there was cash on hand to pay them.
When governments do this, it's called "Reaganomics".
So -- Obama should order even more national park employees to work without pay? You do realize that the folks policing the barricades aren't being paid, right? Congress holds the power of the purse, and for now the purse is closed.
If it were *your* paycheck that was being withheld, you wouldn't call not being forced to work without pay "pure politics".
It's not a matter of Obama choosing to "cut" some things and not others. He can't pay anyone to work, but as president he can order some of them to work nonetheless. Even that is regulated by Federal law, since making somebody work incurs an obligation that must be paid later, something Obama can't do on his own. At most he has some leeway in interpreting which jobs are essential, and a lot of that is common sense. The park ranger who patrols the WW2 memorial is essential to public safety. The groundskeeper who picks up their trash is not.
with a length of rope.
It's dangerous and futile to assign blame in a suicide to anyone other than a victim. Swartz's death is not MIT's fault.
That doesn't mean that mean that MIT is off the hook for killing a plea bargain deal that JSTOR was happy with. That was wrong, but it would have been wrong even had Swartz not taken his life.
They've furloughed IRS employees. Does *that* make financial sense? They've shut down FDA food inspection. Does *that* make financial sense, if we count the cost to the nation of food borne illness? This shutdown is about many things, but "financial sense" is not one of them.
We live in a country full of idiots who say things like "Keep the government out of my Medicare," without realizing that Medicare *is* a government program. Many more understand that things like the military or NIH cancer research are part of the gummint, but only on an intellectual level. On a visceral level they only associate the government with things they don't like, such as pollution regulation. The stuff they *do* like apparently just happens, as far as they're concerned.
So put yourself in the shoes of the zookeeper who has to take care of the pandas as the National Zoo. Pandas don't stop eating or shitting because Speaker of the House doesn't have the balls to bring a clean continuing resolution bill to the floor. So you've still got to show up to feed them and muck out their enclosure, only now you're not being paid. Your landlord still wants paying; the grocery store still wants paying, the daycare center you leave your kids at so you can go to this job still wants paying, but *you* don't get paid.
Wouldn't *you* pull the plug on the panda-cam? If you *don't*, people *will* say, "look, we shut the government down but things are still working." Yes they *are* that stupid. So you pull the plug so they'll understand that things like the pandas being cared for just don't "happen" on their own. Sure, people get pissed off, but they're not paying for the panda cam so they can lump it. Not seeing Mei Xiang and her cub isn't going to kill anyone. They weren't paying for panda cam anyway; that was paid for with a grant from corporate sponsorship, so if anyone has a beef with this, it'd be Ford Motor Company.
Well, I think gunfire on the capitol. grounds *is* a legitimate news story that Americans need to know about. However it's far too early to have an opinion on the events. What bugs me isn't that the event is *covered*, it's that in lieu of facts news outlets spread speculation. There's very little factual information as of yet to report upon.
I know in the U.S.A. you can barred from being a Police Officer if your I.Q. is to [sic] high.
Whereas you can say condescending things about the intelligence of public employees without suffering the discomfort of ironic self-awareness. Smells like freedom to me.
Simply because you embed your dictionary in something you choose to call a vector doesn't make it any less of a dictionary.
True, but calling a dictionary a vector space doesn't make it so. For example how "close" are the definitions of "happiness" and "joy"? In a dictionary, the only concept of "closeness" is the lexical ordering of the word itself, and in that sense "happiness" and "joy" are quite far apart (as far apart as words beginning h-a are from words beginning with j-o are in the dictionary). But in some kind of adjacency matrix which show how often these words appear in some relation to other words, they might be quite close in vector-space; "guilt" and "shame" might likewise be closer to each other than either is from "happiness", and each of the four words ("happiness", "joy", "guilt", "shame") would be closer to any other of those words than they would be to "crankshaft"; probably close to "crankshaft" (a noun) than they'd be to "chewy" (an adjective).
Anyhow, if you'd read the paper, at least as far as the abstract, you'd see that this is about *generating* likely dictionary entries for unknown words using analysis of some corpus of texts.
Funny how being caught does that to people.
Well, this is somewhat different. Small businesses usually don't have lucrative cash cow businesses that they can use to underwrite strategic efforts.
Microsoft used cashcow funding to crush Palm out of existence, only to be crushed in turn by Apple. Apple beat MS by breaking the cardinal rule of pre-iPhone smartphone market -- focus on making carriers like Sprint happy, rather than users. Apple didn't get into a futile war of attrition with Microsoft across the board, they picked one of the weaker carriers (AT&T) and gave them an exclusive deal in which they brought Apple's fanbase to the table in exchange for control over the platform and secondary markets (iTunes store).
Using a cash cow to underwrite a strategic business isn't necessarily an exercise in futility. It makes sense if you see some strategic vulnerabilty. Palm was vulnerable; because of Moore's law, the price of a standalone PDA was dropping into the throwaway commodity range. In order to maintain their market position, Palm had to convince its users to transition to more complex and therefore more expensive devices. This was an opening and Microsoft established a beachhead with its deep pockets. Then Palm was forced into yet another repositioning by convergence of PDAs and phones, and that's where MS drove a stake through their heart.
Apple and Android on tablets today are a different story. Or at least they may be. They're entrenched competitors. It makes sense to go up against them if you see some disruptive development on the horizon. Offhand, I don't see what that might be, but possibly someone at MS does. "We did it before and we can do it again," in contrast, isn't a strategy.
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be ... the economic system where they ignore the long term environmental consequences of your actions in order to maximize short term gains?