Glass should never have been a consumer product. Hindsight 20/20, that was foolish of Google.
That said, Glass DOES have LOTS AND LOTS of obvious business related uses. Any professional, technician, or worker that uses their hands could have made a lot of use of this product. It's a tragedy it was killed. It should have just been rebranded and re-marketed to professional customers.
It's not science. It's starting with a conclusion and intentionally hunting for supporting evidence for that conclusion.
Here, let's make this more practical. This is the difference Karl Popper identified between the works of Einstein and Freud. Einstein and Freud both made pretty wild and bold scientific theories. The difference was that Einstein's theories were falsifiable. If General Relativity wasn't true, we would know it. We can make astronomical observations that directly confirm or deny his predictions. "If light actually does bend around the sun's gravity, then that star should be visible during this solar eclipse." If that star wasn't visible, then Einstein (regardless of how popular or beautiful the theory might have been) was wrong. Freud made theories that weren't testable. "If your father hadn't hit you that one time, then you wouldn't have shot your wife 20 years later." That's not good science. Freud started with a theory and hunted for evidence to explain his theory, and any counter evidence is irrelevant or an exception that proves the rule. You can always, always find some traumatic event in a person's past, but there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove that that event had any sway over a person's current actions.
Agree, it was hyped by the press. BUT the guy was happy to ride the hype-wave. He's accepted many interviews about the assertion and has been more than wiling to allow the theory to propagate.
I'm not saying that the "that might have been aliens" theory shouldn't have been published. I'm actually ok with his paper as actually written, and I think most scientists would agree. But it's the follow through that makes him guilty.
It's not that my theory is "laughable". It's only "laughable" if you don't ascribe to the spaceflying demon demi-gods theories.
The problem with it is that it's untestable so it's not science. Because it's not testable, and his alien probe theory is not testable, neither are science. On top of that, we have a much more simple explanation: it's just an oddly shaped rock. This theory is easier to believe because we've found lots and lots of kinda oddly shaped rocks out there in space. So, while we can't test the theory for sure to confirm it's a rock, the vast quantity of previous data collected suggests that's the most likely answer.
First rule of astronomy: It's never aliens, until it's aliens.
People do that, but if their models they are proposing aren't testable, they they aren't science.
I could write a paper demonstrating that that asteroid was not an alien probe, but rather a scout demon from sent from an ancient god to check on us. That theory would have every single bit as much scientific credibility as the one he's proposing.
The big difference between his theories on dark matter cooling space gas and this rock being an interstellar probe is that one makes potential hypotheses that are testable and the other does not.
The former is fine theoretical science -even if it's largely speculative. The latter is just speculation, even if it's backed up by some data.
This discussion is very similar to people that look for the star of Bethlehem using computer software. They have certain facts from the bible, and then scour the ancient sky using powerful astronomy software looking for events and things that they think match up with the facts. That's not science, even though it's "backed up by fact", so to speak.
1) These kinds of contracts that are completely one sided toward the employer are unethical business practice and should be limited.
2) In many cases, it's not really about training, it's about poaching. Take, for example, service techs. Service techs are very often the front lines of a company's sales. They have the client's ear better than anyone else, and often clients like working with a company specifically because they like working with a particular service tech who is reliable and efficient and they trust. If Company B can poach that service tech, then they can often also poach a lot of potential clients. In reality, that's the primary reason why these contracts exist, companies don't want to lose employee investment to competitors, but the REALLY don't want to lose clients.
3) Rather than enslavement contracts, companies should handle this problem by making sure their employees are happy in their current jobs and are very difficult to poach.
Think about it. Incorporate yourself, which will allow you to sell publicly trade-able shares of yourself to investors. Then use the money raised from the ISO to invest in education or a home or other prohibitively expensive purchases.
The federal government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It's a program they offer to help streamline their procurement. You're business can apply to be a part of it if you like. No not, whatever. Most businesses don't because it's a heck of a lot of work to get in, but if you choose to agree to the terms there is a lot of work you can get.
The whole point of the GSA program is to streamline services. When you have an approved GSA schedule, the government has pre-negotiated rates for your services (It's a complicated process, whereby the company has to promise to give the Federal Government their lowest prices. It's actually illegal to provide a lower price to anyone else.) That contract officer you mention *can* in fact pick up the phone and call and call any GSA technology supplier and order the equipment based on the pre-negotiated rates.
Granted, the specific ask you mention for laptops would probably have to be procured competitive bid since it's unlikely any supplier would have pre-negotiated rates for whatever specific laptops they are needing. But, in government, it's pretty rare that jobs just come up out of no where unexpectedly where they need to direct hire 20 people where they couldn't just move some folks around temporarily from other projects. And even that event would be rare. MOST likely what would happen in your situation is that the government would just contract that particular need that is causing the staffing out to a consultant company that has a GSA schedule, and the consultant can hire who ever they like and buy whatever equipment they like.
Amazon: You know, you guys should make a new website. This one sucks. We would do it like this. Government: That's a good idea, we'll make a recommendation to congress for them to order us to to procure one. *GovernmentpProduces specifications based off of Amazon's recommendations, Opens procurement to competitive bid* *Government receives qualified bids* *Government awards contract to lowest qualified bidder (Amazon)*
I really don't see anything wrong with Amazon informally petitioning their government to fix something, so long as the government follows through on that petition with a formal standard procurement process.
Why is that a reason not to be an advocate? There's technical problems with Linux on desktops, it's worth sticking to that as a reason rather than simple consumer popularity.
If consumer popularity had caught on, the "technical problems" would have been solved long ago. Again, I really *wanted* to advocate for Linux, and even still, it's an amazing computer ecosystem, and get's better and better each year. But, it's still lacking in support from several important software providers. So, I'm left using windows. I would feel like a fraud encouraging others to use a system that I don't find adequate to use myself. But that's just me.
I did stop to thing about that. But then I remembered that honesty and integrity is not something they value anyway. They only value their own authority.
So I figured, whatever. It's not like the facts have been hard to come by. Republicans are going to believe whatever they want anyway.
When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet. The EPA had massive volumes of data accessible to anyone, and Republican thugs removed it all. Immediately.
Does this new law require them to put it all back?
I'm not a really big advocate of Linux. I would LOVE to be an advocate, but let's face it, it hasn't exactly taken the consumer level market by storm, so I'm pretty much stuck with Windows for work and home.
As such, I'm not familiar with Lubuntu. This is the first time I've heard about it. How many users can they possibly have? How do these extremely small distribution companies stay financially sustainable?
Slashdot Mirror
Glass should never have been a consumer product. Hindsight 20/20, that was foolish of Google.
That said, Glass DOES have LOTS AND LOTS of obvious business related uses. Any professional, technician, or worker that uses their hands could have made a lot of use of this product. It's a tragedy it was killed. It should have just been rebranded and re-marketed to professional customers.
Use SPF 15 (at a minimum) when browsing the web.
It's not science. It's starting with a conclusion and intentionally hunting for supporting evidence for that conclusion.
Here, let's make this more practical. This is the difference Karl Popper identified between the works of Einstein and Freud. Einstein and Freud both made pretty wild and bold scientific theories. The difference was that Einstein's theories were falsifiable. If General Relativity wasn't true, we would know it. We can make astronomical observations that directly confirm or deny his predictions. "If light actually does bend around the sun's gravity, then that star should be visible during this solar eclipse." If that star wasn't visible, then Einstein (regardless of how popular or beautiful the theory might have been) was wrong. Freud made theories that weren't testable. "If your father hadn't hit you that one time, then you wouldn't have shot your wife 20 years later." That's not good science. Freud started with a theory and hunted for evidence to explain his theory, and any counter evidence is irrelevant or an exception that proves the rule. You can always, always find some traumatic event in a person's past, but there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove that that event had any sway over a person's current actions.
Agree, it was hyped by the press. BUT the guy was happy to ride the hype-wave. He's accepted many interviews about the assertion and has been more than wiling to allow the theory to propagate.
I'm not saying that the "that might have been aliens" theory shouldn't have been published. I'm actually ok with his paper as actually written, and I think most scientists would agree. But it's the follow through that makes him guilty.
It's not that my theory is "laughable". It's only "laughable" if you don't ascribe to the spaceflying demon demi-gods theories.
The problem with it is that it's untestable so it's not science. Because it's not testable, and his alien probe theory is not testable, neither are science. On top of that, we have a much more simple explanation: it's just an oddly shaped rock. This theory is easier to believe because we've found lots and lots of kinda oddly shaped rocks out there in space. So, while we can't test the theory for sure to confirm it's a rock, the vast quantity of previous data collected suggests that's the most likely answer.
First rule of astronomy: It's never aliens, until it's aliens.
Actually the appendages we identify as "Wings" are mostly used to push off of the Higgs Field, allowing for control and acceleration.
Sure. And if we point a telescope at it and find wings, horns and a pointy tail it would confirm my demi-god demon theory.
My demon theory has very bit as much scientific credibility as any alien theory.
People do that, but if their models they are proposing aren't testable, they they aren't science.
I could write a paper demonstrating that that asteroid was not an alien probe, but rather a scout demon from sent from an ancient god to check on us. That theory would have every single bit as much scientific credibility as the one he's proposing.
The big difference between his theories on dark matter cooling space gas and this rock being an interstellar probe is that one makes potential hypotheses that are testable and the other does not.
The former is fine theoretical science -even if it's largely speculative. The latter is just speculation, even if it's backed up by some data.
This discussion is very similar to people that look for the star of Bethlehem using computer software. They have certain facts from the bible, and then scour the ancient sky using powerful astronomy software looking for events and things that they think match up with the facts. That's not science, even though it's "backed up by fact", so to speak.
No. But if your company doesn't understand their importance, you are working for a company that doesn't value their customers.
1) These kinds of contracts that are completely one sided toward the employer are unethical business practice and should be limited.
2) In many cases, it's not really about training, it's about poaching. Take, for example, service techs. Service techs are very often the front lines of a company's sales. They have the client's ear better than anyone else, and often clients like working with a company specifically because they like working with a particular service tech who is reliable and efficient and they trust. If Company B can poach that service tech, then they can often also poach a lot of potential clients. In reality, that's the primary reason why these contracts exist, companies don't want to lose employee investment to competitors, but the REALLY don't want to lose clients.
3) Rather than enslavement contracts, companies should handle this problem by making sure their employees are happy in their current jobs and are very difficult to poach.
Think about it. Incorporate yourself, which will allow you to sell publicly trade-able shares of yourself to investors. Then use the money raised from the ISO to invest in education or a home or other prohibitively expensive purchases.
What's wrong with that?
A communication relay satellite, Queqiao, was first launched to a halo orbit near the Earth-Moon L2 point in May 2018. (Wikipedia)
Exactly. One was a comic in the 1980's. Ran at the bottom of the comics page next to Family Circus.
Hmm... Plants that can grow, reproduce itself, grow ,reproduce itself, grow, reproduce itself, grow, reproduce itself, infinium.
That sound like a cancer.
Under what statute? How is ATT a prohibited source? You can't give a gift to an employee, but you can give time and materials to a project.
Easy there, Soldier of Freedom.
The federal government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It's a program they offer to help streamline their procurement. You're business can apply to be a part of it if you like. No not, whatever. Most businesses don't because it's a heck of a lot of work to get in, but if you choose to agree to the terms there is a lot of work you can get.
Except in this particular case the entity the contractor would be defrauding is the Federal Government.
The punishment for doing so would depend on the severity, but it's likely to get you a visit from the FBI.
Yes. That's closer to the reality of US Federal procurement.
That's not true at all.
The whole point of the GSA program is to streamline services. When you have an approved GSA schedule, the government has pre-negotiated rates for your services (It's a complicated process, whereby the company has to promise to give the Federal Government their lowest prices. It's actually illegal to provide a lower price to anyone else.) That contract officer you mention *can* in fact pick up the phone and call and call any GSA technology supplier and order the equipment based on the pre-negotiated rates.
Granted, the specific ask you mention for laptops would probably have to be procured competitive bid since it's unlikely any supplier would have pre-negotiated rates for whatever specific laptops they are needing. But, in government, it's pretty rare that jobs just come up out of no where unexpectedly where they need to direct hire 20 people where they couldn't just move some folks around temporarily from other projects. And even that event would be rare. MOST likely what would happen in your situation is that the government would just contract that particular need that is causing the staffing out to a consultant company that has a GSA schedule, and the consultant can hire who ever they like and buy whatever equipment they like.
Amazon: You know, you guys should make a new website. This one sucks. We would do it like this.
Government: That's a good idea, we'll make a recommendation to congress for them to order us to to procure one.
*GovernmentpProduces specifications based off of Amazon's recommendations, Opens procurement to competitive bid*
*Government receives qualified bids*
*Government awards contract to lowest qualified bidder (Amazon)*
I really don't see anything wrong with Amazon informally petitioning their government to fix something, so long as the government follows through on that petition with a formal standard procurement process.
Why is that a reason not to be an advocate? There's technical problems with Linux on desktops, it's worth sticking to that as a reason rather than simple consumer popularity.
If consumer popularity had caught on, the "technical problems" would have been solved long ago. Again, I really *wanted* to advocate for Linux, and even still, it's an amazing computer ecosystem, and get's better and better each year. But, it's still lacking in support from several important software providers. So, I'm left using windows. I would feel like a fraud encouraging others to use a system that I don't find adequate to use myself. But that's just me.
I did stop to thing about that. But then I remembered that honesty and integrity is not something they value anyway. They only value their own authority.
So I figured, whatever. It's not like the facts have been hard to come by. Republicans are going to believe whatever they want anyway.
When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet. The EPA had massive volumes of data accessible to anyone, and Republican thugs removed it all. Immediately.
Does this new law require them to put it all back?
I'm not a really big advocate of Linux. I would LOVE to be an advocate, but let's face it, it hasn't exactly taken the consumer level market by storm, so I'm pretty much stuck with Windows for work and home.
As such, I'm not familiar with Lubuntu. This is the first time I've heard about it. How many users can they possibly have? How do these extremely small distribution companies stay financially sustainable?