Except, that's not what he said. In case you've been buried under a rock for the past decade or so, it is fairly typical to release an employee with pay for the duration of their notice. No one is fired or laid off - they just stop coming to work and the company pays them for the time they would have worked otherwise. Believe it or not, there ARE people who will create mischief after giving notice; why run the risk? They would be paid the 2 weeks salary anyway, for possibly little productive work, so the monetary loss is trivial.
They've been doing this with aircooled VW engines for probably 50 years at shows and races. Pull the fan belt, drain the oil, and put a brick on the accelerator. Everyone pays a buck to bet on the time, and with any luck the engine explodes spectacularly, much to the crowd's pleasure.
Yet again, "on the internet" somehow makes it original...
Sometimes items are redacted because of contractual commitments or confidentiality agreements. Take the example in the story; now, all Verizon's competition needs to do is bid $2,499 per switch and they get the job. So what if they could have supplied the switches at $2,200 and still made a healthy profit - they just need to be low. So that's $299 extra per switch that the government (aka, taxpayers) will have to pay because the competitive bid environment has been contaminated.
But hey, they made their point about evil government masterminds being wholly incompetent, so what does logic matter?
"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."
Altering a picture digitally to show a crime being perpetrated on someone is protected under the first amendment - Ask Hollywood. Although some shoot-em-up movies are crimes against taste.
"One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question.""
WTF - there's visual evidence of a crime being committed, right in front of everybody. Does making a live webcast of it relieve the perpetrator of the crime?
Or is the purpose to punish those who watch live webcasts? Lets' clue these dumbfucks in - if it's a webcast, A FILE IS BEING TRANSMITTED!. It's just not automatically saved on the computer in a readily accessible format. If the watcher is technically astute, he will erase what little evidence there is. If he is not, then that leaves files on the computer, which is already covered. I guess they are going after IP addresses, then.
"The mechanical elephant: Frustrated by a lack of decent tarmac in the jungle, DARPA sought to create a "mechanical elephant" during the Vietnam war. Its vision of high-tech Hannibal's piloting them through the forest never came true. It is alleged that when the director heard of the plan he scrapped the "damn fool" project immediately in the hope no one would hear about it." So we could be 30 years ahead in robotics instead of 10 years behind. Thanks, asshole.
"FutureMap: This program hoped to use a kind of terrorism futures market to predict key developments and even attacks. It was thought market valuations of possible future events could reflect the probability of their occurring. However, FutureMap was scrapped in 2003 after the notion of betting on terrorist atrocities was called "ridiculous and grotesque" by US politicians." Politicians. No further comment required.
"Orion: Set in motion shortly after DARPA was created, Project Orion aimed to drive an interplanetary spacecraft by periodically dropping nuclear bombs out of its rear end. The entire craft was designed like a giant shock absorber with the back covered in thick shielding to protect human passengers. Concerns about nuclear fallout and the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty ended the project in the early 1960s." Fallout - OK. Test ban treaty? More like political cover for killing a program disliked by the No Nukes folks.
3 of 5 were not technical failures, but political ones. Another, the "telepathic spies" project, is listed as a failure even though it did produce something important - evidence that telepathy is bullshit. The Halfnium bomb is another one. So it didn't work - BFD. are they saying that NO important research data was gained?
"That may be the case. Or it may be that he just has an alcohol problem that needs to be treated and isn't aware he's beating his wife while he's doing it."
That is more TV series alcoholism than real life. Yes, alcoholics black out. But the next morning, they can SEE the results of the night before - the crashed car, the bruises, the broken furniture. They know damned well that they were responsible for that, even though they may not be able to recollect it. And although they may be sick, they are still responsible for their actions, and the consequences - "I was drunk" doesn't go very far in a sentencing haring, nor should it.
"Giving bad advice that works out okay isn't acceptable. What the pastor should have told her was "get out of the house--take the children (if applicable) and call the cops." Anything else was negligence on his part."
I think you missed the point - society has changed to the point where we expect the government to protect us on an individual basis. You advocate that she ask others to defend her - leave her own house (and live on the sufferance of others) and call the government to protect her. But the courts have ruled on many occasions that the police/government have no duty to protect any individual from harm. If she calls the police and they don't come, they cannot be held liable for negligence. Their primary function is to enforce the law AFTER it is broken - crime prevention is secondary, and enforcing court orders is a distant third.
So if the police cannot be held responsible for protecting her, who can? Historically, it has been the family, but for various reasons that option is no longer open to many. So who is going to protect her.
"The woman deserves what is coming, and I will laugh happily every time I hear her family has suffered misfortune - losing their business, pulling their daughter from school and hopefully soon being forced from the community. She acted without remorse and deserves to suffer consequences."
Her family will be lucky if she isn't found dead in an alley.
One of the reasons this crime is so shocking is that, not too long ago, the consequences would have involved death at the hands of the dead girl's family. I don't know whether to be sad or glad at the fact that this hasn't happened yet.
I'm reminded of a story a coworker tells of an uncle of his who was a preacher. He was the consummate Southern gentleman (as is my coworker), but tells the story of a parishioner of his. It was well known that her husband was a drunkard and beat her regularly, and after a long time she came to the pastor for advise (note - NOT the law). These were the instructions he gave her: 1) When he goes out Saturday night, get a bedsheet and wet it until soaking. Wait. 2) When he comes home, wait until he passes out and then wrap him as tightly as she can in the sheet. This will immobilize him. 3) Beat him. He will wake up and threaten you - beat him until unconscious. He will plead with you - keep beating him. If he tries to get out of the sheet, beat him until he stops. Beat him until he swears never to touch alcohol again or raise his hand in anger, and you believe it - if he sounds insincere, keep beating. 4) If you get scared or are unsure of what you are doing, call me and I'll come over and pray with you for the guidance to do what you need to do.
Apparently, it worked - next Sunday they showed up in church, her looking tired and him meek and covered in bruises, but by all reports he never drank or hit her again. Which raises the question - if we can take care of ourselves and our families with some help from our community, why does the State wish to stop that?
From the article at the root of the Slashdot post to which you are reacting:
"The U.S. would not, and need not, infect unwitting computers as zombies. We can build enough power over time from our own resources.
Rob Kaufman, of the Air Force Information Operations Center, suggests mounting botnet code on the Air Force's high-speed intrusion-detection systems. Defensively, that allows a quick response by directly linking our counterattack to the system that detects an incoming attack. The systems also have enough processing speed and communication capacity to handle large amounts of traffic.
Next, in what is truly the most inventive part of this concept, Lt. Chris Tollinger of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency envisions continually capturing the thousands of computers the Air Force would normally discard every year for technology refresh, removing the power-hungry and heat-inducing hard drives, replacing them with low-power flash drives, then installing them in any available space every Air Force base can find. Even though those computers may no longer be sufficiently powerful to work for our people, individual machines need not be cutting-edge because the network as a whole can create massive power."
I'm aware of that - it illustrates HP's tendency to disregard a division's success or brand identity when deciding it's fate. IIRC, the HP calculator and equipment operations were comfortably profitable and highly regarded in the world of test equipment. But Carly decided she just didn't want to be in that business anymore (distracting from the development of newer, smaller, more expensive ink cartridges), so she threw it overboard with some name out of a focus group session.
Now the operation loses sales because when people search for the HP scopes they are looking for they are NLA, and HP loses the cachet of retaining their REAL hardware roots. Tell me the sum of the parts is worth more than the whole on that deal. I'd expect whole parts of EDS to be thrown overboard within a couple of years.
"You know, sometimes you really make it an uphill battle to love and respect America."
If it's the "love and respect" of such open minded, wide thinking folk such as yourself, I'll pass. America is not Slashdot, and Slashdot is not America. The fact that you are not American, and you are posting your scolding ON SLASHDOT, is an irony that speaks volumes about your own attitudes.
Keep your "love and respect" - from such as yourself, I don't want it.
If one takes a larger view of the reason for the Third amendment, it applies very much. The Third amendment wasn't about money, it was about having a government presence in people's homes. The British quartered troops in the colonists' houses not because they were cheap, but to suppress the colonist's political activities - it's hard to discuss secret activities at the kitchen table when there is a Redcoat in the next room. In that light, the third amendment speaks directly to government information gathering apparatus in private space.
Did you bother to read my reply to you? The link you provided wasn't recent enough to be valid - PV prices spiked last year.
As for the economic analysis, please check the post by LMWatBullRun right above yours - that IS my coworker (he joined to contribute after I asked him some clarifying info). Those are ACTUAL numbers from ACTUAL purchases all made withing the last calendar year. Enjoy!
Slashdot Mirror
"I started following him back before it was popular "
So now that he's all popular and stuff you're gonna follow someone else?
Gina? Please tell me it isn't administered by the VA...
"They give notice, you respond by firing them. "
Except, that's not what he said. In case you've been buried under a rock for the past decade or so, it is fairly typical to release an employee with pay for the duration of their notice. No one is fired or laid off - they just stop coming to work and the company pays them for the time they would have worked otherwise. Believe it or not, there ARE people who will create mischief after giving notice; why run the risk? They would be paid the 2 weeks salary anyway, for possibly little productive work, so the monetary loss is trivial.
Did anyone else read that as "intrepid girl-on-girl-scene"?
After that, the rest of the article is something of a blur...
They've been doing this with aircooled VW engines for probably 50 years at shows and races. Pull the fan belt, drain the oil, and put a brick on the accelerator. Everyone pays a buck to bet on the time, and with any luck the engine explodes spectacularly, much to the crowd's pleasure.
Yet again, "on the internet" somehow makes it original...
Sometimes items are redacted because of contractual commitments or confidentiality agreements. Take the example in the story; now, all Verizon's competition needs to do is bid $2,499 per switch and they get the job. So what if they could have supplied the switches at $2,200 and still made a healthy profit - they just need to be low. So that's $299 extra per switch that the government (aka, taxpayers) will have to pay because the competitive bid environment has been contaminated.
But hey, they made their point about evil government masterminds being wholly incompetent, so what does logic matter?
"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."
Altering a picture digitally to show a crime being perpetrated on someone is protected under the first amendment - Ask Hollywood. Although some shoot-em-up movies are crimes against taste.
"One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question.""
WTF - there's visual evidence of a crime being committed, right in front of everybody. Does making a live webcast of it relieve the perpetrator of the crime?
Or is the purpose to punish those who watch live webcasts? Lets' clue these dumbfucks in - if it's a webcast, A FILE IS BEING TRANSMITTED!. It's just not automatically saved on the computer in a readily accessible format. If the watcher is technically astute, he will erase what little evidence there is. If he is not, then that leaves files on the computer, which is already covered. I guess they are going after IP addresses, then.
"The mechanical elephant: Frustrated by a lack of decent tarmac in the jungle, DARPA sought to create a "mechanical elephant" during the Vietnam war. Its vision of high-tech Hannibal's piloting them through the forest never came true. It is alleged that when the director heard of the plan he scrapped the "damn fool" project immediately in the hope no one would hear about it." So we could be 30 years ahead in robotics instead of 10 years behind. Thanks, asshole.
"FutureMap: This program hoped to use a kind of terrorism futures market to predict key developments and even attacks. It was thought market valuations of possible future events could reflect the probability of their occurring. However, FutureMap was scrapped in 2003 after the notion of betting on terrorist atrocities was called "ridiculous and grotesque" by US politicians." Politicians. No further comment required.
"Orion: Set in motion shortly after DARPA was created, Project Orion aimed to drive an interplanetary spacecraft by periodically dropping nuclear bombs out of its rear end. The entire craft was designed like a giant shock absorber with the back covered in thick shielding to protect human passengers. Concerns about nuclear fallout and the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty ended the project in the early 1960s." Fallout - OK. Test ban treaty? More like political cover for killing a program disliked by the No Nukes folks.
3 of 5 were not technical failures, but political ones. Another, the "telepathic spies" project, is listed as a failure even though it did produce something important - evidence that telepathy is bullshit. The Halfnium bomb is another one. So it didn't work - BFD. are they saying that NO important research data was gained?
You forgot the first line:
"they are my computers; I love them."
FFS, what is Slashdot coming to?
"That may be the case. Or it may be that he just has an alcohol problem that needs to be treated and isn't aware he's beating his wife while he's doing it."
That is more TV series alcoholism than real life. Yes, alcoholics black out. But the next morning, they can SEE the results of the night before - the crashed car, the bruises, the broken furniture. They know damned well that they were responsible for that, even though they may not be able to recollect it. And although they may be sick, they are still responsible for their actions, and the consequences - "I was drunk" doesn't go very far in a sentencing haring, nor should it.
And yes, I know firsthand what I'm talking about.
"Giving bad advice that works out okay isn't acceptable. What the pastor should have told her was "get out of the house--take the children (if applicable) and call the cops." Anything else was negligence on his part."
I think you missed the point - society has changed to the point where we expect the government to protect us on an individual basis. You advocate that she ask others to defend her - leave her own house (and live on the sufferance of others) and call the government to protect her. But the courts have ruled on many occasions that the police/government have no duty to protect any individual from harm. If she calls the police and they don't come, they cannot be held liable for negligence. Their primary function is to enforce the law AFTER it is broken - crime prevention is secondary, and enforcing court orders is a distant third.
So if the police cannot be held responsible for protecting her, who can? Historically, it has been the family, but for various reasons that option is no longer open to many. So who is going to protect her.
"The woman deserves what is coming, and I will laugh happily every time I hear her family has suffered misfortune - losing their business, pulling their daughter from school and hopefully soon being forced from the community. She acted without remorse and deserves to suffer consequences."
Her family will be lucky if she isn't found dead in an alley.
One of the reasons this crime is so shocking is that, not too long ago, the consequences would have involved death at the hands of the dead girl's family. I don't know whether to be sad or glad at the fact that this hasn't happened yet.
I'm reminded of a story a coworker tells of an uncle of his who was a preacher. He was the consummate Southern gentleman (as is my coworker), but tells the story of a parishioner of his. It was well known that her husband was a drunkard and beat her regularly, and after a long time she came to the pastor for advise (note - NOT the law). These were the instructions he gave her:
1) When he goes out Saturday night, get a bedsheet and wet it until soaking. Wait.
2) When he comes home, wait until he passes out and then wrap him as tightly as she can in the sheet. This will immobilize him.
3) Beat him. He will wake up and threaten you - beat him until unconscious. He will plead with you - keep beating him. If he tries to get out of the sheet, beat him until he stops. Beat him until he swears never to touch alcohol again or raise his hand in anger, and you believe it - if he sounds insincere, keep beating.
4) If you get scared or are unsure of what you are doing, call me and I'll come over and pray with you for the guidance to do what you need to do.
Apparently, it worked - next Sunday they showed up in church, her looking tired and him meek and covered in bruises, but by all reports he never drank or hit her again. Which raises the question - if we can take care of ourselves and our families with some help from our community, why does the State wish to stop that?
Funny, I think it IS the tastiest burger on earth. Perhaps that's because my taste buds haven't developed a liberal social consciousness yet.
No, it was a bad movie - the result of a director wanting to put his own "stamp" on material manifestly not suited for it.
I mean, Ang Lee? That's like putting Michaelangelo in charge of the paint-by-numbers class at the local community college.
From the article at the root of the Slashdot post to which you are reacting:
"The U.S. would not, and need not, infect unwitting computers as zombies. We can build enough power over time from our own resources.
Rob Kaufman, of the Air Force Information Operations Center, suggests mounting botnet code on the Air Force's high-speed intrusion-detection systems. Defensively, that allows a quick response by directly linking our counterattack to the system that detects an incoming attack. The systems also have enough processing speed and communication capacity to handle large amounts of traffic.
Next, in what is truly the most inventive part of this concept, Lt. Chris Tollinger of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency envisions continually capturing the thousands of computers the Air Force would normally discard every year for technology refresh, removing the power-hungry and heat-inducing hard drives, replacing them with low-power flash drives, then installing them in any available space every Air Force base can find. Even though those computers may no longer be sufficiently powerful to work for our people, individual machines need not be cutting-edge because the network as a whole can create massive power."
Because, you know, the LAST thing I want to happen when I'm out on a public street is to be seen by anyone.
"Agilent was a spin off of HP. Wrong way, bub."
I'm aware of that - it illustrates HP's tendency to disregard a division's success or brand identity when deciding it's fate. IIRC, the HP calculator and equipment operations were comfortably profitable and highly regarded in the world of test equipment. But Carly decided she just didn't want to be in that business anymore (distracting from the development of newer, smaller, more expensive ink cartridges), so she threw it overboard with some name out of a focus group session.
Now the operation loses sales because when people search for the HP scopes they are looking for they are NLA, and HP loses the cachet of retaining their REAL hardware roots. Tell me the sum of the parts is worth more than the whole on that deal. I'd expect whole parts of EDS to be thrown overboard within a couple of years.
Might want to check in with Compaq and DEC about that. Maybe Agilent, too.
"You know, sometimes you really make it an uphill battle to love and respect America."
If it's the "love and respect" of such open minded, wide thinking folk such as yourself, I'll pass. America is not Slashdot, and Slashdot is not America. The fact that you are not American, and you are posting your scolding ON SLASHDOT, is an irony that speaks volumes about your own attitudes.
Keep your "love and respect" - from such as yourself, I don't want it.
If one takes a larger view of the reason for the Third amendment, it applies very much. The Third amendment wasn't about money, it was about having a government presence in people's homes. The British quartered troops in the colonists' houses not because they were cheap, but to suppress the colonist's political activities - it's hard to discuss secret activities at the kitchen table when there is a Redcoat in the next room. In that light, the third amendment speaks directly to government information gathering apparatus in private space.
Did you bother to read my reply to you? The link you provided wasn't recent enough to be valid - PV prices spiked last year.
As for the economic analysis, please check the post by LMWatBullRun right above yours - that IS my coworker (he joined to contribute after I asked him some clarifying info). Those are ACTUAL numbers from ACTUAL purchases all made withing the last calendar year. Enjoy!
Yeah, because before the internet censorship didn't exist, and revolutions never happened.
"Amnesty International used to be more prudent about stuff like this."
HAAAAAHAHAHaHahahahah..what a kidder.
Oh, wait - you were serious, weren't you?