The general rule I always follow is HIRE AN ENGINEER! Ferchrissake, there are people who do these calculations for a living, and have insurance in case the screw up. You want to trust your data center to advice from slashdot and a back-of-the-envelope calculation?
Sheesh - what's the name of your company so I can sell short?
"No offense, but people here are wicked smaht. Errr, quite intelligent. "
2 words: Big Dig.
I also note that you didn't reveal the results of "look[ing] into it from the day the casino plan surfaced". Perhaps because the level of corruption uncovered is perfectly acceptable to the residents of Massachusetts?
I mean, after all, he is Kennedy's boy, so there CAN'T be anything untoward going on, can there?
I grew up in SE PA, and the common phrase in our house was "close the light." I always assumed this was another Pennsylvania Dutch saying, like "outen the light", but when I asked about it, I found that the roots were with my Italian ancestry, and referred to the operation of GAS lights, not electric.
I still use the phrase, which drives my wife nuts. She knows diddly about anything mechanical or electronic, except for the fact that one "closes" an electrical switch to make the power go.
"since when is an online business responsible for other peoples children? "
Since Cuomo got elected Governor of NY and realized that the stunts he pulled as AG weren't going to cut it anymore. He has to come up with SOME way to stay in the headlines, does he not?
"Given this data, it is entirely clear that there is no reason to believe that any non-encrypted data is not going to be monitored, recorded, and traced."
Can you translate taht for me? The triple negative permanently crossed my eyes (No, Mom, my face didn't freeze like this...)
IIRC, part of the problem was that Florida was making up rules as it went along.
Florida law states that the Sec. of State had the authority to declare the winner at a certain point. She did. That didn't sit well with Gore, who sued. The State supreme court ruled that that law didn't apply, but then didn't come up with an alternate method to meet the 200+ year old timeline other than "keep counting". The Supremes said that the state court didn't have the power to void that rule, and that her decision stood.
Was it equitable? Pehaps not. But Gore's plan - remember, he was the one who was suing, so he needs to ask for specific relief - was designed around NOT counting every vote equally: he requested only certain counties be recounted, and not the rest. And when asked, point blank if the votes would be counted by the same criteria, Gore's lawyer didn't even equivocate - he just said "No."
Add to this the fact that Gore used up the normal period allotted to contest the election by tryiong to game the recount - remember, some counties and not others - put them close to the electoral college deadline. By the time he decioded that a whole state recount was his only way out, it was too late to do one properly. Should one have been done? Yes, but starting 3 weeks earlier. Remember, it was Gore's suit, and he put himself in the jackpot by running out the clock. He wanted the whole country to wait for the results of the election because he failed to game the system correctly. Gore should have personally shot his lawyers, 'cause no jury would have convicted him.
Do I think there should have been a whole state recount? Yes, but earlier.
Should the whole "lame duck" period be abolished? Yes, but Gore was the one who tried to run out the clock to his advantage.
Should the electoral college be abolished? Yes, but it's not like Gore was ignoring it - he campaigned much harder in the heavy electoral states than the light ones, so it's not like he had that big a problem with it before it bit him in the ass.
He bought into the system - he was just pissed that the check came due and he had to pay.
With the upcoming primaries and presidential election, this will go rapidly to SCOTUS. And they will stick it up DOJ's ass and break it off - one thing this court is known for is pushing federalism, and telling the states the exact means by which they will hold their elections is a HUGE violation of that.
I think this may have more to do with the abilityto upgrade computers. Due to the original IBM PC architecture, it was easy to make your computer run better - some simple screws, plug-in cards, simple electrical connections. Lots of folks who would never dream of opening up their VCR - still flashing 12:00 - have upgraded memory or a hard drive.
Now those same folks who have cut their teeth on PC's look at broken electronic gadgetry and think: 1) How hard can it be? 2) If I screw it up, no big deal - it's a loss now as it is.
I wish I could point to the place in my post where I said that ID papers weren't in COMMON use, but I can't - I thought it, but I didn't write it.
That being said, it still struck me as odd that the Founders would write in a clause that would protect government "agents", i.e. those issued identification papers by a government, which identified them as members or agents of that government. I don't think the French were issuing state ID's to shopkeepers and prostitutes.
So I searched on Google (where else) for "fourth amendment meaning of papers". Of course, I got links to every high school term paper on the meaning of the 4th amendment, but the first 3 meaningful links are as fiollows:
All of these speak directly to "papers", and not a single one references "identitity papers" in any way. In these articles, "papers" meant business and other documents. This ties in with the historical context - due to the punitive taxes, many of the colonists were smugglers, and records of purchases and sales would be prime evidence supporting charges of tax evasion.
I've done my part, now it's your turn - cough up some links supporting your position. I may also dig up soem ConLawbooks or constitutional history, but that's for later.
"If we keep going down the "us and them" path in our own politics, we'll wind up like the Sunnis and Shiites, self-righteous to the end, destroying our own country in the name of winning an argument."
You use the future tense - I think the past tense is more appropriate.
Hey, guess what - I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I studied manufacturing techniques, too. And part of your assertions about American quality are semantic sleight-of-hand.
"The American jack will also be made of superior materials, and is probably rated to a higher specification."
Not really. A rating is a rating. If the grade of steel is A36, that's what it is. True, the Chinese have been purposely substituting lesser materials an passing them off as better - it's called counterfeiting and fraud, and has nothing to do with "manufacturing" quality.
"Even if the box reads the same specification, you can bet your ass that the American jack has left a lot more of a margin, and won't collapse when overloaded by 10%."
Ahh, here's the subtle part. You see, one of the reasons that american stuff is so expensive, especially in the low-tech area, is that US manufacturer's of these items STILL have not learned the lessons of Deming and the Japanese. Their manufacturing operations still have just as shitty manufacturing controls as in the 70's. So how does the end product end up with "a lot more of a margin"? Because, in order to compensate for the bad process control, US manufacturer's have higher reject rates and overdesign the parts to compensate for the likelihood that they will be flawed. They siply shift the quality bell curve up, not narrow the standard deviation. The Chinese don't bother.
So, if I buy an American floor jack rated at 3 tons, it's actualls designed for 5 tons, but the factory QA is so bad that, statistically, they can only be sure of a 3 ton rating. Whereas the Chinese are designing for 3 ton, and selling at that rating.
"AHA!" you say, "Proof that American is better quality!"
"But", I reply, "I only WANT a 3 ton rated jack. I don't want to pay for a possibly defective 5 ton jack. Oh, I'll probably (statistically speaking) get lucky and get a jack with a real 5 ton load rating, but I don't NEED it - I'm jacking up VW's, not F350's. And I'm not getting a 5 ton jack for a 3 ton price - I'm getting a 5 ton jack for a 5 ton price, but the factory isn't confident enough to call it that!
I just want to buy simple stuff at a reasonable price. And that price should not include 1) Subsidizing some guy who barely graduated high school expecting to be paid premium wages just because he is in a union and/or an American. 2) Insane labor and environmental regulations which only enrich lawyers and don't do dick-all for the folks they purport to protect. 3) government bailouts to protect failed businesses, who are free to keep screwing up for the next 30 years (I'm looking at you, Iacocca)
I'm willing to have it include: a) Fair wages for the LOCAL wage market in which the item is produced. b) Reasonable regulations c) reasonable legal overhead for protection agains real legal problems, and not just a wealth transfer to JD's
"Welcome America, to the Wal Mart future you created for yourself by being a bunch of damn cheap bastards who would rather buy cheap shit than pay for some fatass union worker to collect $20/hour for making crap." Fixed that for ya'.
Obviously you weren't around during the 70's and 80's. American companies couldn't manufacture their way out of a paper bag. The bulk of american products were crap, with some really high quality stuff thrown in. The chinese just replaced the shitty end of the market. The high quality end either still exists, or was driven out when they couldn't cut costs to something folks could remotely afford.
I was just looking for a floor jack. I can get one made in China for $50, or the USA for $250. How could I justify the extra $200? I could buy 5 chinese jacks for the 1 american, and I doubt someone could convince me that the American one would last 5x as long. If it was $100 vs. $50, I would have bit the bullet, but 5x?!
Yes, american quality has improved greatly; but there is an entire generation that Detroit et al. lost in terms of "Buy American". If someone has been conditioned that a car made in Japan or Europe is inherently better, why would there be a stigma against China?
But they do want the power to tell me - what I can smoke (not tobacco) - what I can eat (not trans-fats) - who I must hire and can't fire (anyone but young white males) - what I can say ("hate" speech) - what I can do to defend myself (not use force) - how my money will be spent (the govt. knows better what to do with my money) - how I care for my children (daughter wants an abortion at 13? Not my business)
But that's OK - it's for the "greater good" and the protection of someone else's rights.
"I will disagree with your very last sentence. I don't think there are any monuments being built for either architect's egos or Owner's businesses. Forget the Gehrys of this world for a minute, and we are left with fairly mediocre structures which speak of nothing but our ability to logically compile pre-assembled elements into barely cohesive monuments to absolutely nothing. Architecture hasn't had a cohesive ideology in many decades now. Since introduction of AutoCAD. Coincidence?"
I have had 2 personal experiences where major elements of the structures, if not the whole building, were there solely for aesthetic effect. First was a "fin wall", which was an exterior architectural element. It was 7 stories high and contained no services or served any user need. When it was going to be VE'd out (to the tune of $1,000,000), the architect threw a fit. The fin wall was his "signature", and if it was eliminated, he would walk off the job.
Another example was an interior detail - a monumental stairway right in the lobby of the building. It was almost 20' wide, with 3' deep stairs. It was bare concrete, with a stained finish. Again, $1,000,000, and the AE refused to take it out of the design. The results: a) Since the stair weren't poured contiguously, the concrete stained differently at different portions, and would up looking checkerboarded. When the conc. staning consultant (that the AE used) looked at it, he basically said "yeah, that sometimes happens." b) Because of the deep steps, they are very uncomfortable to walk on. The steps are visually proportional for the size, but no one uses them. c) The AE firm won an award for the building, and specifically for the lobby, of which the stairs is the dominant feature.
Like I said - some AE's are great, but there are still a lot of wannabees out there.
As for the AIA docs, I agree that they are a template and many owners modify them or write their own - that's a large portion of my current job. But I work for an organization that has millions of square feet under roof in thousands of different locations. The vast majority of owners I dealt with as a GC were clueless - building a project like a greenfield building was a once a career event, not 20x a year. They generally took the AIA's as written, much to their later dismay. It's unfortunate, but it is reality.
Great - an Architect (love the caps, BTW). Well, I worked for major general contractor, and now I work for a building owner, hiring both Architects and GC's.
"It will ultimately come down to the front end (Conditions of The Contract) of the design manual to figure out who is in charge of quality control." You are correct. The problem is, the architect generally gets to write that document, and by and large they remove any and all liability for quality or design issues. The AIA standard 201, "Conditions of the Contract" is CYA raised to a high art - the architect is liable for nothing.
Architects are also notorious for designing things that are impossible to build "correctly". they will either leave details out, and rely on the GC's "means and methods", or draw a detail that can't be built as-drawn.
Even better are the ones that take a manufacturer's specification lock, stock, and barrel and change 1 detail - The GC can't buy the standard item, because it has a custom modification that the Architect MUST have. But another manufacturer isn't allowed - they don't meet the "standard" set by the basis-of-design equipment.
I even had one guy lift a spec for a fire door, with no modifications, right from sales literature. When asked about a trivial installation detail, I was told that the whole thing was wrong, that he wanted a custom configuration, and that I should have known that the spec wasn't what he wanted, even though he "wrote" it.
There are great architects out there, but the profession has become a bit like journalism - Every J-school grad wants to be Woodward or Bernstein, and every architecture grad wants to be Wright or Gehry. And building owners are left with monuments to an Architect's ego, and not a monument to the Owner's business.
"Um... No, the bill of rights here is referring to your papers as in your documents relating to identity, birth, etc. "
Really? To what particular documents are you referring? Although births were recorded as early as the 1600's, the issuance of birth certificates wasn't common until the 1800's. Passports? Driver's licenses? Gun Permits?
The reason I'm sure that the 4th amendment absolutely was not referring to "identity papers" was that such documents DID NOT EXIST at the time - they are a later invention.
Also keep in mind that ALL business of any importance was done with written transactions. People wrote letters all the time. So it would be VERY important for the founders specify protection for one's "papers" - military commisions, discharge papers, diplomas, correspondence, business ledgers - because they were important to the conduct of one's life, not proof of one's identity. You are applying a 20th and 21st century meaning and value to the word "papers" that the Founders would not have comprehended. They would have been baffled at the idea that one could be required to present proof of one's identification - no such proof existed yet.
"I really hope you're not distorting the bill of rights as part of some sort of agenda. This is exactly the kind of talk I would expect to hear from a president who wants to take away people's rights and institute a police state. In your case, I will chalk it up to ignorance."
I'm afraid you misread my post. It is your interpretation, that only "identification papers" are protected, and that is repugnant. Under your interpreattion, my books, correspondence, business papers, ar all subject to random search and seizure. Under my interpretation, ALL my "papers" are protected, as is my right not to have any ID WHATSOEVER, much less present it at request.
Real ID will not be stopped and it is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations: "They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon." You mean the book that was never LISTED on Amazon because it was published by a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble?
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina. Local police, who were smacked down HARD by the local courts. Feds had absolutely zero to do with it.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps. That is still legally gray. Wiretapping 2 foreigners is OK, 2 americans is illegal, but when there's one of each? Courts haven't ruled. And it was Clinton policy that it was legal as well.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus. Habeus doesn't apply to Gitmo. Period. If it is a POW camp, it doesn't apply, and if it is a camp for insurgents and saboteurs from another country, it doesn't apply. My guess is that the courts will decide that it doesn't fall under either, but that is because it is a case of first impression - no one has been in this situation before. In previous wars, insurgents were shot on the street. I'll agree about the Padilla case, but that is 1 case, not wholesale rounding up of dissidents.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing. 8th amendment applies to cruel and unusual punishment under the penal system. It violates the Geneva convention.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't. Huh? What foreign government?
Support Dr. Ron Paul (who raised a record $4 million yesterday) and save this great country. Oh yeah, I know that guy - I loved "Puff, the Magic Dragon"!
Your sentiment is admirable. Maybe if you get real arguments instead of the pathetic examples above, someone would pay more attention to you.
You had me until you started talking about "papers". The "papers" in the Constitution refer to ones writings and other documents, NOT "papers" from cheap spy movies with Russian accents.
Under your interpretation, it would be fine to implement a National ID system, as long as one didn't have to cough it up at every transaction., i.e. you could keep your "papers" secure.
Under the original interpretation, the govt. keeps it's damned nose out of my business and it's paws off my person and property, unless so allowed by a court of law. Period. There is nothing against a natioanl ID card in the constitution per se, but the idea is so anathema to personal freedom that it should fall under the "just effin' obvious" clause. There is no need to require someone to be able to PROVE who they are at all times when the government doesn't have the right to ASK who you are at any time.
I know the latter isn't the scenario now, but I'd rather strive for that ideal of "security" than the first.
I think you are giving WAYYYY to much credit to the Philadelphia city government. For many years their only competencies were: 1) beating up criminal suspects 2) receiving bribe money from the various unions, and 3) forming their own municipal air force, complete with bombing runs.
Attributing their failure to being OVERLY ambitious is wishful thinking; I believe it more likely the correct people didn't get bribed (enough).
I love Southeast PA despite the local government, not because of it.
Nope - there is an exception for celebrities and "public figures". Basically, if one has tried to put one's self in the public eye (politician, actor, etc.), then one becomes subject to the news media reporting on that life. Regular folks, who have done nothing to put themselves in the public eye, enjoy greater protection. I'm just not sure how far that protection extends. I know crowd scenes are an exception - if a reporter takes a picture of a protest, and there are hundreds of people in the frame, they don't have to get releases from everybody; it's impractical and the subject of the photo is the crowd, not the individuals in the crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
The general rule I always follow is HIRE AN ENGINEER! Ferchrissake, there are people who do these calculations for a living, and have insurance in case the screw up. You want to trust your data center to advice from slashdot and a back-of-the-envelope calculation?
Sheesh - what's the name of your company so I can sell short?
"No offense, but people here are wicked smaht. Errr, quite intelligent. "
2 words: Big Dig.
I also note that you didn't reveal the results of "look[ing] into it from the day the casino plan surfaced". Perhaps because the level of corruption uncovered is perfectly acceptable to the residents of Massachusetts?
I mean, after all, he is Kennedy's boy, so there CAN'T be anything untoward going on, can there?
Lets just get it over with - all "GOOG is the AntiChrist" posts please file under this one, so as to have a neat and orderly flamefest.
Brought to you by the Lawful Neutral alignment since 1984 - "I don't care what you do, just as long as it's in a neat and orderly fashion"
I grew up in SE PA, and the common phrase in our house was "close the light." I always assumed this was another Pennsylvania Dutch saying, like "outen the light", but when I asked about it, I found that the roots were with my Italian ancestry, and referred to the operation of GAS lights, not electric.
I still use the phrase, which drives my wife nuts. She knows diddly about anything mechanical or electronic, except for the fact that one "closes" an electrical switch to make the power go.
"since when is an online business responsible for other peoples children? "
Since Cuomo got elected Governor of NY and realized that the stunts he pulled as AG weren't going to cut it anymore. He has to come up with SOME way to stay in the headlines, does he not?
"Given this data, it is entirely clear that there is no reason to believe that any non-encrypted data is not going to be monitored, recorded, and traced."
Can you translate taht for me? The triple negative permanently crossed my eyes (No, Mom, my face didn't freeze like this...)
IIRC, part of the problem was that Florida was making up rules as it went along.
Florida law states that the Sec. of State had the authority to declare the winner at a certain point. She did. That didn't sit well with Gore, who sued. The State supreme court ruled that that law didn't apply, but then didn't come up with an alternate method to meet the 200+ year old timeline other than "keep counting". The Supremes said that the state court didn't have the power to void that rule, and that her decision stood.
Was it equitable? Pehaps not. But Gore's plan - remember, he was the one who was suing, so he needs to ask for specific relief - was designed around NOT counting every vote equally: he requested only certain counties be recounted, and not the rest. And when asked, point blank if the votes would be counted by the same criteria, Gore's lawyer didn't even equivocate - he just said "No."
Add to this the fact that Gore used up the normal period allotted to contest the election by tryiong to game the recount - remember, some counties and not others - put them close to the electoral college deadline. By the time he decioded that a whole state recount was his only way out, it was too late to do one properly. Should one have been done? Yes, but starting 3 weeks earlier. Remember, it was Gore's suit, and he put himself in the jackpot by running out the clock. He wanted the whole country to wait for the results of the election because he failed to game the system correctly. Gore should have personally shot his lawyers, 'cause no jury would have convicted him.
Do I think there should have been a whole state recount? Yes, but earlier.
Should the whole "lame duck" period be abolished? Yes, but Gore was the one who tried to run out the clock to his advantage.
Should the electoral college be abolished? Yes, but it's not like Gore was ignoring it - he campaigned much harder in the heavy electoral states than the light ones, so it's not like he had that big a problem with it before it bit him in the ass.
He bought into the system - he was just pissed that the check came due and he had to pay.
With the upcoming primaries and presidential election, this will go rapidly to SCOTUS. And they will stick it up DOJ's ass and break it off - one thing this court is known for is pushing federalism, and telling the states the exact means by which they will hold their elections is a HUGE violation of that.
Oh, I have no doubt about the babelfish translation - it's the "diplomatic incident" I'm scratching my head at.
1) Why does anything involving a bunch of journalists have to do with diplomacy?
2) Does the country in question have a stick so far up their colective asses they couldn't laugh this off?
3) Or is the headline total flamebait, and I'm a sucker?
"I would suggest you concentrate more on referencing identity papers and founding fathers, which I believe will shed more light on the subject."
Did it. No hits.
You're awfully smug for someone whose only reference is a movie that is "historically correct." Still wanna play? I'm waiting to be enlightened.
I think this may have more to do with the abilityto upgrade computers. Due to the original IBM PC architecture, it was easy to make your computer run better - some simple screws, plug-in cards, simple electrical connections. Lots of folks who would never dream of opening up their VCR - still flashing 12:00 - have upgraded memory or a hard drive.
Now those same folks who have cut their teeth on PC's look at broken electronic gadgetry and think:
1) How hard can it be?
2) If I screw it up, no big deal - it's a loss now as it is.
I wish I could point to the place in my post where I said that ID papers weren't in COMMON use, but I can't - I thought it, but I didn't write it.
That being said, it still struck me as odd that the Founders would write in a clause that would protect government "agents", i.e. those issued identification papers by a government, which identified them as members or agents of that government. I don't think the French were issuing state ID's to shopkeepers and prostitutes.
So I searched on Google (where else) for "fourth amendment meaning of papers". Of course, I got links to every high school term paper on the meaning of the 4th amendment, but the first 3 meaningful links are as fiollows:
http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-on-textual-interpretation-of-4th.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag1_user.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html
All of these speak directly to "papers", and not a single one references "identitity papers" in any way. In these articles, "papers" meant business and other documents. This ties in with the historical context - due to the punitive taxes, many of the colonists were smugglers, and records of purchases and sales would be prime evidence supporting charges of tax evasion.
I've done my part, now it's your turn - cough up some links supporting your position. I may also dig up soem ConLawbooks or constitutional history, but that's for later.
"If we keep going down the "us and them" path in our own politics, we'll wind up like the Sunnis and Shiites, self-righteous to the end, destroying our own country in the name of winning an argument."
You use the future tense - I think the past tense is more appropriate.
Hey, guess what - I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I studied manufacturing techniques, too. And part of your assertions about American quality are semantic sleight-of-hand.
"The American jack will also be made of superior materials, and is probably rated to a higher specification."
Not really. A rating is a rating. If the grade of steel is A36, that's what it is. True, the Chinese have been purposely substituting lesser materials an passing them off as better - it's called counterfeiting and fraud, and has nothing to do with "manufacturing" quality.
"Even if the box reads the same specification, you can bet your ass that the American jack has left a lot more of a margin, and won't collapse when overloaded by 10%."
Ahh, here's the subtle part. You see, one of the reasons that american stuff is so expensive, especially in the low-tech area, is that US manufacturer's of these items STILL have not learned the lessons of Deming and the Japanese. Their manufacturing operations still have just as shitty manufacturing controls as in the 70's. So how does the end product end up with "a lot more of a margin"? Because, in order to compensate for the bad process control, US manufacturer's have higher reject rates and overdesign the parts to compensate for the likelihood that they will be flawed. They siply shift the quality bell curve up, not narrow the standard deviation. The Chinese don't bother.
So, if I buy an American floor jack rated at 3 tons, it's actualls designed for 5 tons, but the factory QA is so bad that, statistically, they can only be sure of a 3 ton rating. Whereas the Chinese are designing for 3 ton, and selling at that rating.
"AHA!" you say, "Proof that American is better quality!"
"But", I reply, "I only WANT a 3 ton rated jack. I don't want to pay for a possibly defective 5 ton jack. Oh, I'll probably (statistically speaking) get lucky and get a jack with a real 5 ton load rating, but I don't NEED it - I'm jacking up VW's, not F350's. And I'm not getting a 5 ton jack for a 3 ton price - I'm getting a 5 ton jack for a 5 ton price, but the factory isn't confident enough to call it that!
I just want to buy simple stuff at a reasonable price. And that price should not include
1) Subsidizing some guy who barely graduated high school expecting to be paid premium wages just because he is in a union and/or an American.
2) Insane labor and environmental regulations which only enrich lawyers and don't do dick-all for the folks they purport to protect.
3) government bailouts to protect failed businesses, who are free to keep screwing up for the next 30 years (I'm looking at you, Iacocca)
I'm willing to have it include:
a) Fair wages for the LOCAL wage market in which the item is produced.
b) Reasonable regulations
c) reasonable legal overhead for protection agains real legal problems, and not just a wealth transfer to JD's
"Welcome America, to the Wal Mart future you created for yourself by being a bunch of damn cheap bastards who would rather buy cheap shit than pay for some fatass union worker to collect $20/hour for making crap."
Fixed that for ya'.
Obviously you weren't around during the 70's and 80's. American companies couldn't manufacture their way out of a paper bag. The bulk of american products were crap, with some really high quality stuff thrown in. The chinese just replaced the shitty end of the market. The high quality end either still exists, or was driven out when they couldn't cut costs to something folks could remotely afford.
I was just looking for a floor jack. I can get one made in China for $50, or the USA for $250. How could I justify the extra $200? I could buy 5 chinese jacks for the 1 american, and I doubt someone could convince me that the American one would last 5x as long. If it was $100 vs. $50, I would have bit the bullet, but 5x?!
Yes, american quality has improved greatly; but there is an entire generation that Detroit et al. lost in terms of "Buy American". If someone has been conditioned that a car made in Japan or Europe is inherently better, why would there be a stigma against China?
Stocks of the toy fly off the shelves and pedophiles and would be rapists scramble to secure the balance of store inventory.
But they do want the power to tell me
- what I can smoke (not tobacco)
- what I can eat (not trans-fats)
- who I must hire and can't fire (anyone but young white males)
- what I can say ("hate" speech)
- what I can do to defend myself (not use force)
- how my money will be spent (the govt. knows better what to do with my money)
- how I care for my children (daughter wants an abortion at 13? Not my business)
But that's OK - it's for the "greater good" and the protection of someone else's rights.
"I will disagree with your very last sentence. I don't think there are any monuments being built for either architect's egos or Owner's businesses. Forget the Gehrys of this world for a minute, and we are left with fairly mediocre structures which speak of nothing but our ability to logically compile pre-assembled elements into barely cohesive monuments to absolutely nothing. Architecture hasn't had a cohesive ideology in many decades now. Since introduction of AutoCAD. Coincidence?"
I have had 2 personal experiences where major elements of the structures, if not the whole building, were there solely for aesthetic effect. First was a "fin wall", which was an exterior architectural element. It was 7 stories high and contained no services or served any user need. When it was going to be VE'd out (to the tune of $1,000,000), the architect threw a fit. The fin wall was his "signature", and if it was eliminated, he would walk off the job.
Another example was an interior detail - a monumental stairway right in the lobby of the building. It was almost 20' wide, with 3' deep stairs. It was bare concrete, with a stained finish. Again, $1,000,000, and the AE refused to take it out of the design. The results:
a) Since the stair weren't poured contiguously, the concrete stained differently at different portions, and would up looking checkerboarded. When the conc. staning consultant (that the AE used) looked at it, he basically said "yeah, that sometimes happens."
b) Because of the deep steps, they are very uncomfortable to walk on. The steps are visually proportional for the size, but no one uses them.
c) The AE firm won an award for the building, and specifically for the lobby, of which the stairs is the dominant feature.
Like I said - some AE's are great, but there are still a lot of wannabees out there.
As for the AIA docs, I agree that they are a template and many owners modify them or write their own - that's a large portion of my current job. But I work for an organization that has millions of square feet under roof in thousands of different locations. The vast majority of owners I dealt with as a GC were clueless - building a project like a greenfield building was a once a career event, not 20x a year. They generally took the AIA's as written, much to their later dismay. It's unfortunate, but it is reality.
Great - an Architect (love the caps, BTW). Well, I worked for major general contractor, and now I work for a building owner, hiring both Architects and GC's.
"It will ultimately come down to the front end (Conditions of The Contract) of the design manual to figure out who is in charge of quality control." You are correct. The problem is, the architect generally gets to write that document, and by and large they remove any and all liability for quality or design issues. The AIA standard 201, "Conditions of the Contract" is CYA raised to a high art - the architect is liable for nothing.
Architects are also notorious for designing things that are impossible to build "correctly". they will either leave details out, and rely on the GC's "means and methods", or draw a detail that can't be built as-drawn.
Even better are the ones that take a manufacturer's specification lock, stock, and barrel and change 1 detail - The GC can't buy the standard item, because it has a custom modification that the Architect MUST have. But another manufacturer isn't allowed - they don't meet the "standard" set by the basis-of-design equipment.
I even had one guy lift a spec for a fire door, with no modifications, right from sales literature. When asked about a trivial installation detail, I was told that the whole thing was wrong, that he wanted a custom configuration, and that I should have known that the spec wasn't what he wanted, even though he "wrote" it.
There are great architects out there, but the profession has become a bit like journalism - Every J-school grad wants to be Woodward or Bernstein, and every architecture grad wants to be Wright or Gehry. And building owners are left with monuments to an Architect's ego, and not a monument to the Owner's business.
"Um... No, the bill of rights here is referring to your papers as in your documents relating to identity, birth, etc. "
Really? To what particular documents are you referring? Although births were recorded as early as the 1600's, the issuance of birth certificates wasn't common until the 1800's. Passports? Driver's licenses? Gun Permits?
The reason I'm sure that the 4th amendment absolutely was not referring to "identity papers" was that such documents DID NOT EXIST at the time - they are a later invention.
Also keep in mind that ALL business of any importance was done with written transactions. People wrote letters all the time. So it would be VERY important for the founders specify protection for one's "papers" - military commisions, discharge papers, diplomas, correspondence, business ledgers - because they were important to the conduct of one's life, not proof of one's identity. You are applying a 20th and 21st century meaning and value to the word "papers" that the Founders would not have comprehended. They would have been baffled at the idea that one could be required to present proof of one's identification - no such proof existed yet.
"I really hope you're not distorting the bill of rights as part of some sort of agenda. This is exactly the kind of talk I would expect to hear from a president who wants to take away people's rights and institute a police state. In your case, I will chalk it up to ignorance."
I'm afraid you misread my post. It is your interpretation, that only "identification papers" are protected, and that is repugnant. Under your interpreattion, my books, correspondence, business papers, ar all subject to random search and seizure. Under my interpretation, ALL my "papers" are protected, as is my right not to have any ID WHATSOEVER, much less present it at request.
Real ID will not be stopped and it is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
"They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon."
You mean the book that was never LISTED on Amazon because it was published by a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble?
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
Local police, who were smacked down HARD by the local courts. Feds had absolutely zero to do with it.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
That is still legally gray. Wiretapping 2 foreigners is OK, 2 americans is illegal, but when there's one of each? Courts haven't ruled. And it was Clinton policy that it was legal as well.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
Habeus doesn't apply to Gitmo. Period. If it is a POW camp, it doesn't apply, and if it is a camp for insurgents and saboteurs from another country, it doesn't apply. My guess is that the courts will decide that it doesn't fall under either, but that is because it is a case of first impression - no one has been in this situation before. In previous wars, insurgents were shot on the street. I'll agree about the Padilla case, but that is 1 case, not wholesale rounding up of dissidents.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
8th amendment applies to cruel and unusual punishment under the penal system. It violates the Geneva convention.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Huh? What foreign government?
Support Dr. Ron Paul (who raised a record $4 million yesterday) and save this great country.
Oh yeah, I know that guy - I loved "Puff, the Magic Dragon"!
Your sentiment is admirable. Maybe if you get real arguments instead of the pathetic examples above, someone would pay more attention to you.
You had me until you started talking about "papers". The "papers" in the Constitution refer to ones writings and other documents, NOT "papers" from cheap spy movies with Russian accents.
Under your interpretation, it would be fine to implement a National ID system, as long as one didn't have to cough it up at every transaction., i.e. you could keep your "papers" secure.
Under the original interpretation, the govt. keeps it's damned nose out of my business and it's paws off my person and property, unless so allowed by a court of law. Period. There is nothing against a natioanl ID card in the constitution per se, but the idea is so anathema to personal freedom that it should fall under the "just effin' obvious" clause. There is no need to require someone to be able to PROVE who they are at all times when the government doesn't have the right to ASK who you are at any time.
I know the latter isn't the scenario now, but I'd rather strive for that ideal of "security" than the first.
I think you are giving WAYYYY to much credit to the Philadelphia city government. For many years their only competencies were:
1) beating up criminal suspects
2) receiving bribe money from the various unions, and
3) forming their own municipal air force, complete with bombing runs.
Attributing their failure to being OVERLY ambitious is wishful thinking; I believe it more likely the correct people didn't get bribed (enough).
I love Southeast PA despite the local government, not because of it.
Nope - there is an exception for celebrities and "public figures". Basically, if one has tried to put one's self in the public eye (politician, actor, etc.), then one becomes subject to the news media reporting on that life. Regular folks, who have done nothing to put themselves in the public eye, enjoy greater protection. I'm just not sure how far that protection extends. I know crowd scenes are an exception - if a reporter takes a picture of a protest, and there are hundreds of people in the frame, they don't have to get releases from everybody; it's impractical and the subject of the photo is the crowd, not the individuals in the crowd.