Most states rights advocates want to get around that. So they can take away the 1st, 4th and other amendments locally.
Really? I wonder who -- or what -- you've been hanging around because I've never heard a "states rights advocate" who advocated anything remotely similar to what you just described. States Rights is all about getting the Federal government out of the way and making politics more local and thus more in tune with the population of that state. It's the best of all worlds: the California liberals can get all their pet projects in California and the South Carolina conservatives don't have to pay for it, and so forth. The Founding Fathers originally intended it to be this way. It's only in the last century the Federal government has extended its heavy hand so far into States Rights that the phrase might as well not exist.
But nobody of any serious persuasion is calling for the abolition of the Bill of Rights as you suggest. That's just silly hyperbole on your part.
I've noted two trends in the job market lately: the jobs are paying a good deal more, but there are a lot fewer of them. It seems counter-intuitive because an oversupply of candidates would tend to drive wages down. However, what I see happening is companies almost *want* to pay top dollar...but only because they want absolutely stellar, walk-on-water, can-do-no-wrong, all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips candidates. I'm making *more* than I was during the dot com bubble. I'm also working my ass off managing projects that would've taken a team of people to do a few years ago. They're certainly getting their money's worth, but I have no room to complain because I'm making top dollar. And that's just how they want it: I have no incentive -- and no opportunity -- to jump ship for something better paying because I'm already way above the average wage, and a less stressful position would pay me so much less that it's not worth searching for.
John Stapp survived decels in excess of 40g's but it doesn't state the duration. However, I believe the medical data derived from his testing showed a properly-restrained human body is capable of surviving a surprising amount of deceleration, much more that most people believed possible prior to his tests.
So long as the SUV doesn't rollover, the greater mass and size of the SUV makes it a better choice against pretty much anything else in a collision. While SUV's are more prone to rollovers than passenger cars, it doesn't make a rollover a foregone conclusion.
Uhhh...do you know what an airbag is and how it works? It's specifically designed to prevent the injuries you describe, even if not wearing a seatbelt.
Since when does "may be spying" effectively get translated in TFA headline to "definitely *is* spying"? TFA clearly says it's just speculation that it's spying.
I agree. But I would prefer a puzzle to questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years" and "what are your goals". I want to answer "My goal is to get hired. Why else would I answer such stupid questions?"
I actually love these questions. When the hiring boss/manager/executive asks the "where do you see yourself in five years" thing, I always say "Doing your job." It's the truth. If this intimidates the interviewer then I know I'll be stuck in a position with no possibility of upward mobility and I probably don't want the job. The "what are your goals" question usually has a similar answer: I want to eventually reach the CIO position and run the shop.
General formula is the hero, his girlfriend, sidekicks, mentor, great foe, plus visual effects.
To which any Hollywood executive will say "great idea, but can you do it without the hero, his girlfriend, sidekicks, mentor, and great foe? We want Michael Bay to direct, so the movie must revolve around visual effects. Oh, and find some way to work in something cute we can market to kids in Happy Meals!"
Of course it isn't. But when the IT-blessed process to do it takes 12 weeks and results in shared space with a 10MB quota and a network connection with dialup speed and satellite latency, people are going to take shortcuts.
If even the simplest things are a struggle to accomplish and anything slightly complicated requires escalation (which always looks bad in the eyes of the manager -- escalating means you couldn't figure out how to do your job), IT IS the problem.
You act as if IT is arbitrarily handing these things down because they want to be assholes. While I'm sure that happens somewhere, sometimes, with some people, I've never yet worked for any organization where that was the case and I've been doing this for more than two decades. What you describe sounds like the expected outcome of an IT organization that's overtasked, underpowered, and with too few resources to properly service user needs. Takes 12 weeks? The testing and certification lab is almost certainly understaffed, underequipped, undertrained, or all three. End up with 10MB quota? Looks like the SAN budget didn't get approved as IT requested. Dialup speed and satellite latency? Guess the network folks didn't get their budget items, either.
It's not a grand conspiracy to screw you. You're not important enough to have an entire organization dedicated to stopping you from getting your job done.
If IT's job is to protect the network, can't IT make the privileges finer grained to protect the network without interfering with legitimate R&D? You could allow unapproved computing devices to write to storage that is scanned on write with the device owner's credentials and mount unapproved storage devices (e.g. USB connected phones or CD-ROM media) with scan on read. E-mail servers, for example, should scan any attachments that the user sends (SMTP) or appends (IMAP). Scan any file written to the NAS.
Such "finer grained" systems *do* exist, but devices that *support* these systems are not ubiquitous by any means. In fact, the very gadgets you're trying to use are almost certainly ones that lack the necessary controls to enforce fine-grained security policies like what you describe. The newer and cooler the device, the worse this becomes, especially on hardware that's aimed at consumers first and corporations second *cough* anything from Apple *cough cough*. And when that happens, security tends to be more ham-fisted because there's no other choice. In extreme cases, security has no option other than to say "no, you can't have your latest iSlab 2.0 because it can't be brought into compliance with corporate security policies and/or governmental regulations covering our industry." And you, blissfully ignorant of this, scapegoat IT.
But, let us assume you're using a device that actually supports the fine-grained control you seek. Odds are, the company doesn't *have* the software to implement said policies in the first place. Such systems tend to be very expensive to purchase, extremely expensive to implement, and hideously expensive to maintain -- especially if the environment is one where lots of new, unique devices are constantly introduced. And you, in your tower of all-knowningness, scapegoat IT.
Oh, such software *can* be bought, of course. But before it gets bought, it must be budgeted. And before it can be budgeted, it must be justified by a cost/benefit analysis and risk analysis. Usually the costs/risks of such systems outweigh the benefits of supported the latest whiz-bang gadget by several orders of magnitude, so the software is never approved. You, blissfully unaware of all of this, scapegoat IT.
And if you're worried about trade secrets or PII being copied in the other direction, that could happen with mere paper and pencil.
Very true. But the time and effort required to steal, say, half a million credit card accounts with paper and pencil is completely impractical, whereas doing the same thing with a USB flash drive takes a few clicks and less than a minute. You're using the silly argument that since you can't prevent minor, near-insignificant thefts, you shouldn't spend any time trying to prevent major, catastrophic thefts. And you wonder why your IT department is loathe to let you bring in any doo-dad you want and plug it into networks bearing the most sensitive and vulnerable data in the company. But you just go on scapegoating IT, because you know their jobs better than they do.
When you call it "my corporate network", you have defined yourself as the exact IT staff users complain about. It's not your network, unlesss you own the corporation itself. It is the company's network.
I think you drew the wrong conclusion from the GP's phrasing. Having been an IT Director for several companies, I commonly referred to any equipment or applications that I was responsible for as "mine." It doesn't mean I own it. It means it's my job to make sure it's up, available, reliable, and secure at all times.
Sure you keep things up and running, but you're not making the products, or out there selling them. Therefore, you're job is wholly dependent on your ability to let the breadwinners of the company do what they do best. If they find they feel more comfortable on an iPad, your job isn't to defend "your" network from an unsanctioned device. Your job is to make sure the device works, so that the employee who is generating the dollars that pay your salary and benefits can continue to do so.
You're both right and wrong here. My job *is* to make sure the breadwinners can do what they do best. Now, please tell me how they can do that when the whole network's been taken down because Mr. Breadwinner brought in his shiny new doo-dad -- which got infected at home before it ever hit the corporate network -- and allowed an outside party to get in and screw everything up. Tell me how customers will keep using our company's services after all their personal data was stolen and sold on the black market after a compromised device was used to hack a server. Tell me how long our company will be in business after Mr. Disgruntled Employee wandered out the door on his last day with our complete client list, pricing data, project plans, etc. all ready to be turned over to the competitor he's leaving us for.
It happens a lot more often than you think. Most intrusions these days are the result of compromised *internal* systems reaching out to external entities for command & control rather than nefarious outside hackers trying to ram their way through the corporate firewalls, DMZ's, and so forth. The *least* secure place on almost any network is the "inside network" where all the PC's, laptops, and shiny new doo-dads Mr. Breadwinner brought in lives. The absolute dumbest thing any IT group can do is give carte blanche to folks who want to bring in any whiz-bang device they just happened to pick up at Best Buy last night.
My job is to make sure *everyone* can do their job, not just the people in direct client-facing roles. Remember, even though *you* may bring the money in the door, Payroll pays *your* paycheck and benefits the same as it pays mine. If they're down, none of us gets paid...including you, Mr. Breadwinner.
Because if the CEO comes in with a new device, I don't know about you, but I've never known it was an option to tell him "no, you have to go return that" if it was at all possible it would e made to work. And if their iPad or android tablet can work for them, it should be a no brainer that any other employee in the enterprise that requires remote email access should be able to use the same.
Any reasonably-structured IT organization has a published policy or set of policies governing approved devices. These policies are enforced regardless of employee rank or position. If the CEO wants to violate IT policy, the CIO should vigorously object. Should the CEO insist, he may get his way, but the policy violation will be documented and the CEO will be held responsible for any fallout. This is enough to desist all but the most idiotic CEO's. There are regulations governing pretty much every major industry, regulations requiring something like a security policy with company-wide compliance. Violating this is a good way to get your business shut down, even if the violation never results in any breach (i.e. it's only discovered in an audit).
Like many, I am disgusted by the way the US takes from the middle class in order give assets and special treatment to the super-rich,
And precisely how is the US "taking" this hangar from the middle class and "giving" it away when it's being *paid for*? Or did you somehow overlook the $33M that changed hands in exchange for use of the hangar? If anything, the deal is a very good one for the hangar owners since they're going to get $33M to lease a space that would otherwise have generated zero dollars and stood largely unused!
They don't pay taxes in the same way as normal people and certainly don't in the manner that the "jobs rhetoric" would seem to imply.
You're right, we don't pay taxes in the same way as normal people We pay far *more* than the average taxpayer. I'm speaking as someone with a combined annual income of over US$200K. It puts me in the top 5% of all wage earners. Yet, collectively, the top few percentile of all federal taxpayers pays pays more than half the total taxes taken in by Uncle Sam. And you can't say it's wealth disparity, either, as the top few percentile earn less than 20% of the entire wealth nationally.
As for "jobs rhetoric," I'll leave you with this: go find a poor person who will give you a job. Good luck with that. It's folks like me with disposable income that take risks, start new businesses, or invest in existing ones so they can grow. Making me poor will not make you rich.
A "hanger" is the triangular-looking thing with a hook on the top you use to hang your shirts in your closet. A "hangar" is a large, enclosed structure usually used to store aircraft.
I see this usage mangled almost as often as "to/too" and "they're/there/their." Really, folks. It's not that hard. In this day and age where you can look up anything in an instant on the Internet -- and get real-time translations for non-native speakers -- there is no excuse for such ignorance.
China could quickly stop the US's ability to produce any more hardware by stopping trade.
And in the process, China would wreck its own economy by killing it's best customer. Try thinking *beyond* just the opening chess move, please.
With the current (and projected) economic situation between China and the U.S., an aggressive attack on the U.S. would hurt China more. We buy too much of their stuff and they finance too much of our debt. It's the equivalent of Mutual Assured Destruction in a way, but it's an economic war, not a military one.
There are two main reasons this has become true: electronic medical records and efficiency. The former is being mandated by the government. The latter is due to the lack of enough people to fill slots in the healthcare industry due to the personnel crunch, requiring hospitals to do more with less.
I do technology consulting for hospitals. One thing that's always pissed me off is the nursing shortage. Hospitals go out of their way to woo doctors to their facilities, but nursing pay remains pathetic by comparison. Yet nurses work the same crappy hours and put up with the same ornery patients. Is there any wonder why there's a shortage of people entering the nursing field? And yet the hospitals *can't* really pay the nurses more because nearly all of them are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy at any given time due to Medicare's payment schedule.
Is it a requirement of the rental agreement that they appear in the credits?
I don't know if it's a requirement as part of the contract, but if it isn't, you can be it's there because Panavision gives them a financial incentive to put it there (or a financial *penalty* if they decided not to put it there).
Humans are definitely causing it. That's the logical conclusion.
Really? Prove it. And don't point me to a paper that just says "it's getting hotter." Point me to multiple, unambiguous, trustworthy, credible, peer-reviewed, non-politically-motiviated research papers not funded by any organization with a bias (either for *or* against AGW) that solidly proves it's man-made and can have no other possible source and I'll gladly side with you. I have little fear of this, though, as no such research exists. We simply don't understand the climate well enough to make bold, blanket statements like what you're saying. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, but there are *many* other factors involved (water vapor, surface albedo, solar output, etc.), some of which *can* (but perhaps *don't*) contribute far more to warming than CO2.
Honestly, you just don't get it. It's your sheer *zealotry* that's such a turnoff. You're so damned sure you've got the answer that you're prepared to call people idiots or sellouts if they don't agree with you. Yet anyone who digs even a little into the science of climatology will quickly see that our understanding of our own biosphere is rudimentary at best. Therefore we cannot be so smugly assured as you seem to be. We can be somewhat sure, even reasonably certain, but we cannot *be* certain because our knowledge is sorely lacking. Yet you claim there is no other possibility, that all the evidence is in, that all the variables have been computed and the results point to AGW without a shadow of a doubt. Your sheer inability to admit the possibility of being wrong is what precludes me believing your argument. I'd have more respect for you if you'd just say "we're 90% sure we're right." I also can't discount the fact that the history of science is replete with examples of scientists proclaiming they were absolutely, 100% convinced they were right...right up until the time they were dragged kicking and screaming away from their treasured models and theories and into a completely new understanding of things. And in every example it wasn't the case that the scientists were actively seeking to delude the public, it was that they'd failed to grasp the subtlety of what they were making pronouncements about.
It also doesn't help that *most* of the AGW proponents I've encountered also tend to be heavily anti-capitalist or avowed socialists, communists, or anarchists. Their "solution" to AGW is to redistribute the world's income, with the rich paying through the nose and everybody else getting a free ride at the expense of developed countries. Pardon me if this sounds more like a Marxist paradise in the making, fueled by a made-up global crisis designed to "spread the wealth around." Even if you're *right* about AGW, the very choice of messengers raises doubt and suspicion. And don't act like it only goes one way. If Exxon-Mobil commissioned a study that said CO2 was wonderful, you'd be skeptical as well no matter what the research said simply because of the source.
I'm not some bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, anti-science Luddite in the pay of corporate masters bent on destroying the planet. I'm an educated, curious denizen of Earth who's just trying to make a living for me and my family. If you want me to sacrifice my way of life to "save the planet" then you need to convince me the danger is real. You do that by presenting unambiguous science from unbiased researchers from multiple sources, all of which need to agree. Thus far this has not happened, which is why I remain a "skeptic" and not a "denier" as you'd rather label me.
Regardless of WHO or WHAT caused the raise in temperature- it is important that people understand that it does make a significant difference. Weather patterns will change. Economies will change because water availability will alter- as will what plants will grow where.
Some cities will be prone to flooding (not just coastal, but from rain).
And, in addition to the negatives you mention, colder and drier areas may become warmer and wetter, thus allowing farming in areas currently unsuitable for agriculture. Will the net impact be positive or negative? Nobody has answered that question. But anyone who expects the climate to stand still and *not* change -- be it AGW or natural warming -- is an idiot. The Earth's climate *will* change regardless of whether we're doing anything to it or not. It has before. It is now. It will again. I'd rather see humans *adapt* to change than try to prevent something that may (or may not) be completely natural and *unavoidable* in the first place.
Considering that in the late '90s they were on step 1, assuming linear progress they'll be on 6 somewhere around 2015~2020.
Considering that in the 1980's the climate scientists were warning of a new global ice age, I'd say you AGW proponents have your own flowchart of self-delusion. When things failed to get cold you started screaming things are going to get hot. But this time you're *sure* you've got the science right. Yes, you said the same thing last time, but this time you're *really* sure. Honest. Really. You're sure. And not sure like you said you were sure last time. This time you mean it. For real. Not kidding this time. And we've got scientific consensus and peer-reviewed articles to back us up...and not like last time when we had scientific consensus and peer-reviewed articles to back us up. Nope. This time it's different. Trust us. We're never wrong. Except for last time, which we'd rather you just forget all about and believe whatever we say now as opposed to then.
Here's a simple question that I'd love for you to answer: what is the natural temperature Earth's supposed to have? Shouldn't be hard for someone with your vast certainty of knowledge to answer this, so by all means, enlighten us. The Earth has been both warmer and colder than it currently is, all without any input from humans. Are we causing climate change? We might be, but you can't say with 100% certainty that we are. Just admit that you're *mostly* sure and not 100% sure and you just *might* gain my support. I will, however, refuse to support anyone who claims to have all the answers about such a complex and controversial subject. Dogma and zealots are present in *both* camps as far as I can see.
Slashdot Mirror
Most states rights advocates want to get around that. So they can take away the 1st, 4th and other amendments locally.
Really? I wonder who -- or what -- you've been hanging around because I've never heard a "states rights advocate" who advocated anything remotely similar to what you just described. States Rights is all about getting the Federal government out of the way and making politics more local and thus more in tune with the population of that state. It's the best of all worlds: the California liberals can get all their pet projects in California and the South Carolina conservatives don't have to pay for it, and so forth. The Founding Fathers originally intended it to be this way. It's only in the last century the Federal government has extended its heavy hand so far into States Rights that the phrase might as well not exist.
But nobody of any serious persuasion is calling for the abolition of the Bill of Rights as you suggest. That's just silly hyperbole on your part.
I've noted two trends in the job market lately: the jobs are paying a good deal more, but there are a lot fewer of them. It seems counter-intuitive because an oversupply of candidates would tend to drive wages down. However, what I see happening is companies almost *want* to pay top dollar...but only because they want absolutely stellar, walk-on-water, can-do-no-wrong, all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips candidates. I'm making *more* than I was during the dot com bubble. I'm also working my ass off managing projects that would've taken a team of people to do a few years ago. They're certainly getting their money's worth, but I have no room to complain because I'm making top dollar. And that's just how they want it: I have no incentive -- and no opportunity -- to jump ship for something better paying because I'm already way above the average wage, and a less stressful position would pay me so much less that it's not worth searching for.
John Stapp survived decels in excess of 40g's but it doesn't state the duration. However, I believe the medical data derived from his testing showed a properly-restrained human body is capable of surviving a surprising amount of deceleration, much more that most people believed possible prior to his tests.
So long as the SUV doesn't rollover, the greater mass and size of the SUV makes it a better choice against pretty much anything else in a collision. While SUV's are more prone to rollovers than passenger cars, it doesn't make a rollover a foregone conclusion.
Uhhh...do you know what an airbag is and how it works? It's specifically designed to prevent the injuries you describe, even if not wearing a seatbelt.
440 cu in = ~7.2L, actually. Do you work for NASA?
Since when does "may be spying" effectively get translated in TFA headline to "definitely *is* spying"? TFA clearly says it's just speculation that it's spying.
I agree. But I would prefer a puzzle to questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years" and "what are your goals". I want to answer "My goal is to get hired. Why else would I answer such stupid questions?"
I actually love these questions. When the hiring boss/manager/executive asks the "where do you see yourself in five years" thing, I always say "Doing your job." It's the truth. If this intimidates the interviewer then I know I'll be stuck in a position with no possibility of upward mobility and I probably don't want the job. The "what are your goals" question usually has a similar answer: I want to eventually reach the CIO position and run the shop.
General formula is the hero, his girlfriend, sidekicks, mentor, great foe, plus visual effects.
To which any Hollywood executive will say "great idea, but can you do it without the hero, his girlfriend, sidekicks, mentor, and great foe? We want Michael Bay to direct, so the movie must revolve around visual effects. Oh, and find some way to work in something cute we can market to kids in Happy Meals!"
Of course it isn't. But when the IT-blessed process to do it takes 12 weeks and results in shared space with a 10MB quota and a network connection with dialup speed and satellite latency, people are going to take shortcuts.
If even the simplest things are a struggle to accomplish and anything slightly complicated requires escalation (which always looks bad in the eyes of the manager -- escalating means you couldn't figure out how to do your job), IT IS the problem.
You act as if IT is arbitrarily handing these things down because they want to be assholes. While I'm sure that happens somewhere, sometimes, with some people, I've never yet worked for any organization where that was the case and I've been doing this for more than two decades. What you describe sounds like the expected outcome of an IT organization that's overtasked, underpowered, and with too few resources to properly service user needs. Takes 12 weeks? The testing and certification lab is almost certainly understaffed, underequipped, undertrained, or all three. End up with 10MB quota? Looks like the SAN budget didn't get approved as IT requested. Dialup speed and satellite latency? Guess the network folks didn't get their budget items, either.
It's not a grand conspiracy to screw you. You're not important enough to have an entire organization dedicated to stopping you from getting your job done.
If IT's job is to protect the network, can't IT make the privileges finer grained to protect the network without interfering with legitimate R&D? You could allow unapproved computing devices to write to storage that is scanned on write with the device owner's credentials and mount unapproved storage devices (e.g. USB connected phones or CD-ROM media) with scan on read. E-mail servers, for example, should scan any attachments that the user sends (SMTP) or appends (IMAP). Scan any file written to the NAS.
Such "finer grained" systems *do* exist, but devices that *support* these systems are not ubiquitous by any means. In fact, the very gadgets you're trying to use are almost certainly ones that lack the necessary controls to enforce fine-grained security policies like what you describe. The newer and cooler the device, the worse this becomes, especially on hardware that's aimed at consumers first and corporations second *cough* anything from Apple *cough cough*. And when that happens, security tends to be more ham-fisted because there's no other choice. In extreme cases, security has no option other than to say "no, you can't have your latest iSlab 2.0 because it can't be brought into compliance with corporate security policies and/or governmental regulations covering our industry." And you, blissfully ignorant of this, scapegoat IT.
But, let us assume you're using a device that actually supports the fine-grained control you seek. Odds are, the company doesn't *have* the software to implement said policies in the first place. Such systems tend to be very expensive to purchase, extremely expensive to implement, and hideously expensive to maintain -- especially if the environment is one where lots of new, unique devices are constantly introduced. And you, in your tower of all-knowningness, scapegoat IT.
Oh, such software *can* be bought, of course. But before it gets bought, it must be budgeted. And before it can be budgeted, it must be justified by a cost/benefit analysis and risk analysis. Usually the costs/risks of such systems outweigh the benefits of supported the latest whiz-bang gadget by several orders of magnitude, so the software is never approved. You, blissfully unaware of all of this, scapegoat IT.
And if you're worried about trade secrets or PII being copied in the other direction, that could happen with mere paper and pencil.
Very true. But the time and effort required to steal, say, half a million credit card accounts with paper and pencil is completely impractical, whereas doing the same thing with a USB flash drive takes a few clicks and less than a minute. You're using the silly argument that since you can't prevent minor, near-insignificant thefts, you shouldn't spend any time trying to prevent major, catastrophic thefts. And you wonder why your IT department is loathe to let you bring in any doo-dad you want and plug it into networks bearing the most sensitive and vulnerable data in the company. But you just go on scapegoating IT, because you know their jobs better than they do.
When you call it "my corporate network", you have defined yourself as the exact IT staff users complain about. It's not your network, unlesss you own the corporation itself. It is the company's network.
I think you drew the wrong conclusion from the GP's phrasing. Having been an IT Director for several companies, I commonly referred to any equipment or applications that I was responsible for as "mine." It doesn't mean I own it. It means it's my job to make sure it's up, available, reliable, and secure at all times.
Sure you keep things up and running, but you're not making the products, or out there selling them. Therefore, you're job is wholly dependent on your ability to let the breadwinners of the company do what they do best. If they find they feel more comfortable on an iPad, your job isn't to defend "your" network from an unsanctioned device. Your job is to make sure the device works, so that the employee who is generating the dollars that pay your salary and benefits can continue to do so.
You're both right and wrong here. My job *is* to make sure the breadwinners can do what they do best. Now, please tell me how they can do that when the whole network's been taken down because Mr. Breadwinner brought in his shiny new doo-dad -- which got infected at home before it ever hit the corporate network -- and allowed an outside party to get in and screw everything up. Tell me how customers will keep using our company's services after all their personal data was stolen and sold on the black market after a compromised device was used to hack a server. Tell me how long our company will be in business after Mr. Disgruntled Employee wandered out the door on his last day with our complete client list, pricing data, project plans, etc. all ready to be turned over to the competitor he's leaving us for.
It happens a lot more often than you think. Most intrusions these days are the result of compromised *internal* systems reaching out to external entities for command & control rather than nefarious outside hackers trying to ram their way through the corporate firewalls, DMZ's, and so forth. The *least* secure place on almost any network is the "inside network" where all the PC's, laptops, and shiny new doo-dads Mr. Breadwinner brought in lives. The absolute dumbest thing any IT group can do is give carte blanche to folks who want to bring in any whiz-bang device they just happened to pick up at Best Buy last night.
My job is to make sure *everyone* can do their job, not just the people in direct client-facing roles. Remember, even though *you* may bring the money in the door, Payroll pays *your* paycheck and benefits the same as it pays mine. If they're down, none of us gets paid...including you, Mr. Breadwinner.
Because if the CEO comes in with a new device, I don't know about you, but I've never known it was an option to tell him "no, you have to go return that" if it was at all possible it would e made to work. And if their iPad or android tablet can work for them, it should be a no brainer that any other employee in the enterprise that requires remote email access should be able to use the same.
Any reasonably-structured IT organization has a published policy or set of policies governing approved devices. These policies are enforced regardless of employee rank or position. If the CEO wants to violate IT policy, the CIO should vigorously object. Should the CEO insist, he may get his way, but the policy violation will be documented and the CEO will be held responsible for any fallout. This is enough to desist all but the most idiotic CEO's. There are regulations governing pretty much every major industry, regulations requiring something like a security policy with company-wide compliance. Violating this is a good way to get your business shut down, even if the violation never results in any breach (i.e. it's only discovered in an audit).
The real answer h
Like many, I am disgusted by the way the US takes from the middle class in order give assets and special treatment to the super-rich,
And precisely how is the US "taking" this hangar from the middle class and "giving" it away when it's being *paid for*? Or did you somehow overlook the $33M that changed hands in exchange for use of the hangar? If anything, the deal is a very good one for the hangar owners since they're going to get $33M to lease a space that would otherwise have generated zero dollars and stood largely unused!
They don't pay taxes in the same way as normal people and certainly don't in the manner that the "jobs rhetoric" would seem to imply.
You're right, we don't pay taxes in the same way as normal people We pay far *more* than the average taxpayer. I'm speaking as someone with a combined annual income of over US$200K. It puts me in the top 5% of all wage earners. Yet, collectively, the top few percentile of all federal taxpayers pays pays more than half the total taxes taken in by Uncle Sam. And you can't say it's wealth disparity, either, as the top few percentile earn less than 20% of the entire wealth nationally.
As for "jobs rhetoric," I'll leave you with this: go find a poor person who will give you a job. Good luck with that. It's folks like me with disposable income that take risks, start new businesses, or invest in existing ones so they can grow. Making me poor will not make you rich.
A "hanger" is the triangular-looking thing with a hook on the top you use to hang your shirts in your closet. A "hangar" is a large, enclosed structure usually used to store aircraft.
I see this usage mangled almost as often as "to/too" and "they're/there/their." Really, folks. It's not that hard. In this day and age where you can look up anything in an instant on the Internet -- and get real-time translations for non-native speakers -- there is no excuse for such ignorance.
Apologies to the grammar Nazi's on the improper us of "it's". I haven't had my coffee this morning :)
China could quickly stop the US's ability to produce any more hardware by stopping trade.
And in the process, China would wreck its own economy by killing it's best customer. Try thinking *beyond* just the opening chess move, please.
With the current (and projected) economic situation between China and the U.S., an aggressive attack on the U.S. would hurt China more. We buy too much of their stuff and they finance too much of our debt. It's the equivalent of Mutual Assured Destruction in a way, but it's an economic war, not a military one.
There are two main reasons this has become true: electronic medical records and efficiency. The former is being mandated by the government. The latter is due to the lack of enough people to fill slots in the healthcare industry due to the personnel crunch, requiring hospitals to do more with less.
I do technology consulting for hospitals. One thing that's always pissed me off is the nursing shortage. Hospitals go out of their way to woo doctors to their facilities, but nursing pay remains pathetic by comparison. Yet nurses work the same crappy hours and put up with the same ornery patients. Is there any wonder why there's a shortage of people entering the nursing field? And yet the hospitals *can't* really pay the nurses more because nearly all of them are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy at any given time due to Medicare's payment schedule.
Is it a requirement of the rental agreement that they appear in the credits?
I don't know if it's a requirement as part of the contract, but if it isn't, you can be it's there because Panavision gives them a financial incentive to put it there (or a financial *penalty* if they decided not to put it there).
Oh, did I call you a complete assshole yet? ASSHOLE!
And thus you amply demonstrate your maturity level to be so low as to make your argument worthless.
Humans are definitely causing it. That's the logical conclusion.
Really? Prove it. And don't point me to a paper that just says "it's getting hotter." Point me to multiple, unambiguous, trustworthy, credible, peer-reviewed, non-politically-motiviated research papers not funded by any organization with a bias (either for *or* against AGW) that solidly proves it's man-made and can have no other possible source and I'll gladly side with you. I have little fear of this, though, as no such research exists. We simply don't understand the climate well enough to make bold, blanket statements like what you're saying. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, but there are *many* other factors involved (water vapor, surface albedo, solar output, etc.), some of which *can* (but perhaps *don't*) contribute far more to warming than CO2.
Honestly, you just don't get it. It's your sheer *zealotry* that's such a turnoff. You're so damned sure you've got the answer that you're prepared to call people idiots or sellouts if they don't agree with you. Yet anyone who digs even a little into the science of climatology will quickly see that our understanding of our own biosphere is rudimentary at best. Therefore we cannot be so smugly assured as you seem to be. We can be somewhat sure, even reasonably certain, but we cannot *be* certain because our knowledge is sorely lacking. Yet you claim there is no other possibility, that all the evidence is in, that all the variables have been computed and the results point to AGW without a shadow of a doubt. Your sheer inability to admit the possibility of being wrong is what precludes me believing your argument. I'd have more respect for you if you'd just say "we're 90% sure we're right." I also can't discount the fact that the history of science is replete with examples of scientists proclaiming they were absolutely, 100% convinced they were right...right up until the time they were dragged kicking and screaming away from their treasured models and theories and into a completely new understanding of things. And in every example it wasn't the case that the scientists were actively seeking to delude the public, it was that they'd failed to grasp the subtlety of what they were making pronouncements about.
It also doesn't help that *most* of the AGW proponents I've encountered also tend to be heavily anti-capitalist or avowed socialists, communists, or anarchists. Their "solution" to AGW is to redistribute the world's income, with the rich paying through the nose and everybody else getting a free ride at the expense of developed countries. Pardon me if this sounds more like a Marxist paradise in the making, fueled by a made-up global crisis designed to "spread the wealth around." Even if you're *right* about AGW, the very choice of messengers raises doubt and suspicion. And don't act like it only goes one way. If Exxon-Mobil commissioned a study that said CO2 was wonderful, you'd be skeptical as well no matter what the research said simply because of the source.
I'm not some bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, anti-science Luddite in the pay of corporate masters bent on destroying the planet. I'm an educated, curious denizen of Earth who's just trying to make a living for me and my family. If you want me to sacrifice my way of life to "save the planet" then you need to convince me the danger is real. You do that by presenting unambiguous science from unbiased researchers from multiple sources, all of which need to agree. Thus far this has not happened, which is why I remain a "skeptic" and not a "denier" as you'd rather label me.
Regardless of WHO or WHAT caused the raise in temperature- it is important that people understand that it does make a significant difference. Weather patterns will change. Economies will change because water availability will alter- as will what plants will grow where.
Some cities will be prone to flooding (not just coastal, but from rain).
And, in addition to the negatives you mention, colder and drier areas may become warmer and wetter, thus allowing farming in areas currently unsuitable for agriculture. Will the net impact be positive or negative? Nobody has answered that question. But anyone who expects the climate to stand still and *not* change -- be it AGW or natural warming -- is an idiot. The Earth's climate *will* change regardless of whether we're doing anything to it or not. It has before. It is now. It will again. I'd rather see humans *adapt* to change than try to prevent something that may (or may not) be completely natural and *unavoidable* in the first place.
Considering that in the late '90s they were on step 1, assuming linear progress they'll be on 6 somewhere around 2015~2020.
Considering that in the 1980's the climate scientists were warning of a new global ice age, I'd say you AGW proponents have your own flowchart of self-delusion. When things failed to get cold you started screaming things are going to get hot. But this time you're *sure* you've got the science right. Yes, you said the same thing last time, but this time you're *really* sure. Honest. Really. You're sure. And not sure like you said you were sure last time. This time you mean it. For real. Not kidding this time. And we've got scientific consensus and peer-reviewed articles to back us up...and not like last time when we had scientific consensus and peer-reviewed articles to back us up. Nope. This time it's different. Trust us. We're never wrong. Except for last time, which we'd rather you just forget all about and believe whatever we say now as opposed to then.
Pardon me if I still am a tad skeptical.
Here's a simple question that I'd love for you to answer: what is the natural temperature Earth's supposed to have? Shouldn't be hard for someone with your vast certainty of knowledge to answer this, so by all means, enlighten us. The Earth has been both warmer and colder than it currently is, all without any input from humans. Are we causing climate change? We might be, but you can't say with 100% certainty that we are. Just admit that you're *mostly* sure and not 100% sure and you just *might* gain my support. I will, however, refuse to support anyone who claims to have all the answers about such a complex and controversial subject. Dogma and zealots are present in *both* camps as far as I can see.
Are you implying that no peer-reviewed scientific article has ever been published showing support for the skeptics?