These barriers are put up on purpose to encourage people to make that mistake. Then if you are successful, the government comes in and makes you an offer you can't refuse on the basis that you're a dirty lawbreaker and if you don't comply they will bust you up and put your organs up for auction.
Sure, but you'll get the official shakedown even if you obey all the laws. There's no reason to bother until you have something worth extorting.
I didn't actually provide links, but I'll note the following. First, here's a link supporting that the US spends more per student than the two other countries mentioned. From here, the Netherlands spend a bit more in public spending than the the US (10% of GDP versus 8%), but Finland spends less (7%).
In that story, the many differences between the federal and private workforces are discussed. One striking difference is the abundance of part time workers (low wages, no benefits) in the private sector.
Even if the federal salaries and benefits are generous when compared to private industry, does that mean they are out of line?
Absolutely, yes. I don't believe most federal jobs are notably more valuable or useful (some have considerable negative value due to the harm they cause to US society).
Everywhere there is evidence of the shrinking middle class dating back to 1970. Does that come about because workers are paid fairly (and those at the top more so)?
It came about because of labor competition with the developing world. It's amazing how many people forget this.
Pensions have disappeared in the private sectorâ"possibly with good reason as most companies are not in a position to make such guaranteesâ"does that mean government pensions should as well?
Oh yes. This is a very strong indication to eliminate public pensions.
Regarding $400 vs $800 million fighter jets, such cost inflation is not the fault of government alone (poor oversight), but also of the private companies contracted to do the work. There is plenty of blame for everyone, why just focus on the government?
Because government is the sole involved party with the money and the responsibility to control that spending.
You're making excuses. I personally don't believe she acted in a vacuum (she probably had enablers who knew of her previous work), but I doubt she would have done this effort for a conservative administration.
I get the impression there's a lot of people who get around those barriers by not caring. Seems to me that you can dot the i's and cross the t's later when you have a successful business.
To have a government like Finland or the Netherlands requires pretty left-wing policies and attitudes, including paying civil servants well, which requires a lot of tax money. If you keep insisting on low tax rates because we don't have a government type that doesn't arise unless one has somewhat higher tax rates, I'm not sure what to say.
Who really buys that? We have plenty of examples where the US government already vastly overpays compared to countries like Finland and the Netherlands (eg, education, health care). My take is that if you double the tax revenue that the federal government gets, then fighter jets are going to cost $800 billion to develop instead of $400 billion and basic services that still somehow can't get properly funded. You need more than money to make this work.
The IRS is a lot of things. Partisan isn't one of them.
Except of course, we have evidence to the contrary. Lerner's past history indicates she wasn't going to carry water in the manner she did, for a conservative administration. And it's worth noting that the same MO in her earlier harassment attack as an FEC bureaucrat mirrored her attacks as an IRS bureaucrat and against the same sort of targets.
But according to Brooks' law, adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
If one wants to see what happens when someone uncritically applies a witty aphorism without regard for reality, see Hognoxious's reply. The second obvious rebuttal to your post is that you didn't read the fine print.
According to Brooks himself, the law is an "outrageous oversimplification",[1] but it captures the general rule. Brooks points to the main factors that explain why it works this way:
It takes some time for the people added to a project to become productive. Brooks calls this the "ramp up" time. Software projects are complex engineering endeavors, and new workers on the project must first become educated about the work that has preceded them; this education requires diverting resources already working on the project, temporarily diminishing their productivity while the new workers are not yet contributing meaningfully. Each new worker also needs to integrate with a team composed of several engineers who must educate the new worker in their area of expertise in the code base, day by day. In addition to reducing the contribution of experienced workers (because of the need to train), new workers may even make negative contributions, for example, if they introduce bugs that move the project further from completion.
Communication overheads increase as the number of people increases. Due to combinatorial explosion, the number of different communication channels increases rapidly with the number of people.[3] Everyone working on the same task needs to keep in sync, so as more people are added they spend more time trying to find out what everyone else is doing.
Limited divisibility of tasks. Adding more people to a highly divisible task such as reaping a field by hand decreases the overall task duration (up to the point where additional workers get in each others way). Some tasks are less divisible; Brooks points out that while it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, "nine women can't make a baby in one month".
Three obvious points here are that first, this being a continuous operation rather than a one-time deadline, training competent software developers always works out in the long run even if short term deadlines are missed. Second, a big part of the workload here, bug fixing is for the most part, low communication overhead which works through said "issue tracker". Finally, a huge portion of the workload are highly divisible tasks.
In other words, the coiner of the aphorism which you use, explicitly provided a number of exceptions, all which apply to some degree here, for when the aphorism didn't hold.
What a really clever retort. I'd have to say that the problem of edumacation extends well beyond your targets. You ever thought about reading a book or something?
How serious were these violations again? What again would have been a punishment for setting up your own private email server out of the office, bypassing a huge amount of security in the process, and funneling classified information to that server? Would it have been a reprimand or something a bit more serious like huge fines and serious prison time.
The State department already had one such. Handle anything that could be classified on its own network with its own secured machines with specialized parties doing any desired declassification of information from the network. By that algorithm, deliberately putting classified information on a unauthorized private server is a huge no no.
My standard response to people cheering for new government powers (including NSA spying) is: Would you want these powers in the hands of someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you? If the person is a Democrat, imagine President Donald Trump with those powers. If the person is a Republican, imagine President Hillary Clinton with those powers. Rarely is the person fine with this situation, though they are perfectly willing for someone who shares their political philosophy to have those powers.
What staggers me here is is that there are a bunch of people who can't even do that simple bit of reasoning. How many years was it again since someone you despised was in office? Why don't you ever think it'll happen again?
More than anything else, this large scale willful ignorance is why I'm not full bore libertarian. There's too many people who just don't get the point of libertarianism and probably never will.
Even if that were true and even if consumption were a good thing to optimize for (neither which is true), we still have the problem that you aren't proposing solutions that actually increase consumption. For example, the transfer of wealth from one party to another merely changes who consumes.
My view is that basic income can work, if it encourages employment. So I'd suggest both eliminating minimum wage (and related social programs like public pensions and public unemployment insurance) in order to lower the cost on employers and making basic income conditional on being employed for a certain number of hours, say 1000-1500 hours per year (which can including self employment and organizations not usually considered businesses like charities or volunteer organizations).
No society is near a place where high levels of permanent unemployment are feasible or desirable. Therefore, it makes sense to structure your society so that people are gainfully employed. What I see with this current proposal is that it doesn't encourage people to work or employers to employ. That probably will result in the end or heavy modification of the experiment in a few years
Compared to say 1980 when virtually everyone was in a makework job? My point is that China has created hundreds of millions of productive, low skilled jobs (far more incidentally than could be explained as being transferred from the developed world.
The point remains. And I think the answer is developed world labor policy that is completely at odds with reality.
Can I trick out a surplus barrage balloon with an autopilot? For all it's size, it weighs less than 0.5 lbs.
No, it doesn't. Negative buoyancy doesn't mean negative weight. The blimp still has the same weight it had when deflated. And the mass of the hydrogen or helium used to inflate the blimp also has weight.
At this point in human history all of our expenditures are based on returning an increasing amount of revenue.
It's worth noting that all progress is a result of effort that returns more than was put in. Profit is a standard measure of that.
It will be the death of all innovation if it continues at this rate and Musk will need to figure out how to counterbalance the weight of millions of mba's following recipes for success which do not include investment into the company
It's because modern society stamps out risk wherever they find it. Why make long term decisions when the short term ones are always profitable? A similar situation goes on at the personal responsibility level. For long term planning to be relevant, there has to be good consequences to doing it well as oppose to poor consequences otherwise.
Then why doesn't China have this problem? There's plenty of work, but we in the developed world punish employment. Long term unemployment is a disaster which the developed world actively encourages. I want to see someone actually try to make these problems better first.
No. They have a variety of special needs that don't apply to a space station such as safely containing dangerous people (and the resulting control on going in and out). Further, you want more than the lowest, most basic needs because you want your astronauts to be working, not sweating in a cell.
particularly in the accuracy of navigation, which is what matters the most after you've reached escape velocity
As compared to staying alive for two years or more without resupply from Earth? Not a chance. Navigation in the 60s was adequate enough for a trip to Mars once you allow for course corrections.
The methanethiol they add to natural gas is about equally toxic.
But not equal in concentration. I notice that the literature claims methanethiol is in concentrations of around 1 part per million (ppm) in natural gas and LD50 in rats is around 675 ppm. So you have to concentrate methanethiol by almost three orders of magnitude without simultaneously creating a lethal concentration of natural gas.
Slashdot Mirror
These barriers are put up on purpose to encourage people to make that mistake. Then if you are successful, the government comes in and makes you an offer you can't refuse on the basis that you're a dirty lawbreaker and if you don't comply they will bust you up and put your organs up for auction.
Sure, but you'll get the official shakedown even if you obey all the laws. There's no reason to bother until you have something worth extorting.
In that story, the many differences between the federal and private workforces are discussed. One striking difference is the abundance of part time workers (low wages, no benefits) in the private sector.
Even if the federal salaries and benefits are generous when compared to private industry, does that mean they are out of line?
Absolutely, yes. I don't believe most federal jobs are notably more valuable or useful (some have considerable negative value due to the harm they cause to US society).
Everywhere there is evidence of the shrinking middle class dating back to 1970. Does that come about because workers are paid fairly (and those at the top more so)?
It came about because of labor competition with the developing world. It's amazing how many people forget this.
Pensions have disappeared in the private sectorâ"possibly with good reason as most companies are not in a position to make such guaranteesâ"does that mean government pensions should as well?
Oh yes. This is a very strong indication to eliminate public pensions.
Regarding $400 vs $800 million fighter jets, such cost inflation is not the fault of government alone (poor oversight), but also of the private companies contracted to do the work. There is plenty of blame for everyone, why just focus on the government?
Because government is the sole involved party with the money and the responsibility to control that spending.
You're making excuses. I personally don't believe she acted in a vacuum (she probably had enablers who knew of her previous work), but I doubt she would have done this effort for a conservative administration.
If it were, we'd be using all electronically ignited firearms, because they are superior in every way other than reliability.
Which makes them a bit far from superior in the firearm world, though I get that is your point. Ease of manufacture is another big inferior BTW.
Then there are all the governmental barriers.
I get the impression there's a lot of people who get around those barriers by not caring. Seems to me that you can dot the i's and cross the t's later when you have a successful business.
I missed the memo where everyone was supposed to hold these two views simultaneously.
To have a government like Finland or the Netherlands requires pretty left-wing policies and attitudes, including paying civil servants well, which requires a lot of tax money. If you keep insisting on low tax rates because we don't have a government type that doesn't arise unless one has somewhat higher tax rates, I'm not sure what to say.
Who really buys that? We have plenty of examples where the US government already vastly overpays compared to countries like Finland and the Netherlands (eg, education, health care). My take is that if you double the tax revenue that the federal government gets, then fighter jets are going to cost $800 billion to develop instead of $400 billion and basic services that still somehow can't get properly funded. You need more than money to make this work.
The IRS is a lot of things. Partisan isn't one of them.
Except of course, we have evidence to the contrary. Lerner's past history indicates she wasn't going to carry water in the manner she did, for a conservative administration. And it's worth noting that the same MO in her earlier harassment attack as an FEC bureaucrat mirrored her attacks as an IRS bureaucrat and against the same sort of targets.
But according to Brooks' law, adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
If one wants to see what happens when someone uncritically applies a witty aphorism without regard for reality, see Hognoxious's reply. The second obvious rebuttal to your post is that you didn't read the fine print.
According to Brooks himself, the law is an "outrageous oversimplification",[1] but it captures the general rule. Brooks points to the main factors that explain why it works this way:
It takes some time for the people added to a project to become productive. Brooks calls this the "ramp up" time. Software projects are complex engineering endeavors, and new workers on the project must first become educated about the work that has preceded them; this education requires diverting resources already working on the project, temporarily diminishing their productivity while the new workers are not yet contributing meaningfully. Each new worker also needs to integrate with a team composed of several engineers who must educate the new worker in their area of expertise in the code base, day by day. In addition to reducing the contribution of experienced workers (because of the need to train), new workers may even make negative contributions, for example, if they introduce bugs that move the project further from completion.
Communication overheads increase as the number of people increases. Due to combinatorial explosion, the number of different communication channels increases rapidly with the number of people.[3] Everyone working on the same task needs to keep in sync, so as more people are added they spend more time trying to find out what everyone else is doing.
Limited divisibility of tasks. Adding more people to a highly divisible task such as reaping a field by hand decreases the overall task duration (up to the point where additional workers get in each others way). Some tasks are less divisible; Brooks points out that while it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, "nine women can't make a baby in one month".
Three obvious points here are that first, this being a continuous operation rather than a one-time deadline, training competent software developers always works out in the long run even if short term deadlines are missed. Second, a big part of the workload here, bug fixing is for the most part, low communication overhead which works through said "issue tracker". Finally, a huge portion of the workload are highly divisible tasks.
In other words, the coiner of the aphorism which you use, explicitly provided a number of exceptions, all which apply to some degree here, for when the aphorism didn't hold.
and the T-Potty
What a really clever retort. I'd have to say that the problem of edumacation extends well beyond your targets. You ever thought about reading a book or something?
Who will be the better president on civil liberties?
Who will be the better president with realistic and implementable foreign policy?
Who will be the better president that is actually will to compromise and get work done on national policy, rather than saying my way or the highway?
I can tell you who it won't be. It won't be the person who casually commits felonies or compromises national security for political convenience.
Oh well, I tire of this thread. I tire of attempting to argue with someone who results to names and such. Perhaps I will be called Low Energy next.
Well, here's hoping some day that you get tired enough of this sort of thing to stop being gullible. Maybe even think a little bit.
For me, the reason NASA isn't very political is the Earth shattering need to build one of everything.
Incompetence which had the side effects of
1) Avoiding sabotage by her frenemies elsewhere in the Obama administration.
2) Allowed certain toadies access to information which they otherwise couldn't access (due to it being illegal and all).
3) Allows her to evade FOIA requests, congressional investigations, and destroy evidence.
The ALWAYS found violations
How serious were these violations again? What again would have been a punishment for setting up your own private email server out of the office, bypassing a huge amount of security in the process, and funneling classified information to that server? Would it have been a reprimand or something a bit more serious like huge fines and serious prison time.
The State department already had one such. Handle anything that could be classified on its own network with its own secured machines with specialized parties doing any desired declassification of information from the network. By that algorithm, deliberately putting classified information on a unauthorized private server is a huge no no.
My standard response to people cheering for new government powers (including NSA spying) is: Would you want these powers in the hands of someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you? If the person is a Democrat, imagine President Donald Trump with those powers. If the person is a Republican, imagine President Hillary Clinton with those powers. Rarely is the person fine with this situation, though they are perfectly willing for someone who shares their political philosophy to have those powers.
What staggers me here is is that there are a bunch of people who can't even do that simple bit of reasoning. How many years was it again since someone you despised was in office? Why don't you ever think it'll happen again?
More than anything else, this large scale willful ignorance is why I'm not full bore libertarian. There's too many people who just don't get the point of libertarianism and probably never will.
Our economy depends on consumption.
Even if that were true and even if consumption were a good thing to optimize for (neither which is true), we still have the problem that you aren't proposing solutions that actually increase consumption. For example, the transfer of wealth from one party to another merely changes who consumes.
My view is that basic income can work, if it encourages employment. So I'd suggest both eliminating minimum wage (and related social programs like public pensions and public unemployment insurance) in order to lower the cost on employers and making basic income conditional on being employed for a certain number of hours, say 1000-1500 hours per year (which can including self employment and organizations not usually considered businesses like charities or volunteer organizations).
No society is near a place where high levels of permanent unemployment are feasible or desirable. Therefore, it makes sense to structure your society so that people are gainfully employed. What I see with this current proposal is that it doesn't encourage people to work or employers to employ. That probably will result in the end or heavy modification of the experiment in a few years
Compared to say 1980 when virtually everyone was in a makework job? My point is that China has created hundreds of millions of productive, low skilled jobs (far more incidentally than could be explained as being transferred from the developed world.
The point remains. And I think the answer is developed world labor policy that is completely at odds with reality.
Can I trick out a surplus barrage balloon with an autopilot? For all it's size, it weighs less than 0.5 lbs.
No, it doesn't. Negative buoyancy doesn't mean negative weight. The blimp still has the same weight it had when deflated. And the mass of the hydrogen or helium used to inflate the blimp also has weight.
At this point in human history all of our expenditures are based on returning an increasing amount of revenue.
It's worth noting that all progress is a result of effort that returns more than was put in. Profit is a standard measure of that.
It will be the death of all innovation if it continues at this rate and Musk will need to figure out how to counterbalance the weight of millions of mba's following recipes for success which do not include investment into the company
It's because modern society stamps out risk wherever they find it. Why make long term decisions when the short term ones are always profitable? A similar situation goes on at the personal responsibility level. For long term planning to be relevant, there has to be good consequences to doing it well as oppose to poor consequences otherwise.
There ain't enough work for everyone anyway.
Then why doesn't China have this problem? There's plenty of work, but we in the developed world punish employment. Long term unemployment is a disaster which the developed world actively encourages. I want to see someone actually try to make these problems better first.
model it after a prison
No. They have a variety of special needs that don't apply to a space station such as safely containing dangerous people (and the resulting control on going in and out). Further, you want more than the lowest, most basic needs because you want your astronauts to be working, not sweating in a cell.
Other countries like China have no such issues. China can set a 50-year plan and proceed to start on it. NASA is stuck.
I guess you haven't actually paid attention to China's space program. They suffer from the same illnesses.
particularly in the accuracy of navigation, which is what matters the most after you've reached escape velocity
As compared to staying alive for two years or more without resupply from Earth? Not a chance. Navigation in the 60s was adequate enough for a trip to Mars once you allow for course corrections.
The methanethiol they add to natural gas is about equally toxic.
But not equal in concentration. I notice that the literature claims methanethiol is in concentrations of around 1 part per million (ppm) in natural gas and LD50 in rats is around 675 ppm. So you have to concentrate methanethiol by almost three orders of magnitude without simultaneously creating a lethal concentration of natural gas.