A *real* tech thought it up and made it, then his rich friends stole his idea...
An idea for a way for people to send drunk videos to each other w/o consequences, which the frat-bro's took to the logical place they would, which is to drunken college girls...
**that's Snapchat**
Facebook.com offered $3Billion b/c facebook.com is *hemoragging* young users & it will do anything to buy other system's users (ex: Instagram) for them to vampire the life force from for advertising profit
that's it: facebook.com wants to buy Snapchat's users
all the noise about 'IPO valuation' is absolutely standard issue tech-bubble startup stuff that **we all know** how the cycle goes!
snapchat is only good as long as drunken hotties use it to send consequence free drunk selfie videos
you've memorized a narrative instead of trying to understand reality...
you speak only in absolutes & the more your precious notions are threatened, the more you assume things about me and hold tight to your false dichotomies
you want some leader to wave a magic wand
when did i say this?
I didn't....you're projecting these arguments on me...
It is possible to think government works without thinking it is magic.
And when government policies to address these issues fail and cause more harm than good, as they predictably do,
so all government policies always fail all the time...
first, you give 'conservatives' waaaay too much intellectual credit...as the product of 18 years of Fundamental Independent Baptist education and a former capitol hill staffer for a Republican...I am sure of whereof I speak
I bet ***YOU*** have given more analytical thought to the arguments of 'conservatives' than 90% of the same
at least if you can get most of the work shunted over to the private side, when they fail they go out of business.
ah horseshit! that isn't a valid response, and it isn't what a 'conservative' would say
in that scenario, you're out all the money, **the job isn't done** and you're stuck with whatever shitty contractors are left...that is in no way some sort of counterpoint to what I said
hell no
the thing is, a real GOP'er wouldn't even be having this conversation...they'd just compete to see who can be more extreme in what part of government/nature they want to commoditize for their political donors
Either the administration couldn't figure out who to hire, or they deliberately hired bad contractors.
there you go again!
complex situation...your way to understand...reduce it to X or Y
"Either X or Y...either way people are incompetent or corrupt"
that's what's killing you...
ITS MORE COMPLEX THAN THE BINARIES YOU INVENT
I myself voted for Obama because he promised to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. It has turned out to be an utter disaster.
stop it...just stop your immature bitching!
as you admit, the Bush admin did 'damage'...popping a baloon is easy...making that popped balloon fill with air again isn't as easy as poking it with a needle to pop it
your false equivalence of arguments is killing you...Obama is doing an **excellent** job overall...comparatively he's amazing...what other politician would be better?
accept reality
accept complexity
accept that your false dichotomies of complex real-world situations are hurting you!
sorry I missed a '/' in there somewhere and the blockquote's got turned off...my last comment must've been confusing...
to cut to the heart of our disagreement:
Voting isn't going to change the way they behave because they already behave the way voters want them to. People like you just can't get it through their thick heads that **you can't have politicians handing out the pork they want and simultaneously not pay for it somehow**.
humans are **infinitely** complex & it scares you....you are wrong to always assume the absolute most machiavellian, short-sighted, perspective when you examine other's behavior...you take an extreme and apply it to everyone **because you don't understand human complexity**
see, a representative can vote for a government contract or policy ****because it is the right thing for the country***** even if it may not be the absolute best for his particular district in that very moment in time!!!!
if a Rep from Houston, Texas has a choice of approving a NASA budget that moves several divisions to say New Mexico....well that's bad for his district, because they loose all the awesome NASA stuff to New Mexico (let's assume his vote is the deciding vote)
or the budget could get rejected and the new Mars missions will never get off the drawing board....
in the short term (wrong) view, you could say voting 'no' keeps him re-elected for another cycle, but that's a **zero-sum game**
in the long term voting to block anything that doesn't keep NASA in Houston **is a horrible decision** for Houston and the country...if NASA doesn't expand into new missions the country won't even see a reason for it to get 1/8th of the funding it gets status quo...
there is no absolute...but there is a **usually**
you are afraid of complexity so you always just assume politicians are behavior at their most **stupid and short sighted** perpetually
that's wrong and uninformed...there are several lawmakers who **prove you wrong**....none of which are in the GOP
There is a mistaken belief, I think, that throwing enough money at a project will make sure it gets done. Rather, it makes sure that someone will figure out a way to be awarded that money regardless of their ability to do the work.
I love how you are 'born-again' faithful to an ideology that emphasizes *personal action* yet you completely ignore the **one** precious personal action that **any american citizen** can do that **proves your ideology wrong**
VOTE
Government employees have no incentive to spend public funds wisely
ok you got me...i'm curious...what do you mean by 'incentive'?
The kind of rewards people receive for the work they do: increasing personal wealth, continued employment, peer recognition, higher salary, better office, new job opportunities, etc.
Human nature is infinitely more complex than your simple power dynamics.....here's the main theoretical flaw that sinks your argument...
**those aren't the only reasons people do things**...i'm not going to list alternatives, but all of the things you listed are basically different ways to say ***MONEY*** or ***POWER****
Not everyone boils all their decisions down to what will give them the most Machiavellian style power over their surroundings.....because it is a *zero sum game*
Because your conception of 'why humans do things' is reductive and limited it is like a chair with 3 legs...every conclusion you reach after will be off-kilter
also, if you feel like it, can you explain how government contracts will **always** be doled out as political favors? Do you mean 'practically' always or are you saying its inherent?
"Always" not in the sense that every single one of them is, but in the sense that it is a very common part of government contracting that you cannot eliminate through reforms, regulations, or better government.
If it is caused by bad government then good government will fix it.
If humans in a government system can't adapt and fix it, then **NO SYSTEM** will be any better....because all systems rely on humans.
That's why democracy, where humans can get **voted out** solves your problem.
can you give a counter-example? something where a person **would** have the proper incentive as you define it to do *excelent* work on a project like this? how would that look?
If you run your own business, you have a strong financial incentive to make it easy for people to sign up with you and do business with you. Furthermore, if you fail to do so, you go out of business. Neither incentive nor mechanism exists for the government. Government services like this are mandatory, and government can't go out of businesses by people choosing to go elsewhere.
I **do** run my own business.
You know that here in America we have elections right?
We **vote** on the politicians and the winner gets to represent us...
That's what you're missing....in a Democracy we ***can vote the bastards out***
and if they are all bastards on both sides we ***can run for office ourselves***
Government employees have no incentive to spend public funds wisely
ok you got me...i'm curious...what do you mean by 'incentive'?
can you give a counter-example? something where a person **would** have the proper incentive as you define it to do *excelent* work on a project like this? how would that look?
you don't need to write a book, just give me an idea of what you mean
also, if you feel like it, can you explain how government contracts will **always** be doled out as political favors? Do you mean 'practically' always or are you saying its inherent? If so do you see any system anywhere that would do it by proper market forces?
it's possible i could have misunderstood what you meant by 'budget'...sorry if i did
did you mean the Fed's should have used a contractor but kept the budget for the project insanely low (and maybe give it to a 'startup' w/ tons of traffic like imagur.com) thereby forcing the task to be handled properly and with a minimum of effort?
b/c **that** isn't a half bad solution in the context..it's a good way around beauracracy...
i wouldn't plan it that way at all, but I was some project manager I could see considering some crazy solution like that if I knew the project was doomed to failure otherwise...
having a massive budget and no fear of going under when you screw up doesnt really help things. I feel like if we had set the budget for this website at ~1 million or some such, we probably would have overrun the budget a little but could still have pulled this off.
the US Federal 'budget' is in no way, shape, or form analogous to some sort of household or 'Dome book' kind of accounting budget.
plz learn this forever
The US **prints money** & does complex **monetary policy** & just happens to be the **world's reserve currency**, it's standard currency, and that pretty much makes our economy the defining economy in the known universe
the point is hiring these companies was a huge mistake b/c it was routine IT work that could have been done **in house**
rolling out "Obamacare" is essentially like setting up a really, really bit IT infrastructure for a school system...it's well understood and commonly done!
I've read through some comments below & really that's all there is to say about this.
Debating 'gov't VS private sector' can be interesting or it can be excruciating. In this case we can surely fault the government for being dumb enough to pay these companies...so there's that...then of course the companies's work was shit...
Bottom line in thsi case is the same w/ most 'gov't VS private sector' debates....private sector can be more 'cutting edge' than government but government has the accountability of the people.
For the 'rollout' of a long-planned government that has State/Federal differences & the insurance industry there's no reason to spend 100's of Millions on routine IT work.
The US just paid these companies to hire IT workers to make the site to specifications. The gov't could have hired IT workers directly.
The problem with the debate is that so many 'government contracts' are basically ***government subsidies of industreis*** with tax dollars for the businesses in a particular political area, not on market forces.
If government contracts weren't doled out as political favors the data wouldn't be so noisy.
the whole 'Obamacare rollout has been awful' is such a misreported story...making a comparison to a rollout of a similar program from the other party helps frame the issue properly
I've seen this piece of junk all over the internet lately. It has approximately 0 uses in the real world.
I feel your anger towards 'internet hype' in general but I gotta be honest I thought this was cool.
'coffee table that can pass your drink' is a contextualization of the technology for a sort of 'pop-science' audience...looking at the tech I think it has legs.
I make tshirts (and do tech consulting)...my goal is to produce tshirts from US grown hemp...I can def imagine an application of this technology at a few key spots in the production process. Probably somethign to do with sorting.
You are using Microsoft's definition that the Judge rejected instead of the textbook one
bullshit...put up or shut up
I want links **to both** the M$ judge and the 'textbook one'
Links to both and then copy my original comment...when you lay out all three side by side, then list where mine is like the 'judge's' then we can talk
otherwise you haven't made any evidence for a claim & this conversation is past over...you're projecting your hate of M$ on me dumbass...i'm on your side
don't expect a response unless you post links to both things you are comparing my comment to
Most of your posts in this thread come off as quite irate
only to people who hold beliefs irrationally...the 'irate' feeling they have is the cognitive dissonance from the reality of my words intruding on their expertly constucted fanatsy
Do you have a link to a big insurers internal P&L statements?
Because unless you have that, like a real document, then your comment is founded on nothing
The total cost is usually the same. We are just splitting the currency of the Cost....You want more privacy you pay more, you want to pay less money you give up some privacy. The cost is about the same, it is just how we decide to pay for it.
**horseshit**
You do not know what the 'total cost' is...none of us know...hell, depending on what kind of actuarial 'scientists' Progressive uses, *they* might not know exactly how much their 'total cost' is.
**WE HAVE AS MUCH PRIVACY AS WE DEMAND**
When insurance companies are going bankrupt, then we can look at it...now auto insurance is practically a sure bet...it's government subsidized, just like Obamacare.
I say damn any notion that we must trade privacy to get affordable products/services!
since most people who believe in a supernatural god make CLAIMS about the real world.
the definition of 'god' changes in indescribable ways depending on **which person you ask**...and of course **when you ask that person**
any 'CLAIMS' made by religious people about what a **supernatural** god does are not provable or disprovable by any **natural** means...if X religious nutjob says 'god makes it rain' and you prove them wrong by explaining the natural process of rainfall, the religious nutjob can just say, "but god made nature to do that"....it's a ****never ending argument**** the only way to win is not to play!
the arguments you bat around...about how philosophers have **tried** to prove god exists....**they are all bullshit** so stop arguing against them!
neither *you* nor *anyone* can ever prove or disprove that a *supernatural* god exists with a methodology by definition base on the natural world
I can piss in a jar and call it a "hypothesis"....
That...doesn't...necessarily...make...it...so....
It certainly is the way science is done. It's called an hypothesis.
The hypothesis is just one glaring area where the **false distinction** error is evident.
It is an error in logic....based on a false distinction that invents a factor to test where none should logically exist in an area of a theory that has been proven.
Another way to say this is, proving that 'the ability to evolve' itself has the ability to evolve is a logical contradiction.
the 'ability to evolve' has never been in question **scientifically**....so why create an illogical false distinction to prove it?
ability to evolve is the same as 'change over time'...its the same conceptually...essentially these researchers were really just testing if the bacteria 'changed over time' then added the academia **hype language** to get a book deal
Slashdot Mirror
to whom is Obama trying to 'improve his standing'?
Russians?
WTF...like Russian citizens? the gangsters who pull Putin's strings?
Why would we care about our 'standing' with a criminal state like Russia?
The people pushing for these substations...they are not our friends...why the fuck would we want to make a 'concession' to them?
Snapchat was made by frat bro's who royally screwed the guy who did all the real work.
A *real* tech thought it up and made it, then his rich friends stole his idea...
An idea for a way for people to send drunk videos to each other w/o consequences, which the frat-bro's took to the logical place they would, which is to drunken college girls...
**that's Snapchat**
Facebook.com offered $3Billion b/c facebook.com is *hemoragging* young users & it will do anything to buy other system's users (ex: Instagram) for them to vampire the life force from for advertising profit
that's it: facebook.com wants to buy Snapchat's users
all the noise about 'IPO valuation' is absolutely standard issue tech-bubble startup stuff that **we all know** how the cycle goes!
snapchat is only good as long as drunken hotties use it to send consequence free drunk selfie videos
an AC **invents a statistic out of thin air** and it get's a +1 Informative
if Russia doesn't have these GPS substations for the US why the hell are we even considering it?
Russia isn't a 'communist' country threating us with their liberal communal ideas, atheism, and free love
Russia is a giant chunk of resources controlled by Oligarchs fighting like Dukes for control of a water source
Russian people are just like us
The concept that totalitarian regimes equate to 'communism' in the philosophical sense is one of the biggest lies of the 20th Century
you've memorized a narrative instead of trying to understand reality...
you speak only in absolutes & the more your precious notions are threatened, the more you assume things about me and hold tight to your false dichotomies
when did i say this?
I didn't....you're projecting these arguments on me...
It is possible to think government works without thinking it is magic.
so all government policies always fail all the time...
so how does anything ever get done?
first, you give 'conservatives' waaaay too much intellectual credit...as the product of 18 years of Fundamental Independent Baptist education and a former capitol hill staffer for a Republican...I am sure of whereof I speak
I bet ***YOU*** have given more analytical thought to the arguments of 'conservatives' than 90% of the same
ah horseshit! that isn't a valid response, and it isn't what a 'conservative' would say
in that scenario, you're out all the money, **the job isn't done** and you're stuck with whatever shitty contractors are left...that is in no way some sort of counterpoint to what I said
hell no
the thing is, a real GOP'er wouldn't even be having this conversation...they'd just compete to see who can be more extreme in what part of government/nature they want to commoditize for their political donors
there you go again!
complex situation...your way to understand...reduce it to X or Y
"Either X or Y...either way people are incompetent or corrupt"
that's what's killing you...
ITS MORE COMPLEX THAN THE BINARIES YOU INVENT
stop it...just stop your immature bitching!
as you admit, the Bush admin did 'damage'...popping a baloon is easy...making that popped balloon fill with air again isn't as easy as poking it with a needle to pop it
your false equivalence of arguments is killing you...Obama is doing an **excellent** job overall...comparatively he's amazing...what other politician would be better?
accept reality
accept complexity
accept that your false dichotomies of complex real-world situations are hurting you!
right...i think I found it...see, I don't want to "fire all the bastards" as in just stupidly electing all non-incumbants in the next election....
when I said "fire them all" I was agreeing with the GP's point of firing the contractors on the ACA website
that's all
well, that and all GOP'ers ;)
I think we have alot of common ground on this
sorry I missed a '/' in there somewhere and the blockquote's got turned off...my last comment must've been confusing...
to cut to the heart of our disagreement:
humans are **infinitely** complex & it scares you....you are wrong to always assume the absolute most machiavellian, short-sighted, perspective when you examine other's behavior...you take an extreme and apply it to everyone **because you don't understand human complexity**
see, a representative can vote for a government contract or policy ****because it is the right thing for the country***** even if it may not be the absolute best for his particular district in that very moment in time!!!!
if a Rep from Houston, Texas has a choice of approving a NASA budget that moves several divisions to say New Mexico....well that's bad for his district, because they loose all the awesome NASA stuff to New Mexico (let's assume his vote is the deciding vote)
or the budget could get rejected and the new Mars missions will never get off the drawing board....
in the short term (wrong) view, you could say voting 'no' keeps him re-elected for another cycle, but that's a **zero-sum game**
in the long term voting to block anything that doesn't keep NASA in Houston **is a horrible decision** for Houston and the country...if NASA doesn't expand into new missions the country won't even see a reason for it to get 1/8th of the funding it gets status quo...
there is no absolute...but there is a **usually**
you are afraid of complexity so you always just assume politicians are behavior at their most **stupid and short sighted** perpetually
that's wrong and uninformed...there are several lawmakers who **prove you wrong**....none of which are in the GOP
reminds me of this scene from Office Space: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2_Yi-1Ryf4
'that'll only make someone work hard enough not to get fired'
funny how its so easy to see the same problem of human nature in both 'governent' and 'private sector' situations
I love how you are 'born-again' faithful to an ideology that emphasizes *personal action* yet you completely ignore the **one** precious personal action that **any american citizen** can do that **proves your ideology wrong**
VOTE
The kind of rewards people receive for the work they do: increasing personal wealth, continued employment, peer recognition, higher salary, better office, new job opportunities, etc.
Human nature is infinitely more complex than your simple power dynamics.....here's the main theoretical flaw that sinks your argument...
**those aren't the only reasons people do things**...i'm not going to list alternatives, but all of the things you listed are basically different ways to say ***MONEY*** or ***POWER****
Not everyone boils all their decisions down to what will give them the most Machiavellian style power over their surroundings.....because it is a *zero sum game*
Because your conception of 'why humans do things' is reductive and limited it is like a chair with 3 legs...every conclusion you reach after will be off-kilter
"Always" not in the sense that every single one of them is, but in the sense that it is a very common part of government contracting that you cannot eliminate through reforms, regulations, or better government.
If it is caused by bad government then good government will fix it.
If humans in a government system can't adapt and fix it, then **NO SYSTEM** will be any better....because all systems rely on humans.
That's why democracy, where humans can get **voted out** solves your problem.
If you run your own business, you have a strong financial incentive to make it easy for people to sign up with you and do business with you. Furthermore, if you fail to do so, you go out of business. Neither incentive nor mechanism exists for the government. Government services like this are mandatory, and government can't go out of businesses by people choosing to go elsewhere.
I **do** run my own business.
You know that here in America we have elections right?
We **vote** on the politicians and the winner gets to represent us...
That's what you're missing....in a Democracy we ***can vote the bastards out***
and if they are all bastards on both sides we ***can run for office ourselves***
ok you got me...i'm curious...what do you mean by 'incentive'?
can you give a counter-example? something where a person **would** have the proper incentive as you define it to do *excelent* work on a project like this? how would that look?
you don't need to write a book, just give me an idea of what you mean
also, if you feel like it, can you explain how government contracts will **always** be doled out as political favors? Do you mean 'practically' always or are you saying its inherent? If so do you see any system anywhere that would do it by proper market forces?
it's possible i could have misunderstood what you meant by 'budget'...sorry if i did
did you mean the Fed's should have used a contractor but kept the budget for the project insanely low (and maybe give it to a 'startup' w/ tons of traffic like imagur.com) thereby forcing the task to be handled properly and with a minimum of effort?
b/c **that** isn't a half bad solution in the context..it's a good way around beauracracy...
i wouldn't plan it that way at all, but I was some project manager I could see considering some crazy solution like that if I knew the project was doomed to failure otherwise...
the US Federal 'budget' is in no way, shape, or form analogous to some sort of household or 'Dome book' kind of accounting budget.
plz learn this forever
The US **prints money** & does complex **monetary policy** & just happens to be the **world's reserve currency**, it's standard currency, and that pretty much makes our economy the defining economy in the known universe
the point is hiring these companies was a huge mistake b/c it was routine IT work that could have been done **in house**
rolling out "Obamacare" is essentially like setting up a really, really bit IT infrastructure for a school system...it's well understood and commonly done!
yes do this.
I've read through some comments below & really that's all there is to say about this.
Debating 'gov't VS private sector' can be interesting or it can be excruciating. In this case we can surely fault the government for being dumb enough to pay these companies...so there's that...then of course the companies's work was shit...
Bottom line in thsi case is the same w/ most 'gov't VS private sector' debates....private sector can be more 'cutting edge' than government but government has the accountability of the people.
For the 'rollout' of a long-planned government that has State/Federal differences & the insurance industry there's no reason to spend 100's of Millions on routine IT work.
The US just paid these companies to hire IT workers to make the site to specifications. The gov't could have hired IT workers directly.
The problem with the debate is that so many 'government contracts' are basically ***government subsidies of industreis*** with tax dollars for the businesses in a particular political area, not on market forces.
If government contracts weren't doled out as political favors the data wouldn't be so noisy.
he's not deflecting you are...
the whole 'Obamacare rollout has been awful' is such a misreported story...making a comparison to a rollout of a similar program from the other party helps frame the issue properly
I feel your anger towards 'internet hype' in general but I gotta be honest I thought this was cool.
'coffee table that can pass your drink' is a contextualization of the technology for a sort of 'pop-science' audience...looking at the tech I think it has legs.
I make tshirts (and do tech consulting)...my goal is to produce tshirts from US grown hemp...I can def imagine an application of this technology at a few key spots in the production process. Probably somethign to do with sorting.
it's just one dumb article...but IMHO it's cool
you know what else there's 'a lot' of?
random bullshit masquerading as scientific research
the way you felt when you read those '...'s is exactly the same frustration I feel when I have to read about another bullshit 'research' study
bullshit...put up or shut up
I want links **to both** the M$ judge and the 'textbook one'
Links to both and then copy my original comment...when you lay out all three side by side, then list where mine is like the 'judge's' then we can talk
otherwise you haven't made any evidence for a claim & this conversation is past over...you're projecting your hate of M$ on me dumbass...i'm on your side
don't expect a response unless you post links to both things you are comparing my comment to
I like how you break it down to two identifiable concepts and go from there.
That's a good way not to alienate them while you fix their illogical way of thinking ;)
'sorry kid'?
listen old timer, i don't think we disagree on anything...this isnt' about some antitrust lawsuit where M$ used some bullshit argument
i hate M$....don't bitch at me for shit Microsoft did
A cop with a speed gun, or a speed trap, or even a stoplight with a camera is **completely different** than letting a company put a GPS on your car.
You are equivocating.
Progressive will track your car's every move...that is absolutly different than anything before.
Do you think law enforcment could access Progressive's tracking data on your car w/o a warrant?
Do you have a link to a big insurers internal P&L statements?
Because unless you have that, like a real document, then your comment is founded on nothing
**horseshit**
You do not know what the 'total cost' is...none of us know...hell, depending on what kind of actuarial 'scientists' Progressive uses, *they* might not know exactly how much their 'total cost' is.
**WE HAVE AS MUCH PRIVACY AS WE DEMAND**
When insurance companies are going bankrupt, then we can look at it...now auto insurance is practically a sure bet...it's government subsidized, just like Obamacare.
I say damn any notion that we must trade privacy to get affordable products/services!
here's why:
the definition of 'god' changes in indescribable ways depending on **which person you ask**...and of course **when you ask that person**
any 'CLAIMS' made by religious people about what a **supernatural** god does are not provable or disprovable by any **natural** means...if X religious nutjob says 'god makes it rain' and you prove them wrong by explaining the natural process of rainfall, the religious nutjob can just say, "but god made nature to do that"....it's a ****never ending argument**** the only way to win is not to play!
the arguments you bat around...about how philosophers have **tried** to prove god exists....**they are all bullshit** so stop arguing against them!
neither *you* nor *anyone* can ever prove or disprove that a *supernatural* god exists with a methodology by definition base on the natural world
it's not a scientific question!!!!!
I can piss in a jar and call it a "hypothesis"....
That...doesn't...necessarily...make...it...so....
The hypothesis is just one glaring area where the **false distinction** error is evident.
It is an error in logic....based on a false distinction that invents a factor to test where none should logically exist in an area of a theory that has been proven.
Another way to say this is, proving that 'the ability to evolve' itself has the ability to evolve is a logical contradiction.
the 'ability to evolve' has never been in question **scientifically**....so why create an illogical false distinction to prove it?
ability to evolve is the same as 'change over time'...its the same conceptually...essentially these researchers were really just testing if the bacteria 'changed over time' then added the academia **hype language** to get a book deal
these guys are Richard Dawkins wannabes!