It is simply too soon to say whether economic engagement with China just made it stronger without fundamentally changing it, or will result in major political reforms. We won't know until this "new" nation (now with a much more wealthy, worldly middle class) is put to the test of an economic shock or a period of stagnation. Citizens almost never agitate until they are hit in the pocketbook.
The newer one has GPS control, which wasn't true in 1985. It seems like you might be able to do some pretty tricky shots using a GPS-enabled UAV shooting a GPS-enabled subject. We've all see onboard shots from cameras like the Hero Go-Pro. Imagine a UAV that could follow you from above up a twisty canyon road, jumping ahead to position itself for tight corners and so forth.
Mostly, stack ranking makes employees focus on butt kissing. Reviews are subjective so the manager's favorites get the good ranking regardless of actual performance or value to the compan
That's a fair restatement of the article, sure. But nothing you said, and nothing the article said, explains why stacked ranking promotes butt-kissing any more than any other performance review system. The only way to avoid butt-kissing is to dispense with pay-for-performance altogether, since that way there's no incentive, either to kiss butts, nor to do anything else.
The fact is ALL companies do stacked ranking - you can find your "score" on your paycheck. There's no avoiding this (again, other than paying everybody the same amount). So the only question is how oblique do you want to be about it?
The fact that it would have been discovered 10 years ago is more significant than the fact it would have been discovered in the US. Whatever benefit will be derived from the discovery would have been enjoyed for an extra 10 years.
Yeah, right. As if the hundreds of billions to build up beaches and levies to protect million-dollar beachfront homes won't end up coming from tax money.
Adaptive Cruise Control doesn't steer the car, it just maintains your speed behind the car ahead of you. This would improve traffic flow by improving response times over manual control.
I think you're right, except for the spin. The idea of throwing warm bodies at repairing high power lines is not a good one. The reason the liability would be high is because it would be carnage. The job is already dangerous - it's the 8th most dangerous job in the US. Work that is a safe distance from power lines won't be done by the specialized workers you're talking about anyways. As for those greedy unions, right now they're working 16 hour days in 100+ degree heat. I think they deserve every penny. Electricity is cheap.
Tactical links are a totally separate thing, spec'd to support specific systems. They're not used for skype, gaming, and porn. Just like you can't take an M1 Tank out of the armory to go pick up a pizza.
I have a UPS for my cable modem, router, Ooma box, and wireless phone so VOIP will still work in an outage, if the cable signal is up (i.e. even with my computer turned off). Whether I can actually expect the cable to be up in an outage, I have no idea.
I hope an insider will weigh in on this, but I don't think the Internet is all that self-healing at the upper levels, as when dealing with Netflix, Amazon, google etc. At those levels links are not an abstraction; they are statically routing across specific fiber segments, and there probably isn't enough overcapacity in the infrastructure to simply route around without interruption. Think about when an Interstate is closed through a metropolitan area - yes, you can still get there along side streets eventually, but it's hardly transparent substitue. Not enough to keep the Netflix Streaming service humming along for example. I doubt email users noticed anything wrong though:)
As I recall OSX paid upgrades have usually been more frequent but much cheaper than Windows.
Apparently this was still the case as recently as Win 7 vs. Lion.
For myself, I have not upgraded from Snow Leopard to Lion on my work computer even though it wouldn't cost me anything, basically for the other aforementioned reasons - I don't see how it would earn back the time it cost to do the upgrade and learn the new system, and I'm not sure it's an "upgrade" from my perspective. (I'm pretty sure I don't want fullscreen apps on my 30" monitor).
Back in the day a computer was $3000 and often a new OS version was actually an improvement over the previous one, so I could see why somebody would do it. But paying $100 (wild guess) to upgrade a $400 computer to an OS that is marginally better, if at all, with the time it would take and ever-present risk of it breaking something, isn't worth it. I wonder how many bother.
Sure, for me it's a no-brainer for me to keep my coverage, since most of it is a benefit of my job. That $3,500 in "savings" wouldn't cover even half our expenses in an average year if we were uninsured, because with kids especially, health care isn't just something you hope you never need, it's something fairly routine you can't get away from.
But I think it could be more tempting for a young person who doesn't have a job with health benefits, and who hopes they can just cross their fingers and close their eyes and maybe get away with it. In fact I distinctly remember resenting my university forcing me as a student to carry insurance, since I figured I'd probably be fine, and it was none of their business anyways. (What actually happened was I got a rare disorder and had major surgery. I had to drop out of school for a semester to work off the bills, but without any insurance I would have been ruined for years).
So I think it will be interesting to see how many people choose to ignore the mandate and pay the tax. Surely some will, even if it's not in their own best interest.
$3,000 per year? My employer recently pushed me onto a "co-insurance" plan with rather high deductibles and co-pays to save themselves money, yet the plan costs them $14,500 / year. Then I pay $5,500 in premiums. These numbers are straight from my latest paystub. Now add in the co-pays and deductibles and the total easily exceeds $23,000 / year. I do support my wife and 4 kids, but that's not so unusual.
I just find a lot of the discussion on slashdot about healthcare revolves around the experiences of college students who really do not understand the magnitude of the problem.
I already have health insurance. It's expensive and overly complicated, but I do have it. So, will this actually change anything for people like me? Hopefully I won't be picking up the tab for so many others who opted not to buy insurance before getting sick. But otherwise I don't see a huge impact.
It has little to do with stupidity. The problem is that you do not -- CANNOT -- know what you are "paying" in this voluntary transaction because it's all trade secrets. Thus we are being constantly manipulated in ways we're not aware of.
Anyways, the idea that any exchange is OK if it is voluntary, is bunk. Somebody choosing to do something only establishes one thing - that it was the best option available to them at the time. The much larger question is whether they had any good options in the first place.
No, I gather that's just the flamebait summary of it. Apparently the issue is that it falls to the European Court of Justice to rule on whether the treaty is consistent with European Law. If not, he concedes they'll have to modify ACTA to make it conform. Meanwhile the EU International Trade committe has taken it upon themselves to have their own vote, but that is apparently not binding at this stage according to the bylaws of EU governance.
Spinning this as a repudiation of democratic principles is just a ploy to feed a popular narrative.
The sale of the house at well below market value through a shell corporation is a red flag, so it's different than an unfounded chicken-related accusation. I'm not ready to bring out my pitchfork and fire up a torch yet, but I'm glad somebody's looking at it.
You might feel different if your kid was waiting in line for an organ they needed to survive a lifetime, and it appeared rich dudes were cutting in line to get just a couple extra years.
True, the competition failed to live up to its hype. So did the proposed timeframe for the Internet. The predictions I noticed in the video mentioned a time horizon around 5 years (1990), whereas it seems things materialized rather more slowly than that. It's funny, because I wouldn't feel comfortable proposing anything for even 5 years out. And anything that might take 10 years hardly even seems worth talking about, since nobody can imagine what the company will even be doing by then. It seems like it would be so great to work uninterrupted towards a 5 year goal.
Of course, as computer scientists we can say with utter certainty that the scare tactics at the end of the film were utterly unnecessary
If anything I'd say the scaremongering was amazingly effective - not prophetic, but causal. AT&T pitches to the US government to invest in a global information "highway." Here we are 25 years later, boom, that's exactly what happened. The US goverment did invest in the Internet, through companies like AT&T and Mitre, and now it exists, and US-based Internet companies such as Amazon, google, and Facebook are well ahead of the International competition and making billions of dollars, due in part to home-field advantage. (In fact there is great caterwauling about the prospect more global management of the Internet under the auspices of the UN).
The whole appeal put across in the video is very nationalistic. They used words like "we" to refer to both the US and AT&T. I don't think this would happen any more. Today companies are global, so they are rivals with government, shopping the globe for the most business-friendly laws and taxes. The idea of the "The Japanese" taking the lead in artificial intelligence doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
If they wanted to charge by the credit hour, they should have done so.
It is simply too soon to say whether economic engagement with China just made it stronger without fundamentally changing it, or will result in major political reforms. We won't know until this "new" nation (now with a much more wealthy, worldly middle class) is put to the test of an economic shock or a period of stagnation. Citizens almost never agitate until they are hit in the pocketbook.
The newer one has GPS control, which wasn't true in 1985. It seems like you might be able to do some pretty tricky shots using a GPS-enabled UAV shooting a GPS-enabled subject. We've all see onboard shots from cameras like the Hero Go-Pro. Imagine a UAV that could follow you from above up a twisty canyon road, jumping ahead to position itself for tight corners and so forth.
That's a fair restatement of the article, sure. But nothing you said, and nothing the article said, explains why stacked ranking promotes butt-kissing any more than any other performance review system. The only way to avoid butt-kissing is to dispense with pay-for-performance altogether, since that way there's no incentive, either to kiss butts, nor to do anything else.
The fact is ALL companies do stacked ranking - you can find your "score" on your paycheck. There's no avoiding this (again, other than paying everybody the same amount). So the only question is how oblique do you want to be about it?
The fact that it would have been discovered 10 years ago is more significant than the fact it would have been discovered in the US. Whatever benefit will be derived from the discovery would have been enjoyed for an extra 10 years.
Yeah, right. As if the hundreds of billions to build up beaches and levies to protect million-dollar beachfront homes won't end up coming from tax money.
Adaptive Cruise Control doesn't steer the car, it just maintains your speed behind the car ahead of you. This would improve traffic flow by improving response times over manual control.
I think you're right, except for the spin. The idea of throwing warm bodies at repairing high power lines is not a good one. The reason the liability would be high is because it would be carnage. The job is already dangerous - it's the 8th most dangerous job in the US. Work that is a safe distance from power lines won't be done by the specialized workers you're talking about anyways. As for those greedy unions, right now they're working 16 hour days in 100+ degree heat. I think they deserve every penny. Electricity is cheap.
Tactical links are a totally separate thing, spec'd to support specific systems. They're not used for skype, gaming, and porn. Just like you can't take an M1 Tank out of the armory to go pick up a pizza.
I have a UPS for my cable modem, router, Ooma box, and wireless phone so VOIP will still work in an outage, if the cable signal is up (i.e. even with my computer turned off). Whether I can actually expect the cable to be up in an outage, I have no idea.
I hope an insider will weigh in on this, but I don't think the Internet is all that self-healing at the upper levels, as when dealing with Netflix, Amazon, google etc. At those levels links are not an abstraction; they are statically routing across specific fiber segments, and there probably isn't enough overcapacity in the infrastructure to simply route around without interruption. Think about when an Interstate is closed through a metropolitan area - yes, you can still get there along side streets eventually, but it's hardly transparent substitue. Not enough to keep the Netflix Streaming service humming along for example. I doubt email users noticed anything wrong though :)
Apparently this was still the case as recently as Win 7 vs. Lion.
For myself, I have not upgraded from Snow Leopard to Lion on my work computer even though it wouldn't cost me anything, basically for the other aforementioned reasons - I don't see how it would earn back the time it cost to do the upgrade and learn the new system, and I'm not sure it's an "upgrade" from my perspective. (I'm pretty sure I don't want fullscreen apps on my 30" monitor).
Back in the day a computer was $3000 and often a new OS version was actually an improvement over the previous one, so I could see why somebody would do it. But paying $100 (wild guess) to upgrade a $400 computer to an OS that is marginally better, if at all, with the time it would take and ever-present risk of it breaking something, isn't worth it. I wonder how many bother.
But I think it could be more tempting for a young person who doesn't have a job with health benefits, and who hopes they can just cross their fingers and close their eyes and maybe get away with it. In fact I distinctly remember resenting my university forcing me as a student to carry insurance, since I figured I'd probably be fine, and it was none of their business anyways. (What actually happened was I got a rare disorder and had major surgery. I had to drop out of school for a semester to work off the bills, but without any insurance I would have been ruined for years).
So I think it will be interesting to see how many people choose to ignore the mandate and pay the tax. Surely some will, even if it's not in their own best interest.
I just find a lot of the discussion on slashdot about healthcare revolves around the experiences of college students who really do not understand the magnitude of the problem.
Next thing you know they'll try to put a special tax on cigarettes!
I already have health insurance. It's expensive and overly complicated, but I do have it. So, will this actually change anything for people like me? Hopefully I won't be picking up the tab for so many others who opted not to buy insurance before getting sick. But otherwise I don't see a huge impact.
Anyways, the idea that any exchange is OK if it is voluntary, is bunk. Somebody choosing to do something only establishes one thing - that it was the best option available to them at the time. The much larger question is whether they had any good options in the first place.
Spinning this as a repudiation of democratic principles is just a ploy to feed a popular narrative.
The sale of the house at well below market value through a shell corporation is a red flag, so it's different than an unfounded chicken-related accusation. I'm not ready to bring out my pitchfork and fire up a torch yet, but I'm glad somebody's looking at it.
You might feel different if your kid was waiting in line for an organ they needed to survive a lifetime, and it appeared rich dudes were cutting in line to get just a couple extra years.
True, the competition failed to live up to its hype. So did the proposed timeframe for the Internet. The predictions I noticed in the video mentioned a time horizon around 5 years (1990), whereas it seems things materialized rather more slowly than that. It's funny, because I wouldn't feel comfortable proposing anything for even 5 years out. And anything that might take 10 years hardly even seems worth talking about, since nobody can imagine what the company will even be doing by then. It seems like it would be so great to work uninterrupted towards a 5 year goal.
Yeah, globalization is a total pipe dream, it'll never happen!
If anything I'd say the scaremongering was amazingly effective - not prophetic, but causal. AT&T pitches to the US government to invest in a global information "highway." Here we are 25 years later, boom, that's exactly what happened. The US goverment did invest in the Internet, through companies like AT&T and Mitre, and now it exists, and US-based Internet companies such as Amazon, google, and Facebook are well ahead of the International competition and making billions of dollars, due in part to home-field advantage. (In fact there is great caterwauling about the prospect more global management of the Internet under the auspices of the UN).
The whole appeal put across in the video is very nationalistic. They used words like "we" to refer to both the US and AT&T. I don't think this would happen any more. Today companies are global, so they are rivals with government, shopping the globe for the most business-friendly laws and taxes. The idea of the "The Japanese" taking the lead in artificial intelligence doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.