Seriously, why are we reading this? You have a random professor who's written nothing more than an editorial which, while it may sound like common sense, provides no evidence to back up his comments. This is not news.
Good question, and to be honest I didn't quiz him on it, and didn't get to observe the situation closely since I had my own career. I'm all for regulations that are necessary for employee safety and such, but I think that many of the compliance/reporting requirements have put a much higher burden on them. As a hiring manager in a major company now, I see some of what I consider silly compliance requirements. For example, when I want to hire someone, I'm required to open a requisition and interview a minimum number of applicants even if I already know who I want to hire...I have to waste the time of at least two other people for an opening that they have no chance of getting.
It would be if peer review was actually done as much as it should be. There are plenty of articles on what's going on with peer review that you can easily google, but the short story is that there's no money/fame/promotions in reviewing papers done by others.
The oligarchs are the victors. They're the ones teaching you that "free markets" and "less regulation" are a good thing. You have been lied to."
Unfortunately, both sides have been lied to. First of all, I'll absolutely agree that regulation is necessary for public safety, and to limit corruption. But also, and we do a very bad job of this, limit monopolistic behavior, including local monopolies (cable for example). That said, anyone trying to run a small business these days is going to see a huge chunk of margin eaten away by unnecessary regulatory overreach. I grew up watching my dad run a small business that sold specialty containers to the auto industry. Shortly before he passed he'd told me that he couldn't even start up that company in the current environment due to the time and expense required to simply follow the regulations.
I'm well aware of how good the A-10 is/was. You'll be hard pressed to find any company that can upgrade a plane that's been out of production that long, by a company that no longer exists.
The F16 is/was a great plane as well, but it's gotten pretty long in the tooth now. And why are they breaking apart? Planes go through "phase" on a regular basis where the plane essentially gets rebuilt. It's why aircraft like the U-2 just hit 60 years old, but none of the airframes are anywhere near that.
As for LCS, F-35, etc. Virtually every major product like these are initially delivered with major bugs to work out. It's the nature of the business and the way that the Pentagon does requirements, funding, and scope creep, as well as some shitty contractors, that end up causing huge budget overruns.
The D in DARPA stands for Defense, so your flying cars will have to wait. And DARPA doesn't get the money from all those other projects you mentioned. If I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing that we didn't need those weapons mentioned above. I'll disagree with you, while agreeing that we paid much more than necessary...FWIW, I've been in the defense contracting business for more than 35 yrs. DoD in general needs to have the way in which it procures weapons completely revamped. DARPA has had plenty of success stories (below are just a few), so I have no issue with them spending money this way.
But isn't the question of mining overcome by the fact that they're not recording information about any specific people? It just ends up being demographic information not tied to any individuals.
FWIW, I'm all for privacy rights and not being tracked in public, but I don't have any issue with this case.
You can't be serious? They've even got software that's gotten pretty accurate (~70-80%) at telling if someone's gay or not...no shit, you can google that one for yourself.
Possibly due to a change in the trend of satellites moving to swarms of smaller ones. This is to give them redundancy, and make them more difficult for an enemy to take out.
My "logic" has nothing to do with the Trump case(s). I could have cared less if Clinton fooled around outside of the WH or before he was in office. Doing so 1) in a federal facility would have gotten anyone else fired, as would 2) doing so with a subordinate, and then 3) lying about it under oath (perjury) were what I have a problem with.
If you'd like to discuss the Trump case(s)...fire away.
Consider that with all those billions lost, the stock fell only to where it was in May! BTW, were is everyone going to complain about it?...on FB, and other social media already owned by FB. FB is spending money on something they've taken a blackeye on...security, so as much as I dislike them, I see this as a positive move.
The fact that you don't get it indicates that I shouldn't bother wasting more time trying to explain it to you. You've already stereotyped everyone that disagrees with you and made comments about me that you clearly know aren't correct. Later troll.
I know it's comforting to think you live in a binary world, but you don't.
I know it's comforting for you to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you, but you were wrong before, and you're wrong now. You don't know anything about me, and yet you seem to think that you actually have a clue.
Shouldn't we care if a CEO is having sex with one of his interns? Isn't that part of #metoo, and bosses using their positions of power to get what they want? Yeah, it was consensual, but really you had a starry-eyed groupie intern who got taken advantage of. But I'm sure it's all good because he was your guy.
If she so wished, she could bet a big fat settlement out of him regardless. Infidelity isn't considered in divorce anymore, or I wouldn't have had to pay off my cheating ex-wife years ago...bitch. I got the kid, she got a buyout.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, why are we reading this? You have a random professor who's written nothing more than an editorial which, while it may sound like common sense, provides no evidence to back up his comments. This is not news.
And to go by mean and median, Americans drop down to 4th and 25th place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good question, and to be honest I didn't quiz him on it, and didn't get to observe the situation closely since I had my own career. I'm all for regulations that are necessary for employee safety and such, but I think that many of the compliance/reporting requirements have put a much higher burden on them. As a hiring manager in a major company now, I see some of what I consider silly compliance requirements. For example, when I want to hire someone, I'm required to open a requisition and interview a minimum number of applicants even if I already know who I want to hire...I have to waste the time of at least two other people for an opening that they have no chance of getting.
For the sake of further discussion, these might be appropriate...
https://www.bizjournals.com/bi...
https://www.businessinsider.co...
Yeah, that's why nearly every online discount offer wants your address, phone number, etc., etc.
Peer review is great at this
It would be if peer review was actually done as much as it should be. There are plenty of articles on what's going on with peer review that you can easily google, but the short story is that there's no money/fame/promotions in reviewing papers done by others.
The oligarchs are the victors. They're the ones teaching you that "free markets" and "less regulation" are a good thing. You have been lied to."
Unfortunately, both sides have been lied to. First of all, I'll absolutely agree that regulation is necessary for public safety, and to limit corruption. But also, and we do a very bad job of this, limit monopolistic behavior, including local monopolies (cable for example). That said, anyone trying to run a small business these days is going to see a huge chunk of margin eaten away by unnecessary regulatory overreach. I grew up watching my dad run a small business that sold specialty containers to the auto industry. Shortly before he passed he'd told me that he couldn't even start up that company in the current environment due to the time and expense required to simply follow the regulations.
Well, there's been Yahoo, Adobe, RSA, Sony.
I'm well aware of how good the A-10 is/was. You'll be hard pressed to find any company that can upgrade a plane that's been out of production that long, by a company that no longer exists.
The F16 is/was a great plane as well, but it's gotten pretty long in the tooth now. And why are they breaking apart? Planes go through "phase" on a regular basis where the plane essentially gets rebuilt. It's why aircraft like the U-2 just hit 60 years old, but none of the airframes are anywhere near that.
As for LCS, F-35, etc. Virtually every major product like these are initially delivered with major bugs to work out. It's the nature of the business and the way that the Pentagon does requirements, funding, and scope creep, as well as some shitty contractors, that end up causing huge budget overruns.
The D in DARPA stands for Defense, so your flying cars will have to wait. And DARPA doesn't get the money from all those other projects you mentioned. If I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing that we didn't need those weapons mentioned above. I'll disagree with you, while agreeing that we paid much more than necessary...FWIW, I've been in the defense contracting business for more than 35 yrs. DoD in general needs to have the way in which it procures weapons completely revamped. DARPA has had plenty of success stories (below are just a few), so I have no issue with them spending money this way.
https://futurism.com/nine-most...
First got on the internet about 1992
Still here
Well, that explains all the problems we've been having!
But isn't the question of mining overcome by the fact that they're not recording information about any specific people? It just ends up being demographic information not tied to any individuals.
FWIW, I'm all for privacy rights and not being tracked in public, but I don't have any issue with this case.
You can't be serious? They've even got software that's gotten pretty accurate (~70-80%) at telling if someone's gay or not...no shit, you can google that one for yourself.
Last I checked SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction in Canada.
And if you had to choose from the recommendations given, which of the three would you go with?
The list should never be "finalized". It should be constantly updated.
Possibly due to a change in the trend of satellites moving to swarms of smaller ones. This is to give them redundancy, and make them more difficult for an enemy to take out.
My "logic" has nothing to do with the Trump case(s). I could have cared less if Clinton fooled around outside of the WH or before he was in office. Doing so 1) in a federal facility would have gotten anyone else fired, as would 2) doing so with a subordinate, and then 3) lying about it under oath (perjury) were what I have a problem with.
If you'd like to discuss the Trump case(s)...fire away.
Why would they bother? When did they ever need to rationalize it, and to who?
With a declining PE, I'd disagree...
https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
Consider that with all those billions lost, the stock fell only to where it was in May! BTW, were is everyone going to complain about it?...on FB, and other social media already owned by FB. FB is spending money on something they've taken a blackeye on...security, so as much as I dislike them, I see this as a positive move.
The fact that you don't get it indicates that I shouldn't bother wasting more time trying to explain it to you. You've already stereotyped everyone that disagrees with you and made comments about me that you clearly know aren't correct. Later troll.
I know it's comforting to think you live in a binary world, but you don't.
I know it's comforting for you to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you, but you were wrong before, and you're wrong now. You don't know anything about me, and yet you seem to think that you actually have a clue.
Because it doesn't take a brain to be a journalist, nor to claim others are whining.
Shouldn't we care if a CEO is having sex with one of his interns? Isn't that part of #metoo, and bosses using their positions of power to get what they want? Yeah, it was consensual, but really you had a starry-eyed groupie intern who got taken advantage of. But I'm sure it's all good because he was your guy.
If she so wished, she could bet a big fat settlement out of him regardless. Infidelity isn't considered in divorce anymore, or I wouldn't have had to pay off my cheating ex-wife years ago...bitch. I got the kid, she got a buyout.