So, our friendly lobbyists for CompTIA and other training companies got together and convinced the DoD to implement regulation 8570, which basically required anyone touching a keyboard to obtain certification...typically Security+ or something similar. This has brought millions and millions of welfare dollars in for these companies, and provided virtually no improved security for the DoD.
But don't worry, government is here to help you...spend more tax dollars for useless shit.
"Hair styling can be a vector of disease if you don't clean your tools well."
In my brief google search, I found plenty (sources like NIH, and OSHA) written on the risks to the employees due to long term exposure to chemicals, but virtually nothing from any reputable source on risks to customers. Though, there was plenty of fear mongering from the click bait sites. Do you have any sources to back up your concern?
The EPA enacted nearly 4,000 regulations during the previous administration. You're telling us that that's all necessary? Bullshit.
How about federal agencies monitoring individuals w/o a warrant, I suppose you're okay with that, and that it's not overreach.
How about the government telling women they can't have an abortion, or that adults can't smoke pot, or gays (for many years) can't get married? Or that screwing anyone but your wife in any position other than missionary would land you in jail.
People in power want more power, and always will. That's why we need term limits, and to put serious controls on lobbyists.
So, ~300,000,000 million people need to give up their right to defend themselves because ~.0001% of them are fuck ups, instead of dealing with those individuals. While those mass shootings are tragic, Also, 317 is a lie...
...aren't affected by equivalents of America's (for example) gun culture...
Besides being off-topic (but since you went there), what "gun culture" are you speaking of? You can go about your business in the U.S., as the vast majority of the population does, and outside of police and security guards, or video games and TV, it's extremely unlikely that you'll see or hear a gun...likely for months or years, unless you make an effort to do so. Sure there are exceptions in certain gang infested, crime ridden areas. And I say this having lived through the '67 riots in Detroit, and being a gun owner for 40+ years, "gun culture"?...no...inability to deal with our mentally ill, substance abusers, and others who should never get access to guns...most certainly. FWIW, I'm disappointed that no action has been taken to prevent access to bump-stocks...there's no legitimate use for them, and would support reasonable legislation on gun control in general.
In fact, I've never lived in a constituency where I was represented by the person I voted for...
So, did you never have the opportunity to vote against them (they're not from your district?), or are you saying you'd always voted against these people? If you just voted against them, they you ARE represented democratically.
So says the Russian AC. But seriously, if you're going to take a stand, on any side, and post as AC, why would we not simply assume you're an outsider attempting to influence our system. Have some balls, and use your ID. You'd still be anonymous, but at least the rest of us could get a better feel for if we're being played by a bunch of high ID posters.
So, my question (as an old fart) is, where are they going? This question reflects my ignorance of some other social media (I don't do Instagram, Twitter, etc...at least not yet). I've continued on FB, not because I like it, but because it's allowed me to connect with many friends that I'd lost contact with 30-40 years ago. Is there a suitable substitute out there?
I've managed software people since the 90s. Rating them is not as difficult as you make it out to be. We did everything from requirements analysis, preliminary and detailed design, to code and unit test, integration, and installation at customer sites. They typically do come with different skill sets, and you try to utilize them where they work the best. You get them to buy into the schedule so that they own it, and you challenge them to do things that stretch their abilities. But, I'm digressing from the overall point, rating them. Understanding their abilities isn't all that difficult, and those may or may not be what you require for your project. People are given tasks with milestones, and it's an easy matter to use those as one of the metrics for rating them. Obviously, that wouldn't be the only metric...someone could be making all their deliveries with very buggy code, and I'd rate someone who's a bit late with a clean delivery much higher. I think my own management success has been primarily because I care about my team, I take a personal interest, and when I needed them to, they would step up with extraordinary effort. I don't believe in loyalty to companies anymore (except maybe in rather small firms), but I'm loyal to the people I work closely with, and it pays off.
And yet, nothing you said makes it any prettier. Not easily testable doesn't mean untestable. I'm pretty sure everyone here understand the meaning of the word, and it's use in the article.
This article is full of so many flawed assumptions, it's hard to know where to begin.
"The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy"
This is a steaming pile of dung.
Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the ‘best’ mathematicians, the ‘best’ oncologists, and the ‘best’ biostatisticians from within the pool.
That position suffers from a similar flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist.
Bullshit. If you're unable to identify the best, then you're a failure at managing your team. Part of being a good leader is knowing who knows what, and who's good at what, and when you need to bring in help. At the top level, no matter how complex the problem, someone has the big picture. They don't need to know the details of the problem, they need to know that they've got the best people they can addressing those details. The article makes the broad claim that no test can exist without any evidence to back it up.
Upwards of 50,000 papers were published last year covering various techniques, domains of enquiry and levels of analysis, ranging from molecules and synapses up through networks of neurons. Given that complexity, any attempt to rank a collection of neuroscientists from best to worst, as if they were competitors in the 50 meter butterfly, must fail.
Sigh, using as extreme of an example as you can find doesn't make meritocracy a failure, nor undermine it. That said, all 50,000 of those papers will likely be peer reviewed, and to a certain degree ranked, and referenced by other papers, or debunked.
Out of your federal taxes it's only 2% of the budget ($46 in your example), but you're way off because the majority of educational money comes from state/local taxes, property tax in my case, which amounted to about 25% of my overall taxes.
Walking into a hospital saying you want to kill yourself will likely result in medical attention regardless of cost.
Sure, but you'll still be on the hook for thousands of dollars. It's not free, they just can't refuse you treatment. Adding a new large debt will surely alleviate the depression and suicidal thoughts!
It's not like you're going to need that money if you slit your wrists. And, if you're destitute, you won't be paying anyway...the hospitals have to suck that up, and it's one of the reasons why we have to pay $30 for an aspirin in an ER, to help pay for those who can't.
Actually, oxygen displacement via helium or nitrogen tent is the most painless, but granted not the easiest to set up.
I wonder why that isn't used for capital punishment cases. Obviously, if you're completely against it, nothing is acceptable, but it would seem the obvious choice, and remove concerns about some of the screw ups we hear about.
But then the girls get to live 4.8 years longer on average (81.2 vs 76.4 according to 2012 CDC data), so make one man year equal.94 women years. How many dog years is that?
Slashdot Mirror
So, our friendly lobbyists for CompTIA and other training companies got together and convinced the DoD to implement regulation 8570, which basically required anyone touching a keyboard to obtain certification...typically Security+ or something similar. This has brought millions and millions of welfare dollars in for these companies, and provided virtually no improved security for the DoD.
But don't worry, government is here to help you...spend more tax dollars for useless shit.
For example here in Norway I can't buy a beer after 8 PM on a weekday and 6 PM on a Saturday,...
Wait, what?!? Say it isn't so? That shining star that so many love to point to, and claim we should be just like them?!?
What the GP said. You're off your rocker dude.
"Hair styling can be a vector of disease if you don't clean your tools well."
In my brief google search, I found plenty (sources like NIH, and OSHA) written on the risks to the employees due to long term exposure to chemicals, but virtually nothing from any reputable source on risks to customers. Though, there was plenty of fear mongering from the click bait sites. Do you have any sources to back up your concern?
The EPA enacted nearly 4,000 regulations during the previous administration. You're telling us that that's all necessary? Bullshit.
How about federal agencies monitoring individuals w/o a warrant, I suppose you're okay with that, and that it's not overreach.
How about the government telling women they can't have an abortion, or that adults can't smoke pot, or gays (for many years) can't get married? Or that screwing anyone but your wife in any position other than missionary would land you in jail.
People in power want more power, and always will. That's why we need term limits, and to put serious controls on lobbyists.
So, ~300,000,000 million people need to give up their right to defend themselves because ~.0001% of them are fuck ups, instead of dealing with those individuals. While those mass shootings are tragic, Also, 317 is a lie...
"Between 1966 and 2012, there were 90 such incidents in the U.S."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...
Yes, to all...
If I want a tank, can I have one?
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/1...
An RPG?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rpg+for+s...
Cannon?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cannon+fo...
...aren't affected by equivalents of America's (for example) gun culture ...
Besides being off-topic (but since you went there), what "gun culture" are you speaking of? You can go about your business in the U.S., as the vast majority of the population does, and outside of police and security guards, or video games and TV, it's extremely unlikely that you'll see or hear a gun...likely for months or years, unless you make an effort to do so. Sure there are exceptions in certain gang infested, crime ridden areas. And I say this having lived through the '67 riots in Detroit, and being a gun owner for 40+ years, "gun culture"?...no...inability to deal with our mentally ill, substance abusers, and others who should never get access to guns...most certainly. FWIW, I'm disappointed that no action has been taken to prevent access to bump-stocks...there's no legitimate use for them, and would support reasonable legislation on gun control in general.
Um, no. This is mostly driven by unions, who could give a rat's ass about a capitalist free market. It's really quite the opposite.
If you can't figure out how to fix autocorrect, you need to turn in your geek card, and get off of /. You don't belong here, now GET OFF MY LAWN!
In fact, I've never lived in a constituency where I was represented by the person I voted for...
So, did you never have the opportunity to vote against them (they're not from your district?), or are you saying you'd always voted against these people? If you just voted against them, they you ARE represented democratically.
actually 2017 and the last 3 or 4 decade are decades where there was the LEAST amount of war, compared to last centuries
What is your criteria for "amount"? The number of fatalities?...number of conflicts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So says the Russian AC. But seriously, if you're going to take a stand, on any side, and post as AC, why would we not simply assume you're an outsider attempting to influence our system. Have some balls, and use your ID. You'd still be anonymous, but at least the rest of us could get a better feel for if we're being played by a bunch of high ID posters.
$0.97 ... that's like 4 million rubles, right?
Or, .0001102636095 Bitcoin....YMMV
So, my question (as an old fart) is, where are they going? This question reflects my ignorance of some other social media (I don't do Instagram, Twitter, etc...at least not yet). I've continued on FB, not because I like it, but because it's allowed me to connect with many friends that I'd lost contact with 30-40 years ago. Is there a suitable substitute out there?
I've managed software people since the 90s. Rating them is not as difficult as you make it out to be. We did everything from requirements analysis, preliminary and detailed design, to code and unit test, integration, and installation at customer sites. They typically do come with different skill sets, and you try to utilize them where they work the best. You get them to buy into the schedule so that they own it, and you challenge them to do things that stretch their abilities. But, I'm digressing from the overall point, rating them. Understanding their abilities isn't all that difficult, and those may or may not be what you require for your project. People are given tasks with milestones, and it's an easy matter to use those as one of the metrics for rating them. Obviously, that wouldn't be the only metric...someone could be making all their deliveries with very buggy code, and I'd rate someone who's a bit late with a clean delivery much higher. I think my own management success has been primarily because I care about my team, I take a personal interest, and when I needed them to, they would step up with extraordinary effort. I don't believe in loyalty to companies anymore (except maybe in rather small firms), but I'm loyal to the people I work closely with, and it pays off.
People do the same shit with stocks and all sorts of other shit.
The big difference between them is that "stocks and all sorts of other shit" are regulated, and cryptocurrencies...well, not so much...yet.
And yet, nothing you said makes it any prettier. Not easily testable doesn't mean untestable. I'm pretty sure everyone here understand the meaning of the word, and it's use in the article.
So, you're the one fucking up my commute! j/k And yes, the article is crap.
This article is full of so many flawed assumptions, it's hard to know where to begin.
"The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy"
This is a steaming pile of dung.
Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the ‘best’ mathematicians, the ‘best’ oncologists, and the ‘best’ biostatisticians from within the pool.
That position suffers from a similar flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist.
Bullshit. If you're unable to identify the best, then you're a failure at managing your team. Part of being a good leader is knowing who knows what, and who's good at what, and when you need to bring in help. At the top level, no matter how complex the problem, someone has the big picture. They don't need to know the details of the problem, they need to know that they've got the best people they can addressing those details. The article makes the broad claim that no test can exist without any evidence to back it up.
Upwards of 50,000 papers were published last year covering various techniques, domains of enquiry and levels of analysis, ranging from molecules and synapses up through networks of neurons. Given that complexity, any attempt to rank a collection of neuroscientists from best to worst, as if they were competitors in the 50 meter butterfly, must fail.
Sigh, using as extreme of an example as you can find doesn't make meritocracy a failure, nor undermine it. That said, all 50,000 of those papers will likely be peer reviewed, and to a certain degree ranked, and referenced by other papers, or debunked.
.
"Education is your $100 cable bill."
Out of your federal taxes it's only 2% of the budget ($46 in your example), but you're way off because the majority of educational money comes from state/local taxes, property tax in my case, which amounted to about 25% of my overall taxes.
Walking into a hospital saying you want to kill yourself will likely result in medical attention regardless of cost.
Sure, but you'll still be on the hook for thousands of dollars. It's not free, they just can't refuse you treatment. Adding a new large debt will surely alleviate the depression and suicidal thoughts!
It's not like you're going to need that money if you slit your wrists. And, if you're destitute, you won't be paying anyway...the hospitals have to suck that up, and it's one of the reasons why we have to pay $30 for an aspirin in an ER, to help pay for those who can't.
Actually, oxygen displacement via helium or nitrogen tent is the most painless, but granted not the easiest to set up.
I wonder why that isn't used for capital punishment cases. Obviously, if you're completely against it, nothing is acceptable, but it would seem the obvious choice, and remove concerns about some of the screw ups we hear about.
But then the girls get to live 4.8 years longer on average (81.2 vs 76.4 according to 2012 CDC data), so make one man year equal .94 women years. How many dog years is that?
Wait, which gender...
https://apath.org/63-genders/