$8 million would not build another fully functional White House. That's probably enough to reproduce the grounds, the fencing, a portion of the sidewalks around the grounds, and some basic exterior walls to simulate the footprint of the outside of the White House itself. It would probably take another order of magnitude to reproduce the building with an interior that even has the same layout and basic infrastructure as the real one.
They essentially want a park on which to do training, and they want it somewhere off-limits so that neither their training exercises nor the details for the layout of the grounds can be easily inspected. Unfortunately that means money. On a bright side, if they want to suggest changes to the grounds to see if they'll be effective, having a simulator on which to test them first would mean that they can both find out if they're effective and figure out how to implement them in the shortest time possible at the real site, reducing construction time at the actual White House.
No lines at the Apple stores around here; most of them are inside of shopping malls and they would simply laugh if people tried to queue up before the day of a product launch.
I'm wondering if they're concerned about how this sells, and they're only manufacturing a limited number to start with, so if there's not a lot of interest then they're not stuck with hundreds of thousands of unwanted watches.
Hell, I'm still wearing a decades-old Bulova Accutron, the kind with the actual tuning fork mechanism. No way that's getting replaced with something that will be obsolete in a few months.
Yes. In Boston there are subway stations with Dunkin' Donuts in them. Driving through Chelsea there are DDs at all of the major corners. It isn't until you get pretty far out into the suburbs that you can't find a Dunkin' Donuts every quarter-mile. When they're everywhere it's easy to see why people will get their coffee, donuts, and breakfast sandwiches there even if they'd rather have something better or different.
No, think that hey! summed it up fairly well. Fiorina has been extremely successful, even to the point of literally being phenomenal, for her own interests. The problem is, her interests are most every other person's interests are not necessarily compatible and may be outright hostile. One can argue that her success, while bad for just about everyone else that she has done business with, is still good for her.
Take another look at Mitt Romney for a moment, in the sense that his corporate interests have been successful, by and large, for shareholders in the firms that his loyalties have been to. He could at least claim that his policies were beneficial for shareholders and for the company, but even with such claims he still lost an election. I expect that many of the stories of companies purchased and stripped by Romney's companies, promptly laying-off thousands of workers in the process.
If Romney couldn't win despite having arguably a successful track-record, then I don't see how Fiorina could.
Expressing opinions is just fine, but it's not in these businesses' interests to provide a forum for it when this forum is not in their control. It's opening the flood-gates to let a trickle of a stream into the town downstream and being surprised when the entire reservoir rushes down the valley.
Are they happy, or have businesses like this managed to simply become the path of least resistance to where they've become a habit to the patrons?
I used to stop at QuikTrip convenience stores twice a day while doing my rounds, to get soft-drink refills and sometimes to buy beef jerky or other snacks. It didn't make me happy or improve my quality of life, I was doing it because it was very easy and had become one of my habits.
I don't hate QuikTrip now, but I did realize that I'm better off not patronizing them so much.
These situations are all proof that one cannot control the feedback that one receives. That's the whole point of feedback, by the way, to attempt to gauge a realistic view of what's going on. Asking for a negative review or asking for a positive review has already prejudiced the review process, and will usually rile-up people that have had the opposite experience that have the opposite view of the asker.
If the distinguished lady from Oregon wanted realistic feedback then she should have simply asked for feedback. If she asked for positive feedback (as an attempt at reverse-psychology), knowing that she was against the ACA, she would have gotten positive feedback by a motivated crowd. Asking for negative feedback, know that she was against the ACA, she got positive feedback by a motivated crowd.
It doesn't matter if you're squeaky-clean, there are plenty of people that would demean anyway even if they've never done business with you. Just reading through the comments on items purchased on Amazon is proof enough of that.
They're called trolls. And we should all be well aware of them, we've all probably been them at some point or another.
I've wanted a Spaceballs: The Flame Thrower since I was a kid. Mel Brooks was right, the kids love this one.
I like how also it has nothing to do with the movie, except that it's shown in the movie as something available as a movie tie-in. Reminds me of that Spock helmet.
I had to go through jury selection a few months back for a capital case, going through three or four rounds of appearances and interviews. Part of what struck me about the experience is how incredibly poor the paperwork was. They gave us number cards when there were 250+ people to go through in my group, they were all handwritten even though the numbers corresponded with the computer-generated numbers we were assigned when the original mailing for service was sent. Forms and questionnaires looked like they were generated in Clarisworks by first-time users in elementary school. Nothing had letterhead, nothing had any sort of official feel.
Your story about no letterhead and using fax machines is totally believable to me, and I'm amazed that it isn't abused more often.
Where I live no-competes are not enforceable, so here it doesn't matter. Even skilled technical workers that make real product-design contributions can change employers without penalty. One can go from Intel to Motorola to Honeywell and work in all of their IC packaging divisions without any penalty.
Free-markets would probably limit utilities to higher-density urban areas only. Regulation is supposed to force companies to do business that is not necessarily profitable in a small number of cases in order to reap the reward of the easy profitable business in urban areas.
What needs to happen here is enforcement against the monopoly that they have to provide service.
There are lots of clauses placed into contracts that are not legally binding under current law. Some of those clauses are put in because the parties drafting the contract aren't necessarily aware that they're not legal, and other clauses are there so that if the law is changed, the clause might be able to come into effect.
An example, in my state, a real estate lender cannot seek compensation from the mortgagee-seller if a short-sale does not bring as much revenue as the mortgagee owes. Despite this, most short-sale contracts state that the bank may go after the seller for the seven years that debts may be collected in. Other states do not have laws preventing this, so if the seller moves out-of-state the bank might try to enforce against them, or if the laws in the state change then the bank may attempt to enforce.
As for the nature of illegal conditions in a contract, that's why contracts usually have clauses in them that state that if any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in-effect.
Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.
Around here most emergency responder vehicles have transmitters that can tell the traffic lights to change as they approach. It would not be hard to design such a system for short-distance transmission to alert autonomous vehicles to make way.
Apparently back in the day, telecom workers for the phone company didn't have their own service vehicles. One van or small bus would drop workers off at their sites so they could splice cables, which takes awhile, and would then collect them after they finished, to move on to the next area. After build-out has ended it has become more necessary for workers to have their own service vehicles as they don't need to drop five workers off along a ten mile stretch to each work for two hours.
For doing dense urban package delivery this does make sense. It might still make sense for one of the occupants to be licensed to drive the truck though, so that if they have to override the computer to park it they're legally allowed to.
I expect that since Australia is so much more rural than even the western half of the continental United States, there will be more need for humans to be involved with trucking simply to handle situations that crop up outside of the computer's ability to handle.
How closely can road-trains operate to each other? I could see a lead truck with a human in it even if it's still driving mostly autonomously, a bunch of fully autonomous trucks, and a tailgunner with a human too, so that if there's a problem far down the line in such a convoy someone would notice it even if the computers didn't. Plus, if those drivers are responsible for tires and other on-the-road maintenance, having more than one person might be handy.
Yes, that is pretty absurd. It also requires pre-existing conditions (one of the switches being broken) and that the pilots have not other options (ie, descend and land at the first available airstrip or suitable flat surface as an improvised runway) such that there is indefinite time for the terrorists to attempt to defeat the door lock.
Slashdot Mirror
$8 million would not build another fully functional White House. That's probably enough to reproduce the grounds, the fencing, a portion of the sidewalks around the grounds, and some basic exterior walls to simulate the footprint of the outside of the White House itself. It would probably take another order of magnitude to reproduce the building with an interior that even has the same layout and basic infrastructure as the real one.
They essentially want a park on which to do training, and they want it somewhere off-limits so that neither their training exercises nor the details for the layout of the grounds can be easily inspected. Unfortunately that means money. On a bright side, if they want to suggest changes to the grounds to see if they'll be effective, having a simulator on which to test them first would mean that they can both find out if they're effective and figure out how to implement them in the shortest time possible at the real site, reducing construction time at the actual White House.
No lines at the Apple stores around here; most of them are inside of shopping malls and they would simply laugh if people tried to queue up before the day of a product launch.
I'm wondering if they're concerned about how this sells, and they're only manufacturing a limited number to start with, so if there's not a lot of interest then they're not stuck with hundreds of thousands of unwanted watches.
Hell, I'm still wearing a decades-old Bulova Accutron, the kind with the actual tuning fork mechanism. No way that's getting replaced with something that will be obsolete in a few months.
Yes. In Boston there are subway stations with Dunkin' Donuts in them. Driving through Chelsea there are DDs at all of the major corners. It isn't until you get pretty far out into the suburbs that you can't find a Dunkin' Donuts every quarter-mile. When they're everywhere it's easy to see why people will get their coffee, donuts, and breakfast sandwiches there even if they'd rather have something better or different.
No, think that hey! summed it up fairly well. Fiorina has been extremely successful, even to the point of literally being phenomenal, for her own interests. The problem is, her interests are most every other person's interests are not necessarily compatible and may be outright hostile. One can argue that her success, while bad for just about everyone else that she has done business with, is still good for her.
Take another look at Mitt Romney for a moment, in the sense that his corporate interests have been successful, by and large, for shareholders in the firms that his loyalties have been to. He could at least claim that his policies were beneficial for shareholders and for the company, but even with such claims he still lost an election. I expect that many of the stories of companies purchased and stripped by Romney's companies, promptly laying-off thousands of workers in the process.
If Romney couldn't win despite having arguably a successful track-record, then I don't see how Fiorina could.
Why would we complain about Slashdot on Twitter when we can complain about Slashdot on Slashdot?
Expressing opinions is just fine, but it's not in these businesses' interests to provide a forum for it when this forum is not in their control. It's opening the flood-gates to let a trickle of a stream into the town downstream and being surprised when the entire reservoir rushes down the valley.
Are they happy, or have businesses like this managed to simply become the path of least resistance to where they've become a habit to the patrons?
I used to stop at QuikTrip convenience stores twice a day while doing my rounds, to get soft-drink refills and sometimes to buy beef jerky or other snacks. It didn't make me happy or improve my quality of life, I was doing it because it was very easy and had become one of my habits.
I don't hate QuikTrip now, but I did realize that I'm better off not patronizing them so much.
These situations are all proof that one cannot control the feedback that one receives. That's the whole point of feedback, by the way, to attempt to gauge a realistic view of what's going on. Asking for a negative review or asking for a positive review has already prejudiced the review process, and will usually rile-up people that have had the opposite experience that have the opposite view of the asker.
If the distinguished lady from Oregon wanted realistic feedback then she should have simply asked for feedback. If she asked for positive feedback (as an attempt at reverse-psychology), knowing that she was against the ACA, she would have gotten positive feedback by a motivated crowd. Asking for negative feedback, know that she was against the ACA, she got positive feedback by a motivated crowd.
It doesn't matter if you're squeaky-clean, there are plenty of people that would demean anyway even if they've never done business with you. Just reading through the comments on items purchased on Amazon is proof enough of that.
They're called trolls. And we should all be well aware of them, we've all probably been them at some point or another.
I've wanted a Spaceballs: The Flame Thrower since I was a kid. Mel Brooks was right, the kids love this one.
I like how also it has nothing to do with the movie, except that it's shown in the movie as something available as a movie tie-in. Reminds me of that Spock helmet.
I had to go through jury selection a few months back for a capital case, going through three or four rounds of appearances and interviews. Part of what struck me about the experience is how incredibly poor the paperwork was. They gave us number cards when there were 250+ people to go through in my group, they were all handwritten even though the numbers corresponded with the computer-generated numbers we were assigned when the original mailing for service was sent. Forms and questionnaires looked like they were generated in Clarisworks by first-time users in elementary school. Nothing had letterhead, nothing had any sort of official feel.
Your story about no letterhead and using fax machines is totally believable to me, and I'm amazed that it isn't abused more often.
I doubt it. There is no legal agreement between the new employer and Amazon in this context.
Where I live no-competes are not enforceable, so here it doesn't matter. Even skilled technical workers that make real product-design contributions can change employers without penalty. One can go from Intel to Motorola to Honeywell and work in all of their IC packaging divisions without any penalty.
This is true, but it's also not universally a given either.
Free-markets would probably limit utilities to higher-density urban areas only. Regulation is supposed to force companies to do business that is not necessarily profitable in a small number of cases in order to reap the reward of the easy profitable business in urban areas.
What needs to happen here is enforcement against the monopoly that they have to provide service.
I don't think that the vast majority of warehouse workers are even going to consider that clause's existence when the leave Amazon for other work.
There are lots of clauses placed into contracts that are not legally binding under current law. Some of those clauses are put in because the parties drafting the contract aren't necessarily aware that they're not legal, and other clauses are there so that if the law is changed, the clause might be able to come into effect.
An example, in my state, a real estate lender cannot seek compensation from the mortgagee-seller if a short-sale does not bring as much revenue as the mortgagee owes. Despite this, most short-sale contracts state that the bank may go after the seller for the seven years that debts may be collected in. Other states do not have laws preventing this, so if the seller moves out-of-state the bank might try to enforce against them, or if the laws in the state change then the bank may attempt to enforce.
As for the nature of illegal conditions in a contract, that's why contracts usually have clauses in them that state that if any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in-effect.
Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.
It's still money though. You either pay your own staff or you pay someone else to pay their staff.
Around here most emergency responder vehicles have transmitters that can tell the traffic lights to change as they approach. It would not be hard to design such a system for short-distance transmission to alert autonomous vehicles to make way.
That sounds pretty good actually.
Apparently back in the day, telecom workers for the phone company didn't have their own service vehicles. One van or small bus would drop workers off at their sites so they could splice cables, which takes awhile, and would then collect them after they finished, to move on to the next area. After build-out has ended it has become more necessary for workers to have their own service vehicles as they don't need to drop five workers off along a ten mile stretch to each work for two hours.
For doing dense urban package delivery this does make sense. It might still make sense for one of the occupants to be licensed to drive the truck though, so that if they have to override the computer to park it they're legally allowed to.
I expect that since Australia is so much more rural than even the western half of the continental United States, there will be more need for humans to be involved with trucking simply to handle situations that crop up outside of the computer's ability to handle.
How closely can road-trains operate to each other? I could see a lead truck with a human in it even if it's still driving mostly autonomously, a bunch of fully autonomous trucks, and a tailgunner with a human too, so that if there's a problem far down the line in such a convoy someone would notice it even if the computers didn't. Plus, if those drivers are responsible for tires and other on-the-road maintenance, having more than one person might be handy.
An expalanation of what a quantum dot is would have been nice.
Yes, that is pretty absurd. It also requires pre-existing conditions (one of the switches being broken) and that the pilots have not other options (ie, descend and land at the first available airstrip or suitable flat surface as an improvised runway) such that there is indefinite time for the terrorists to attempt to defeat the door lock.