Clinton managed to keep the budget in surplus and used the money for the social security fund, you could do something similar where the surplus at the end of the year get put into the social security fund.
You don't understand - this is not about surplus/deficit. It's not about how much money exists, but rather shuffling it around between appropriation. This is a red tape problem.
As for who gets access well, the funding could be used for states of emergency, other exceptional events or events of special scientific intrest (Like the Hubble telescope needing a replacement mirror, funding for the mars rovers or the Voyager mission), and I'm sure there are other worthy causes.
Yes, about a billion, and the definition of emergency is subjective enough to be a joke. What you're describing is fiscal anarchy. There have to be processes for making budget appropriations, and for large expenidtures it takes time to get money re-directed. This should not be a surprise, it's just the way the government - and really, any large organization - works.
That still shows a lack of understanding of how it works. What form does this fund take? Who gets to access it? Who decides who accesses it? How is it accessed?
The money was available, as evidenced by the fact that the programs in question are still running - the people responsible went through the necessary channels and got it done.
There is no real alternative, other than readily available cash with little to no oversight, and that would be a disaster of mismanagement and embezzlement.
Beauracracy is the ultimate result of this country's desire to have a strong central government overseeing a populace of 300 million people. There isn't really anyone to blame here. The only alternative is to return power to the state and local governments, which is associated with assorted advantages and disadvantages.
I also thought it was weird that they had to authorize more spending when the rovers were still working past their estimated useful life. You've got a remote control car on fucking Mars that still works and somebody wants to just switch it off? It reminds me of rich kids who throw out good toys simply because they're bored with them.
Ya gotta understand how government works. It's not that someone was actively trying to get these projects defunded - it's just that there was no money allocated for that, since no one anticipated they'd still be working. And since all government work has to be charged to specific accounts, someone would have had to redo that, or else the project would have had no way to spend any money.
In other words, this is a matter of bureaucracy, not malignance.
Well, I'm guessing that the guy who sets them up doesn't hang out to watch them work. I'm also guessing they get activated remotely, because I wouldn't want to be the guy driving away from a jammer after it goes live, either.
I agree with the original poster, the comparision points are pretty superficial.
That's the point. The entire article is only about visual design. It has nothing to do with how the devices actually function, as the iPod obviously has many differences from a transitor radio.
Only the tuning knob is particularly prominent, or even particularly visible from 10 feet. It is also designed to stand out visually, and for the 1950s this would have been a striking, attractive design. Kind of like the iPod.
For God's sake, no one is accusing Apple of ripping off the transistor radio, so all the Apple fanboys can stop getting their hackles up. The question isn't whether the TR-1 functions like the iPod - so the point of the combined volume/tuner is moot - the question is whether there are certain common design elements. Clearly, there are. The next question is whether it was intentional. I think the possibility is there. Either way, this doesn't reflect badly on Apple.
A little creativity please. The colors that were shown were very similar. The form factors are also similar (the radio was slightly larger), and they were both controlled by a single wheel control. That's a good deal of similarity, though obviously not proof. If you can't see a similarity, I'm guessing you also have a problem with abstract art.
And I have no idea why the apple crowd is going nuts over this. In fact, if it turned out that Apple did use the TR-1 as an influence, I think that would be incredibly cool. What a great shout-out to the past, modeling the most significant portable music player since the walkman after the one that started them all. How is that not cool?
It could be worse. One of the goals for these devices (that I worked on) was discrimination among two conditions that elicit very similar smptoms. The best part is that one is fungal, and one bacterial - so if you treat it wrong, it actually gets worse.
From Article: However, it cannot yet distinguish MRSA from its close cousin MSSA (methicillin-sensitive Staph aureus), which does respond to convetional antibiotics unlike MRSA.
As is often the case, e-nose researchers tend to focus more on detection than discrimination. If this thing generates too many false alarms, it'll be useless.
Difference is that these devices typically need to be close to the subject, aren't that fast, and often require a fair amount of sample. As a result, it's hard to apply these to people without their consent or knowledge.
Uh huh. There's also a saying about chicken little and the sky falling, or crying wolf. To be more specific, the more idiots scream fascism where it isn't occurring, the less people pay attention to situations where it is. And an issue of patent law, in one instance, does not cross that threshold. Vigilance is great - I applaud it - but being dramatic is not a virtue, because you desensitize the masses to the issues that are actually important.
Good God, save the Hitler/Fasicm references for when somebody takes you from your house, takes you to a camp, uses you for slave labor, and throws you in an oven. Using the fasism card for the government's infringment of patent rights is immature, absurd, and really cheap.
I thought that Microsoft had to break up into separate entities much like Mama Bell did long ago to avoid monopoly issues. Why are people surprised that M$ is considering it now?
Because that judgement was overturned? Because Dvorak claims that MS is voluntarily considering something that they fought vehemently against?
Note that I think Dvorak is off his rocker, incidentally.
That's when you tell them that it is fact desired behavior. Even make up things to help your cause, like the mail server will break if they send large attachments. Hell, it might. Then map easy-to-find shares on their desktops, aptly named something like "Bobs_big_files" and a network icon like "Big_company_files." Tell them to put their big files in the big file folder to give them to other people.
Yes, they'll forget, and you'll constantly be telling them how to do it, but it's better than having the mail server nuked.
I'm wondering if Apple will go the way of Sony. Innovating firms have a tendency to be eaten up by firms who copy and then sell for a lower price. The only way to stop copiers is to create a closed format - basically kill competition before it happens - or to keep innovating to stay ahead of the copiers - easier said than done.
That *is* what Sony tries to do, and that's part of what's killing it. Sony's great if you only own Sony products. Otherwise, they put all their effort into supporting their own proprietary formats and such that are total losers. They've been doing it since the 50's, and they tend to lose.
In my opinion, Sony isn't big enough - or else doesn't capture enough marketshare when they innovate something - to be able to start a proprietary format effectively.
most Unix like systems are actually easier to create installs for.
Sure. Now multiply by how many different installs you'll have to create - and test - for each linux/unix distro you care to support, and that might not be true anymore.
Cultures don't change that fast. Is this the same country that voted for FDR? Largely, yes. And let me tell you something - if a rogue nation invaded Britain, Germany, etc, we would be there to help out again. It absolutely is a matter of national pride here, in America, that we help out where and when we can. And frankly, though we may misguided on how we do it occasionally, we're one of the few nations that has the resources and commitment to do it. I am remineded of the aftermath of the tsunami - while certain European nations were trying to impress each other by how much money they would commit to the disaster, per capita, the US was busy mobilizing resources to save lives. That money - much of which never got there after promised - isn't much good if it gets there too late to save lives.
Also, if you're going to make ad hominem attacks like "America was founded on slavery," I'll remind you that the economies of every non-landlocked European nation was as well for a period of 200-300 years.
And if you don't think that China will go to war over Taiwan, you are absolutely ignorant of the scenario over there. They absolutely will. Don't try to apply your reasoning to their motives.
International politics is not a game to be played by idiots with inflated egos who think that acting tough is going to win the day.
Why? Because you say it's not? Generally, as much as I hate to say it, that's the most effective tactic. Reference our worst President, JFK. An idiot with an inflated ego who risked the world in a game of russian roulette. Dumb, but it worked. Just an example.
Actually, international politics is not for egotistical condescending idealists. Reference one of our most naive Presidents, Woodrow Wilson.
As an aside, ask yourself how world politics plays out if the US quits being the last superpower. Do you believe so strongly in national egalitarianism that you truly won't get involved if lives are at stake? It's a difficult question, because the world changed so much after we lost the last superpower (USSR), in ways we never imagined. Does Europe still care enough to involve itself in the world, or will its insular tendencies of the last 50+ years continue?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand - this is not about surplus/deficit. It's not about how much money exists, but rather shuffling it around between appropriation. This is a red tape problem.
As for who gets access well, the funding could be used for states of emergency, other exceptional events or events of special scientific intrest (Like the Hubble telescope needing a replacement mirror, funding for the mars rovers or the Voyager mission), and I'm sure there are other worthy causes.
Yes, about a billion, and the definition of emergency is subjective enough to be a joke. What you're describing is fiscal anarchy. There have to be processes for making budget appropriations, and for large expenidtures it takes time to get money re-directed. This should not be a surprise, it's just the way the government - and really, any large organization - works.
There's no way that casual...wait, what was I saying? Could you repeat the question?
The money was available, as evidenced by the fact that the programs in question are still running - the people responsible went through the necessary channels and got it done.
There is no real alternative, other than readily available cash with little to no oversight, and that would be a disaster of mismanagement and embezzlement.
Beauracracy is the ultimate result of this country's desire to have a strong central government overseeing a populace of 300 million people. There isn't really anyone to blame here. The only alternative is to return power to the state and local governments, which is associated with assorted advantages and disadvantages.
Ya gotta understand how government works. It's not that someone was actively trying to get these projects defunded - it's just that there was no money allocated for that, since no one anticipated they'd still be working. And since all government work has to be charged to specific accounts, someone would have had to redo that, or else the project would have had no way to spend any money.
In other words, this is a matter of bureaucracy, not malignance.
Well, I'm guessing that the guy who sets them up doesn't hang out to watch them work. I'm also guessing they get activated remotely, because I wouldn't want to be the guy driving away from a jammer after it goes live, either.
That's the point. The entire article is only about visual design. It has nothing to do with how the devices actually function, as the iPod obviously has many differences from a transitor radio.
For God's sake, no one is accusing Apple of ripping off the transistor radio, so all the Apple fanboys can stop getting their hackles up. The question isn't whether the TR-1 functions like the iPod - so the point of the combined volume/tuner is moot - the question is whether there are certain common design elements. Clearly, there are. The next question is whether it was intentional. I think the possibility is there. Either way, this doesn't reflect badly on Apple.
And I have no idea why the apple crowd is going nuts over this. In fact, if it turned out that Apple did use the TR-1 as an influence, I think that would be incredibly cool. What a great shout-out to the past, modeling the most significant portable music player since the walkman after the one that started them all. How is that not cool?
It electrocuted the installer on first boot under half the rated load.
It could be worse. One of the goals for these devices (that I worked on) was discrimination among two conditions that elicit very similar smptoms. The best part is that one is fungal, and one bacterial - so if you treat it wrong, it actually gets worse.
As is often the case, e-nose researchers tend to focus more on detection than discrimination. If this thing generates too many false alarms, it'll be useless.
Difference is that these devices typically need to be close to the subject, aren't that fast, and often require a fair amount of sample. As a result, it's hard to apply these to people without their consent or knowledge.
It's time to find a website with a higher ratio of intelligent people to fanboys. It's just gotten retarded here over the last year.
Uh huh. There's also a saying about chicken little and the sky falling, or crying wolf. To be more specific, the more idiots scream fascism where it isn't occurring, the less people pay attention to situations where it is. And an issue of patent law, in one instance, does not cross that threshold. Vigilance is great - I applaud it - but being dramatic is not a virtue, because you desensitize the masses to the issues that are actually important.
And the way to do that is to compare every slight to fascism? That's mindless.
Good God, save the Hitler/Fasicm references for when somebody takes you from your house, takes you to a camp, uses you for slave labor, and throws you in an oven. Using the fasism card for the government's infringment of patent rights is immature, absurd, and really cheap.
Ya think! And it might prevent them from doing what makes them successful - illegally leveraging their monopoly. This stuff's just crazy.
FP
Because that judgement was overturned? Because Dvorak claims that MS is voluntarily considering something that they fought vehemently against?
Note that I think Dvorak is off his rocker, incidentally.
Yes, they'll forget, and you'll constantly be telling them how to do it, but it's better than having the mail server nuked.
The corporation is answerable to its customers in the same way that gov is answerable to the voters. Customers vote with their wallets.
That *is* what Sony tries to do, and that's part of what's killing it. Sony's great if you only own Sony products. Otherwise, they put all their effort into supporting their own proprietary formats and such that are total losers. They've been doing it since the 50's, and they tend to lose.
In my opinion, Sony isn't big enough - or else doesn't capture enough marketshare when they innovate something - to be able to start a proprietary format effectively.
Sure. Now multiply by how many different installs you'll have to create - and test - for each linux/unix distro you care to support, and that might not be true anymore.
Also, if you're going to make ad hominem attacks like "America was founded on slavery," I'll remind you that the economies of every non-landlocked European nation was as well for a period of 200-300 years.
And if you don't think that China will go to war over Taiwan, you are absolutely ignorant of the scenario over there. They absolutely will. Don't try to apply your reasoning to their motives.
International politics is not a game to be played by idiots with inflated egos who think that acting tough is going to win the day.
Why? Because you say it's not? Generally, as much as I hate to say it, that's the most effective tactic. Reference our worst President, JFK. An idiot with an inflated ego who risked the world in a game of russian roulette. Dumb, but it worked. Just an example.
Actually, international politics is not for egotistical condescending idealists. Reference one of our most naive Presidents, Woodrow Wilson.
As an aside, ask yourself how world politics plays out if the US quits being the last superpower. Do you believe so strongly in national egalitarianism that you truly won't get involved if lives are at stake? It's a difficult question, because the world changed so much after we lost the last superpower (USSR), in ways we never imagined. Does Europe still care enough to involve itself in the world, or will its insular tendencies of the last 50+ years continue?
What is that, government run by idiots?
And anyone who takes the easy, lame joke and returns a Bush administration crack will be shot on grounds of lacking creativity...