You have a point, but you sound silly by ranting about it. The truth of the matter, as usual, is somewhere in between what you're saying and how you're interpreting parent. Some poor people aren't able to find jobs. Many poor people don't want jobs and don't believe they need jobs.
Bottom line is that the more you centralize power, the better you make the cost-benefit analysis for special interests to lobby. Thanks to centralization in the US, I can lobby 30 or so individuals to get my interests served, whereas before I would have had to lobby 30 individuals in each of 50 states (and bribery doesn't really offer bulk discounts).
Yeah, because government agencies have no reason to manipulate data. We certainly have seen no evidence of costs being wildly underestimated when an agency is trying to get approval for a new program.
Do you know that states hire consultants to identify ways to change their operations so that they can manipulate certain metrics that result in more federal funding? This is a fake example, but if the feds give states more money if they have a welfare fraud rate less than 10%, then the state will a) increase efforts to sign up more welfare recipients (increase the denominator) and b) reduce fraud detection mechanisms to the bare minimum required by fed guidelines (decrease the numerator).
Most people trust the government over the private sector because their bosses are in the private sector and they have no real working experience with their government.
Right. He revealed the results of his investigation, which likely had anonymous and otherwise mildly credible sources. That is qualitatively different than the VP of the US stating it. Does my question "make sense" to you now?
>...not having 500 tabs open, just because you want to read them in > the next 3 years or something? ^^ > > You know, there is a feature called "bookmarks" for this.
Well then perhaps you should ask why people don't use bookmarks like that.
Create a "shelf" or a "to do queue" list of sorts, I think people would do what you're suggesting.
And Bob Woodward is a credible source of official classified information regarding the government's emergency procedures to protect the line of succession?
There's a bunker under a lot of buildings. You're missing the point. The point is that when we had a huge emergency, that's where the VP stayed. The other point is that this is classified information. If it is misclassified, we can complain about that, I guess. But you can't divulge classified information, and individuals can't be tasked with deciding what "really should be classified" and what is "classified but OK to blab to the public about."
No, I wouldn't pay for an online version of the current model.
I would pay for a service that gives me content I care about on the forefront and fades away crap I don't care about. In the old newspaper model, I have to skip over stories about horse racing. In the new newspaper model, my virtual newspaper would not contain these stories.
> Saying that capitalism will save the day overly simplistic.
Maybe, but none of your comment supports your claim. You picked two players, both of whom have not adjusted their business model appropriately, and say that one of them might die. Then you say that capitalism won't save the day. Non sequitur, my friend.
Saving the day has nothing to do with keeping existing players in play. The whole point of capitalism is that the players that survive are the ones that appropriately match their model with the market, resulting in the people getting what they demand in the most efficient manner available (but not necessarily the most efficient manner possible). This means that if the current players don't match their model with the changed market, they can and SHOULD be put out of business, and others will take their market share.
Nothing in your comment addresses this, yet you claim that capitalism isn't the answer.
Well, that argument doesn't hold. Poor processes don't cause issues. They make them more likely to end up in production products. But just because they have poor processes and no standards doesn't mean the thing doesn't work.
However, in TFA there is discussion of functional issues. I just don't know why slashdot is focusing on the non-functional issues.
Isn't it odd that we are essentially funding an entity to violate our Constitutional rights, and then further funding it to fight to defend its offense without end?
Slashdot Mirror
You have a point, but you sound silly by ranting about it. The truth of the matter, as usual, is somewhere in between what you're saying and how you're interpreting parent. Some poor people aren't able to find jobs. Many poor people don't want jobs and don't believe they need jobs.
Zzzzz...
Wake me up when big government stops paying "farmers" NOT to grow food.
zzzzz...
Bottom line is that the more you centralize power, the better you make the cost-benefit analysis for special interests to lobby. Thanks to centralization in the US, I can lobby 30 or so individuals to get my interests served, whereas before I would have had to lobby 30 individuals in each of 50 states (and bribery doesn't really offer bulk discounts).
You must be new here.
Strangely, it turns out that law enforcement has tools other than video evidence.
If it is a joke, I bet someone goes to jail.
Yeah, because government agencies have no reason to manipulate data. We certainly have seen no evidence of costs being wildly underestimated when an agency is trying to get approval for a new program.
Do you know that states hire consultants to identify ways to change their operations so that they can manipulate certain metrics that result in more federal funding? This is a fake example, but if the feds give states more money if they have a welfare fraud rate less than 10%, then the state will a) increase efforts to sign up more welfare recipients (increase the denominator) and b) reduce fraud detection mechanisms to the bare minimum required by fed guidelines (decrease the numerator).
Most people trust the government over the private sector because their bosses are in the private sector and they have no real working experience with their government.
> Singaporeans were the first to drink recycld waste
No, actually /. was posting dupes way before that
Right. He revealed the results of his investigation, which likely had anonymous and otherwise mildly credible sources. That is qualitatively different than the VP of the US stating it. Does my question "make sense" to you now?
> ...not having 500 tabs open, just because you want to read them in
> the next 3 years or something? ^^
>
> You know, there is a feature called "bookmarks" for this.
Well then perhaps you should ask why people don't use bookmarks like that.
Create a "shelf" or a "to do queue" list of sorts, I think people would do what you're suggesting.
If Mozilla is an OS now, does that mean Windows is no longer the most bloated and crash-prone OS out there?
And Bob Woodward is a credible source of official classified information regarding the government's emergency procedures to protect the line of succession?
There's a bunker under a lot of buildings. You're missing the point. The point is that when we had a huge emergency, that's where the VP stayed. The other point is that this is classified information. If it is misclassified, we can complain about that, I guess. But you can't divulge classified information, and individuals can't be tasked with deciding what "really should be classified" and what is "classified but OK to blab to the public about."
Um, it happened, and it's classified information. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're looking through blue-colored glasses.
How is this relevant, except in your mind that views everything as partisan attacks?
No, I wouldn't pay for an online version of the current model.
I would pay for a service that gives me content I care about on the forefront and fades away crap I don't care about. In the old newspaper model, I have to skip over stories about horse racing. In the new newspaper model, my virtual newspaper would not contain these stories.
> Saying that capitalism will save the day overly simplistic.
Maybe, but none of your comment supports your claim. You picked two players, both of whom have not adjusted their business model appropriately, and say that one of them might die. Then you say that capitalism won't save the day. Non sequitur, my friend.
Saving the day has nothing to do with keeping existing players in play. The whole point of capitalism is that the players that survive are the ones that appropriately match their model with the market, resulting in the people getting what they demand in the most efficient manner available (but not necessarily the most efficient manner possible). This means that if the current players don't match their model with the changed market, they can and SHOULD be put out of business, and others will take their market share.
Nothing in your comment addresses this, yet you claim that capitalism isn't the answer.
I would hope that he'd be skeptical, since he hasn't read the report yet.
That's because "the kids" were there with their girlfriends.
I think this is a little over the top, given that he submitted his plan on /. already.
Well, that argument doesn't hold. Poor processes don't cause issues. They make them more likely to end up in production products. But just because they have poor processes and no standards doesn't mean the thing doesn't work.
However, in TFA there is discussion of functional issues. I just don't know why slashdot is focusing on the non-functional issues.
> not written well, nor is it written to any defined coding standard
Sorry, what relevance does this have? He's not going to be let off the hook because the company has nigh maintenance and churn costs.
Where is the report on whether this actually measures what it's supposed to measure and is valid from a functional perspective?
Perhaps you haven't seen the news in the last 8 months?
Isn't it odd that we are essentially funding an entity to violate our Constitutional rights, and then further funding it to fight to defend its offense without end?
Weird to think about...
Uh, except the ID people do not see them as two separate things.