You might be on to something. Now if you just add that the smart people end up hiring the stupid people to be armed and around them to protect them while decrying the evils of guns, you might have a solid theory on your hands.
Oh and no, I wasn't being sarcastic. I think it's stupid for people to arm themselves and put their life in danger in order to protect some rich asshat or politician or whatever that seems to have pissed enough people off that they fear for their lives for the pittance of salary a lot of these people make. It seems like all the largest mouth pieces against guns sure have a lot of them around in the hands of hired help to protect them.
If diversity is rated as a qualification higher than training, abilities and skills, it not only can be, but likely would be the problem.
Diversity is great when it happens naturally due to qualifications for the job itself. It likely becomes one of the strongest positions to administer from. It is a liability when it is done irrespective of qualifications and to some political motivation. It also breeds contempt and disrespect for those under qualified which tend to be associated with thier overriding qualification be it sex, sexual orientation, race or religion or whatever. When John cannot competently do his job and it appears he was hired because he is really a handicapped black girl pretending to be a man so he fills a couple diversity quotas, it eventually gets associated with people like that. It's completely counterproductive to the point being made.
Now i do not know if this is happening anywhere but the concern is legitimate. I have worked with and under unqualified people before. Usually it is because of some family relationships with the owner and not because of quotas. I grew to resent all "family run" businesses i even consider working for.
lol.. and what's it to you. Outside of being wrong, I doubt you even have a fucking clue. Some crap that doesn't scale with the page on the article's site blocks the text when I try to enlarge the text enough to even read it on my phone. That is why I haven't read it but with defenders like you, I'm positive it is just drivel not worth reading anyways.
Just wanted to add, don't stop at the recommendations the software suggest.
I had a client who decided to go with the hardware recommendations provided by the software vendor against my objections. Six months after we were up and running, the software which was the entire point of the ordeal released an update that slowed everything down enormously. Turns out, their "recommended" hardware specs were slightly better than their minimum specs on the new version of the software and the server had also been purposed to do a few other minor things that ran in conjunction with the software. You might as well say it was the minimum.
So by stopping at the recommendations of the software vendor, they were presented with a setback no one was really thinking about. They could either roll back the software version negating the support and upgrade purchase plan, suffer the slow speeds and hope the vendor doesn't slow it any more, or replace good hardware that they really didn't have a use for outside of the specific software. They eventually let me completely overkill a server to replace it.
So unless the software vendor says there is a limit, reasonably increase the power and memory of their recommendations for future proofing. Just keep in mind you will want to eventually replace the hardware anyways else risk suffering down time from the inevitable failures.
I was thinking much the same thing. I didn't read the article but am wondering how much of this increase coincided with the PACA and the expansion of medicaid.
But if we are looking at poor areas with an infusion of money, of course people will be more active then they used to be and this alone should cause an uptick in hospital or doctors visits.
Lol.. its so sweet that you think it's only the last two administrations in the US. Have you ever heard of echelon or magic lantern? Do you even know why there is a FISA law in the first place? (Its because the courts outlawed domestic spying and the FBI simply had the CIA do it under the guise of foreign spying and relay incriminating evidence back.)
It's systematic with about anyone in power in the history of the US after Roosevelt took office.
As a teenager, I recieved a citation for "peeling and squealing" my tires. Being under 18, it was a mandatory court appearance along with a parent. My dad told the judge the noise the officer thought he heard was a power steering belt slipping and he replaced it two days latter. The judge made some comment about calling the cop a liar and dad replied "jesus christ, itsca worn out ford pinto with a four cylinder, exactly what make anyone think its capable of peeling and squealing ". I had to pay a $65 fine and was told if i was ever in front of him again i would lose my license.
Even if you have a good excuse (my buddy is alergic to bee stings and we need to get him to a hospital fast or he will die), it might not matter if the jurisdiction is only after money.
Nothing would be different if the doctor could do it. The police are not going to call a doctor when confronted by a mentally ill person.
What would happen is the doctor would call the police and say he's a mentally ill person and a threat to himself or others and convince the cops of it . If the doctor had the ability on his own, all that would be different is that he would not need the extra step of convincing the cops.
Doctors are not going to physically detain someone on their own unless it's an immediate life and death situation. But anyone can already do that right now in Texas and many other states. You might think that they could reason with them and cause them to stick around for four hours but they can already convince someone to do that.
So the only realistic difference is if someone else has to be convinced of the claim or not.
No i don't want a law for everything. However taking and or using something that is not yours without explicit permission is still wrong even without a law isn't it? In this case, there actually is a law so no need for another in order to cover idiots that do not understand someone else owns shit that they do not own.
And yes. If i am paying to be on the neighbor's porch i will sit on it. Your analogy makes no sense. You pay to sit on the transit.
Why? Is it all that different from me tethering to your electric and using it for my own purposes? Is there some sort of law saying electrical outlet are fair game for all.
Forgot about the miniscule amount of energy for a minute. Would it be ok to run an extension cord from an outlet on your porch to power my fan when I get overheated riding my bike near your house? I know, someone will say but that is private property and this is government property. I respond with does that mean i can walk into a government building and grab some paper or just start using the photocopiers?
There is a principle involved here. Even if something needs changed to allow this conduct, it still needs changed to distinguish between it.
Sure they can. But what does it suggest when someone is articulating that favoring by complaining about companies expanding and white males moving in for the employment opportunities.
It suggests they have a problem with white males moving in.
I had two sites i used to administer that were constantly getting infected with something. They hired kids to work the night shift and they would get bored and surf anywhere you could imagine.
At one site, instituting a computer use policy, proxy, and a blacklist like dan's guardian along with fetching the mail to an internal server and scanning before delivery was enough to curb it to 1 minor infection in 5 years. At the other site, this didn't even come close. We had to completely lock down the internet and approve specific sites and domains as needed. This has yielded no infections in the four or five years i remained with them.
Both sites have or had a public wifi and separate linux systems for guest access on a separate subnet the employees could use (when guests weren't ) but for some reason they insisted on using company workstations.
I stopped working with them about two years ago. I dunno what they have now but i saw one of the companies is being sued for a data breach with credit card numbers.
Bing, the uspo, academic journals, and a lot of other places. that would stop them from having any impact by returning garbage results.
As for snagging ideas. Nothing would stop that. In fact i have found the auto complete in some searches i do shows ideas i already searched for. This means that Google is already exposing ideas to others that can be taken advantage of by not just Google.
Yes, i have the balls to recognize reality. No I'm not a democrat. And your complaint seems to be about the size of government not anything to do with waste.
Granted, a lot of what government does could be called a waste but the funding for it is largely not wasted in its application. Let's be real.
There is not enough waste to cut to pay for it. Cutting waste has been a political whipping post for quite a while now.
We have to think about how it is going to be paid for. This is something new and not currently being done which is why currently agencies can charge a portion of the costs. Our options are raising taxes, deficit spending, or using existing funding which cuts into mission objectives. I'm not saying it is not a good idea, just that it is not as simple as saying do it.
Maybe it is just natural to you and you do not see it. But you are in fact anti white male which you have shown in your comments about diversity. This article points white males out as a problem displacing diversity. You are commenting about how you want diversity and saying it is a problem too.
Now if you were actually encouraging minorities to move to Seattle and enjoy the prosperity, i wouldn't think twice about it. But it seems your problem is white males moving in at a faster pace than others. You as well as the article's author seem to be in the same boat.
I do not think you understand. It costs money in terms of employees pay, office space, equipment, bandwidth and so on just to post it online. This needs to be paid somehow. It will either require more budget allocations from congress or come from the existing budgets meaning their existing missions will not be performed.
And no. You cannot just post documents. Your name, address, and social security numbers might be in them. These documents need to be vetted for non public information.
There are legitimate reasons to have secrets. If i came into a bunch of money, I wouldn't want every crack addict knowing it. If my wife cheated and we worked it out, I wouldn't want everyone knowing about it. If i was looking for aother job, i wouldn't want my employer to know about it until I gave them notice. If the government has a back door, it is only a matter of time before others have access to it too.
Are you willing to increase your taxes paid by 20% just to staff enough people for my "UFO" and "Anal probe" requests in 30 different ways to every single agency i can think of so i can prove all UFO sightings are government conspiracies an all alien anal probes are means to punish and discredit people who are thorns in the side of the government or some crony company they support? Or should something like the department of health and human services spend a good portion of their budget on these rather than their stated missions? I can see it now. FEMA fails to respond to some natural disaster stating their budget was already burned through fielding FOIA requests.
I agree with you in principle, I just look at the practical application of it. Probably unlike you, I do see a need for some secrets to remain in government. I think it's mostly to national defense and comments or advice given but not adopted over political matters. For example, issues like the civil rights act or giving women the vote could have turned out differently if everything we now know was instantly available when it transpired.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be on to something. Now if you just add that the smart people end up hiring the stupid people to be armed and around them to protect them while decrying the evils of guns, you might have a solid theory on your hands.
Oh and no, I wasn't being sarcastic. I think it's stupid for people to arm themselves and put their life in danger in order to protect some rich asshat or politician or whatever that seems to have pissed enough people off that they fear for their lives for the pittance of salary a lot of these people make. It seems like all the largest mouth pieces against guns sure have a lot of them around in the hands of hired help to protect them.
If diversity is rated as a qualification higher than training, abilities and skills, it not only can be, but likely would be the problem.
Diversity is great when it happens naturally due to qualifications for the job itself. It likely becomes one of the strongest positions to administer from. It is a liability when it is done irrespective of qualifications and to some political motivation. It also breeds contempt and disrespect for those under qualified which tend to be associated with thier overriding qualification be it sex, sexual orientation, race or religion or whatever. When John cannot competently do his job and it appears he was hired because he is really a handicapped black girl pretending to be a man so he fills a couple diversity quotas, it eventually gets associated with people like that. It's completely counterproductive to the point being made.
Now i do not know if this is happening anywhere but the concern is legitimate. I have worked with and under unqualified people before. Usually it is because of some family relationships with the owner and not because of quotas. I grew to resent all "family run" businesses i even consider working for.
You kind of butchered it with the reboot is near being after the fact but otherwise excellent job.
BTW, I think that is one of the best movies ever. Lots of people don't realize what it was making fun of though.
lol.. and what's it to you. Outside of being wrong, I doubt you even have a fucking clue. Some crap that doesn't scale with the page on the article's site blocks the text when I try to enlarge the text enough to even read it on my phone. That is why I haven't read it but with defenders like you, I'm positive it is just drivel not worth reading anyways.
Just wanted to add, don't stop at the recommendations the software suggest.
I had a client who decided to go with the hardware recommendations provided by the software vendor against my objections. Six months after we were up and running, the software which was the entire point of the ordeal released an update that slowed everything down enormously. Turns out, their "recommended" hardware specs were slightly better than their minimum specs on the new version of the software and the server had also been purposed to do a few other minor things that ran in conjunction with the software. You might as well say it was the minimum.
So by stopping at the recommendations of the software vendor, they were presented with a setback no one was really thinking about. They could either roll back the software version negating the support and upgrade purchase plan, suffer the slow speeds and hope the vendor doesn't slow it any more, or replace good hardware that they really didn't have a use for outside of the specific software. They eventually let me completely overkill a server to replace it.
So unless the software vendor says there is a limit, reasonably increase the power and memory of their recommendations for future proofing. Just keep in mind you will want to eventually replace the hardware anyways else risk suffering down time from the inevitable failures.
I was thinking much the same thing. I didn't read the article but am wondering how much of this increase coincided with the PACA and the expansion of medicaid.
But if we are looking at poor areas with an infusion of money, of course people will be more active then they used to be and this alone should cause an uptick in hospital or doctors visits.
Open Google and type define few into the search box.
My point was that it has been happening since FDR that i know of and likely earlier to some degree.
Few doesn't even start to cover it.
Lol.. its so sweet that you think it's only the last two administrations in the US. Have you ever heard of echelon or magic lantern? Do you even know why there is a FISA law in the first place? (Its because the courts outlawed domestic spying and the FBI simply had the CIA do it under the guise of foreign spying and relay incriminating evidence back.)
It's systematic with about anyone in power in the history of the US after Roosevelt took office.
As a teenager, I recieved a citation for "peeling and squealing" my tires. Being under 18, it was a mandatory court appearance along with a parent. My dad told the judge the noise the officer thought he heard was a power steering belt slipping and he replaced it two days latter. The judge made some comment about calling the cop a liar and dad replied "jesus christ, itsca worn out ford pinto with a four cylinder, exactly what make anyone think its capable of peeling and squealing ". I had to pay a $65 fine and was told if i was ever in front of him again i would lose my license.
Even if you have a good excuse (my buddy is alergic to bee stings and we need to get him to a hospital fast or he will die), it might not matter if the jurisdiction is only after money.
It would also be a major pain dodging the packs shed when someone shows off on the interstate. These are roadable cars doing this.
Nothing would be different if the doctor could do it. The police are not going to call a doctor when confronted by a mentally ill person.
What would happen is the doctor would call the police and say he's a mentally ill person and a threat to himself or others and convince the cops of it . If the doctor had the ability on his own, all that would be different is that he would not need the extra step of convincing the cops.
Doctors are not going to physically detain someone on their own unless it's an immediate life and death situation. But anyone can already do that right now in Texas and many other states. You might think that they could reason with them and cause them to stick around for four hours but they can already convince someone to do that.
So the only realistic difference is if someone else has to be convinced of the claim or not.
That's what i was thinking. I bet it was a vegan who hasn't had meats in 20 years that made the tastes like bacon claim.
But as long as it is cheaper than bacon, I'm willing to give it a try.
How was it implied? There was a sign saying cleaners only not for public use. It was implicitly denied if anything.
Do you?
No i don't want a law for everything. However taking and or using something that is not yours without explicit permission is still wrong even without a law isn't it? In this case, there actually is a law so no need for another in order to cover idiots that do not understand someone else owns shit that they do not own.
And yes. If i am paying to be on the neighbor's porch i will sit on it. Your analogy makes no sense. You pay to sit on the transit.
Why? Is it all that different from me tethering to your electric and using it for my own purposes? Is there some sort of law saying electrical outlet are fair game for all.
Forgot about the miniscule amount of energy for a minute. Would it be ok to run an extension cord from an outlet on your porch to power my fan when I get overheated riding my bike near your house? I know, someone will say but that is private property and this is government property. I respond with does that mean i can walk into a government building and grab some paper or just start using the photocopiers?
There is a principle involved here. Even if something needs changed to allow this conduct, it still needs changed to distinguish between it.
Sure they can. But what does it suggest when someone is articulating that favoring by complaining about companies expanding and white males moving in for the employment opportunities.
It suggests they have a problem with white males moving in.
I had two sites i used to administer that were constantly getting infected with something. They hired kids to work the night shift and they would get bored and surf anywhere you could imagine.
At one site, instituting a computer use policy, proxy, and a blacklist like dan's guardian along with fetching the mail to an internal server and scanning before delivery was enough to curb it to 1 minor infection in 5 years. At the other site, this didn't even come close. We had to completely lock down the internet and approve specific sites and domains as needed. This has yielded no infections in the four or five years i remained with them.
Both sites have or had a public wifi and separate linux systems for guest access on a separate subnet the employees could use (when guests weren't ) but for some reason they insisted on using company workstations.
I stopped working with them about two years ago. I dunno what they have now but i saw one of the companies is being sued for a data breach with credit card numbers.
Bing, the uspo, academic journals, and a lot of other places. that would stop them from having any impact by returning garbage results.
As for snagging ideas. Nothing would stop that. In fact i have found the auto complete in some searches i do shows ideas i already searched for. This means that Google is already exposing ideas to others that can be taken advantage of by not just Google.
Yes i am not aware. Show me some links and credible sources.
Yes, i have the balls to recognize reality. No I'm not a democrat. And your complaint seems to be about the size of government not anything to do with waste.
Granted, a lot of what government does could be called a waste but the funding for it is largely not wasted in its application. Let's be real.
There is not enough waste to cut to pay for it. Cutting waste has been a political whipping post for quite a while now.
We have to think about how it is going to be paid for. This is something new and not currently being done which is why currently agencies can charge a portion of the costs. Our options are raising taxes, deficit spending, or using existing funding which cuts into mission objectives. I'm not saying it is not a good idea, just that it is not as simple as saying do it.
Maybe it is just natural to you and you do not see it. But you are in fact anti white male which you have shown in your comments about diversity. This article points white males out as a problem displacing diversity. You are commenting about how you want diversity and saying it is a problem too.
Now if you were actually encouraging minorities to move to Seattle and enjoy the prosperity, i wouldn't think twice about it. But it seems your problem is white males moving in at a faster pace than others. You as well as the article's author seem to be in the same boat.
I do not think you understand. It costs money in terms of employees pay, office space, equipment, bandwidth and so on just to post it online. This needs to be paid somehow. It will either require more budget allocations from congress or come from the existing budgets meaning their existing missions will not be performed.
And no. You cannot just post documents. Your name, address, and social security numbers might be in them. These documents need to be vetted for non public information.
There are legitimate reasons to have secrets. If i came into a bunch of money, I wouldn't want every crack addict knowing it. If my wife cheated and we worked it out, I wouldn't want everyone knowing about it. If i was looking for aother job, i wouldn't want my employer to know about it until I gave them notice. If the government has a back door, it is only a matter of time before others have access to it too.
Are you willing to increase your taxes paid by 20% just to staff enough people for my "UFO" and "Anal probe" requests in 30 different ways to every single agency i can think of so i can prove all UFO sightings are government conspiracies an all alien anal probes are means to punish and discredit people who are thorns in the side of the government or some crony company they support? Or should something like the department of health and human services spend a good portion of their budget on these rather than their stated missions? I can see it now. FEMA fails to respond to some natural disaster stating their budget was already burned through fielding FOIA requests.
I agree with you in principle, I just look at the practical application of it. Probably unlike you, I do see a need for some secrets to remain in government. I think it's mostly to national defense and comments or advice given but not adopted over political matters. For example, issues like the civil rights act or giving women the vote could have turned out differently if everything we now know was instantly available when it transpired.