Maybe. In politics, it's sometimes easier to sh*t on your friends vs. your enemies. The Democrats will often vote against the Unions, because, it's not like the Union members are going to vote for the other side, is it? (During the campaign, you do have to play to your base, but after that, it's up in the air)
Except that for all they know, he could have been flying at the last minute to get to a critical vote. There's a reason the constitution doesn't allow individual states to arrest congresspeople going to or from their job.
In this instance, no harm done. But, do we want the TSA to, in any way, be able to influence Congress?
I'm sure the TSA asked some questions. If they did, they violated the constitution. Not that there's any fine or punishment for violating the constitution.
Cartels eventually fall apart, and we all eventually die. Yes, this is true. In the end it's all dust, so that means we should stop trying to make things better?
There are quite a few unions I've seen that seem to only absorb chunks their member's paychecks without actually providing any benefit in bargaining with the employer, effectively acting as a lamprey on capitalism
All bureaucracies devolve into self sustaining organisms, or they die. When sufficiently threatened, they will cast off all other raison d'être, except for that self survivable mode. At this point, they either live or die, and if they live, there's not much left to help anyone but the bureaucrats.
There have been cases where a Union allowed weak members to be fired, rather than allowing non-union employees to work for a certain employer. (Indiana Art teachers 40 years or so ago. And after they were hired back, the Union still required them to join the Union)
I took a class at University many moons ago in software documentation. I got an 'A', and it was a valuable class in that I learned I sucked at it. (But I was better than most of the students)
The teacher, with a PhD in English, was a master. She probably couldn't code worth much, but she could take unclear concepts and make them clear enough for a newbie.
As long as you hire great programmers you are going to get great programs. If you want great documentation, you need a great documentor.
Sure, in hindsight a compressed air test would have been sufficient, but it's a little late to play what-if now.
Except that devising a simple $1000 test might save the next $2,000,000,000 satellite. Extra points if you can add to or replace an existing test that tests multiple systems sufficiently.
You can use tiny squares of cloth, impregnated with cleaning solution, to clean the inside of valves and metal lines - gets rid of metal filings which are left over from the boring process.
Quite easy to leave one behind. Which is why there are processes in place designed to prevent such issues.
So, they built a tool to make sure the rag was removed. Then they built another tool to check that the first tool was removed...
More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?
Don't ask me how you explain to them that medicare is socialism.
Sorry, but this is just a Fox News lie. Every capitalist society in the world, including all of Europe and Asia has some form of medicare program. A medical insurance program provided by the government but provisioned by private medical providers otherwise known as medicare has nothing in common with:
Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production.
As much as I don't like FOX, it's not a lie to call Medicare, "Socialized Medicine".
If you are a doctor, or a drug maker, then medical care is your "means of production". It's how you feed your family, and pay for your BMWs. (To own something means you control it, so, since the government controls Medicare, it has an ownership stake in medical care.)
If Medicare et. al. simply helped people pay their bills, it would be minimally socialist, but what it really does is impose rules and regulations about how care is done. By saying "We'll pay for this, but not that", they are influencing the practice of medicine. (At least in the past, Medicare would not pay for diabetes medicine that would prevent foot problems, but would pay for amputations after gangrene set in) All those rules mean it's Socialism.
Now, I don't have a problem with a social safety net, but I like to call things like they are. It's mild socialism, and that's ok when practiced correctly, and horribly wrong when it screws up.
My dad always told me that you couldn't own property, you were just renting it from the government.
Think about it. Is there any place in the US, where you can just sit, forever? Eventually, someone will come from the government and move you, unless you actively prevent your movement. That activity might be paying rent or taxes. (or both)
Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own presses, but it's necessary to allow anyone who gets legitimate access to your published material to read it.
You don't have to give your pamphlets to everyone, but everyone who does get one, should be allowed to read it.
Agreed. Freedom of speech is important, but your speech isn't free if no-one is allowed to hear you. (Imagine standing on your soapbox, but everyone around you is wearing government mandated earmuffs)
Access to the Internet is part to access to information. Just like freedom of the press, people have a right to publish what they want in the small part of the internet that they own. The flip side, freedom of access is necessary in order for Internet Free Speech to mean anything.
Remember, Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own presses, but it's necessary to allow anyone who gets legitimate access to your published material to read it. You don't have to give your pamphlets to everyone, but everyone who does get one, should be allowed to read it.
But what you do have is small rights to every Federal Public Property, and your State's Public Property.
The Governments regulate these public properties, some of which include the radio airwaves, and public easements and roads.
If a company, like the phone company, wants to have access to the public easements so that they don't have to specifically contract with every property owner that their lines go through, they ask the Government for the right to use that public property. A non-corrupt government trades them those rights for some public good. That public good might be a regular payment into the public coffers, or it may be some form of universal access.
Thus access to the phone company's lines isn't a universal human right, you might have a small right to connect to the phone network because of an agreement between the phone company and the government. Same with the water and electric companies, and the Internet.
Life and liberty fall under the axiomatic concept of self-ownership. Think about the consequences if you do not own yourself. Further, think of the way other people think--if you try to carve a ham out of someone's behind, will they let you do it? Will everyone else? No? That person clearly has a right to the ownership of their own meat then, and that right is widely recognized.
He only owns his own meat if he can prevent others from carving it, and carve it himself as he sees fit.
Currently in the US, you do not have the right to "carve your meat", as you see fit. There are many laws that say what you can and cannot do with your own meat. You are not allowed to kill yourself. (in most states) You can't inject certain substances into your own meat. You can't sell it.
I'd say that in the US today, you don't own your own meat. You have rights to its use, but you don't own it.
sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs.
Then the company is too stupid to survive.
This is happened over and over with celebrity chefs. Smart companies create a fictitious character, then promote that, not a real person.
If you have to use a real person, get a multi-year agreement that specifies what you get in return for royalities. Yes, you will still have to keep paying them after they leave, but you can continue to use their image/persona.
(b) Use an in-house written textbook custom to the department (done in a lot of lower-level classes) which will be cheaper, lets the department recoup some of the money, but is of much lower quality (fewer exercises by an order-of-magnitude, no proofreading for errors, no graphic design, no color, hand-drawn sketches, etc.) And this work is probably repeated thousands of times at schools across the country.
Just write the damn thing once, somehow, and give it away free to everyone. Seems inevitable, and I'm eager to see it.
All that may be true for the 1st edition, but with each passing year, classes can write their own exercises, and retire the ones that don't illustrate the problem well.
Why would you just write it once, and make it static? The students themselves can edit and improve. If every class did this, after a few years the book would be near perfect. There's probably a Master's level thesis in Education just proving that one method of exercise is better than another.
According to the wiki article, George Smathers didn't say that. Ok, Smathers didn't say it.
According to "FDR" by Jean Edward Smith, it was J. Mark Wilcox who made this accusation in 1938, long before Smathers didn't say it in 1950. Still, the accusation was made by rumor, so tracking it down is nearly impossible.
Senator Claude Pepper was once accused of "Celibacy before marriage, and being addicted to monogamy ever since"
The flip flop is a great thing to accuse a politician of, because you get to use the truth, and put in the mind of the voter that the candidate was wrong. Just like a salesperson will get you to agree to some trivialities just to get you to say "Yes", getting the voter to associate being wrong with a specific politician sets up a line of thinking in the voter's mind. "If he was wrong on that, he must be fallible, and if fallible, then he will fail at a future decision." Once you can get the voter thinking like this, then it's easy to get the voter to imagine all sorts of ways the candidate will screw up if elected.
But not everything secret (lower-case "s") is necessarily classified. There could well be stuff that's locked up and long-forgotten precisely *because* it hasn't been formally classified, and thus isn't subject to all the above.
That's what I'm thinking about. When data is gathered from the field, there's an assumed level of secretness before it can be formally classified. (Need to Know) At the end of WWII, the US gathered literally tons of stuff from the German rocket programs, documents, physical objects and scientists. There's no way all of it was properly accounted for, there was just too much stuff, gathered ASAP. Even NASA doesn't have a proper accounting for all the moon material that was returned, and that was orders of magnitude less stuff and didn't have a secrecy burden.
Even worse for LV, is the perception in the public that a fake LV is just as good, or even better than a real LV. "Look, that *Star* is using a fake LV, I must get a fake LV for myself".
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere in the list is "prepare a resume", or "ask for a job". Either one of those can kill your chances. Stay away from HR.
Maybe. In politics, it's sometimes easier to sh*t on your friends vs. your enemies. The Democrats will often vote against the Unions, because, it's not like the Union members are going to vote for the other side, is it? (During the campaign, you do have to play to your base, but after that, it's up in the air)
Except that for all they know, he could have been flying at the last minute to get to a critical vote. There's a reason the constitution doesn't allow individual states to arrest congresspeople going to or from their job.
In this instance, no harm done. But, do we want the TSA to, in any way, be able to influence Congress?
they shall not be questioned in any other Place
I'm sure the TSA asked some questions. If they did, they violated the constitution. Not that there's any fine or punishment for violating the constitution.
Cartels eventually fall apart, and we all eventually die. Yes, this is true. In the end it's all dust, so that means we should stop trying to make things better?
There are quite a few unions I've seen that seem to only absorb chunks their member's paychecks without actually providing any benefit in bargaining with the employer, effectively acting as a lamprey on capitalism
All bureaucracies devolve into self sustaining organisms, or they die. When sufficiently threatened, they will cast off all other raison d'être, except for that self survivable mode. At this point, they either live or die, and if they live, there's not much left to help anyone but the bureaucrats.
There have been cases where a Union allowed weak members to be fired, rather than allowing non-union employees to work for a certain employer. (Indiana Art teachers 40 years or so ago. And after they were hired back, the Union still required them to join the Union)
It's also possible that a combination of existing drugs will kill it. AFAIK, that's how leprosy was cured.
Of course, the more drugs you throw at a problem, the more likely the patient will have a bad reaction.
A history major might also be good at this, as most long term projects are studies in history. (Why the hell did we do this?)
I took a class at University many moons ago in software documentation. I got an 'A', and it was a valuable class in that I learned I sucked at it. (But I was better than most of the students)
The teacher, with a PhD in English, was a master. She probably couldn't code worth much, but she could take unclear concepts and make them clear enough for a newbie.
As long as you hire great programmers you are going to get great programs. If you want great documentation, you need a great documentor.
Sure, in hindsight a compressed air test would have been sufficient, but it's a little late to play what-if now.
Except that devising a simple $1000 test might save the next $2,000,000,000 satellite. Extra points if you can add to or replace an existing test that tests multiple systems sufficiently.
You can use tiny squares of cloth, impregnated with cleaning solution, to clean the inside of valves and metal lines - gets rid of metal filings which are left over from the boring process.
Quite easy to leave one behind. Which is why there are processes in place designed to prevent such issues.
So, they built a tool to make sure the rag was removed. Then they built another tool to check that the first tool was removed...
More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?
So why do they not check the forms before launching the satellite into orbit?
Other research shows that you're not really a grown-up w.r.t. risk taking until age 25.
So you've only got 20 good years. Use them wisely...
Don't ask me how you explain to them that medicare is socialism.
Sorry, but this is just a Fox News lie. Every capitalist society in the world, including all of Europe and Asia has some form of medicare program. A medical insurance program provided by the government but provisioned by private medical providers otherwise known as medicare has nothing in common with:
Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production.
As much as I don't like FOX, it's not a lie to call Medicare, "Socialized Medicine".
If you are a doctor, or a drug maker, then medical care is your "means of production". It's how you feed your family, and pay for your BMWs. (To own something means you control it, so, since the government controls Medicare, it has an ownership stake in medical care.)
If Medicare et. al. simply helped people pay their bills, it would be minimally socialist, but what it really does is impose rules and regulations about how care is done. By saying "We'll pay for this, but not that", they are influencing the practice of medicine. (At least in the past, Medicare would not pay for diabetes medicine that would prevent foot problems, but would pay for amputations after gangrene set in) All those rules mean it's Socialism.
Now, I don't have a problem with a social safety net, but I like to call things like they are. It's mild socialism, and that's ok when practiced correctly, and horribly wrong when it screws up.
I wish I was being facetious. (:-(
My dad always told me that you couldn't own property, you were just renting it from the government.
Think about it. Is there any place in the US, where you can just sit, forever? Eventually, someone will come from the government and move you, unless you actively prevent your movement. That activity might be paying rent or taxes. (or both)
Move or die, that's your choice.
Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own presses, but it's necessary to allow anyone who gets legitimate access to your published material to read it.
You don't have to give your pamphlets to everyone, but everyone who does get one, should be allowed to read it.
Agreed. Freedom of speech is important, but your speech isn't free if no-one is allowed to hear you. (Imagine standing on your soapbox, but everyone around you is wearing government mandated earmuffs)
Access to the Internet is part to access to information. Just like freedom of the press, people have a right to publish what they want in the small part of the internet that they own. The flip side, freedom of access is necessary in order for Internet Free Speech to mean anything.
Remember, Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own presses, but it's necessary to allow anyone who gets legitimate access to your published material to read it. You don't have to give your pamphlets to everyone, but everyone who does get one, should be allowed to read it.
But what you do have is small rights to every Federal Public Property, and your State's Public Property.
The Governments regulate these public properties, some of which include the radio airwaves, and public easements and roads.
If a company, like the phone company, wants to have access to the public easements so that they don't have to specifically contract with every property owner that their lines go through, they ask the Government for the right to use that public property. A non-corrupt government trades them those rights for some public good. That public good might be a regular payment into the public coffers, or it may be some form of universal access.
Thus access to the phone company's lines isn't a universal human right, you might have a small right to connect to the phone network because of an agreement between the phone company and the government. Same with the water and electric companies, and the Internet.
Life and liberty fall under the axiomatic concept of self-ownership. Think about the consequences if you do not own yourself. Further, think of the way other people think--if you try to carve a ham out of someone's behind, will they let you do it? Will everyone else? No? That person clearly has a right to the ownership of their own meat then, and that right is widely recognized.
He only owns his own meat if he can prevent others from carving it, and carve it himself as he sees fit.
Currently in the US, you do not have the right to "carve your meat", as you see fit. There are many laws that say what you can and cannot do with your own meat. You are not allowed to kill yourself. (in most states) You can't inject certain substances into your own meat. You can't sell it.
I'd say that in the US today, you don't own your own meat. You have rights to its use, but you don't own it.
sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs.
Then the company is too stupid to survive.
This is happened over and over with celebrity chefs. Smart companies create a fictitious character, then promote that, not a real person.
If you have to use a real person, get a multi-year agreement that specifies what you get in return for royalities. Yes, you will still have to keep paying them after they leave, but you can continue to use their image/persona.
(b) Use an in-house written textbook custom to the department (done in a lot of lower-level classes) which will be cheaper, lets the department recoup some of the money, but is of much lower quality (fewer exercises by an order-of-magnitude, no proofreading for errors, no graphic design, no color, hand-drawn sketches, etc.) And this work is probably repeated thousands of times at schools across the country. Just write the damn thing once, somehow, and give it away free to everyone. Seems inevitable, and I'm eager to see it.
All that may be true for the 1st edition, but with each passing year, classes can write their own exercises, and retire the ones that don't illustrate the problem well.
Why would you just write it once, and make it static? The students themselves can edit and improve. If every class did this, after a few years the book would be near perfect. There's probably a Master's level thesis in Education just proving that one method of exercise is better than another.
According to the wiki article, George Smathers didn't say that. Ok, Smathers didn't say it.
According to "FDR" by Jean Edward Smith, it was J. Mark Wilcox who made this accusation in 1938, long before Smathers didn't say it in 1950. Still, the accusation was made by rumor, so tracking it down is nearly impossible.
Senator Claude Pepper was once accused of "Celibacy before marriage, and being addicted to monogamy ever since"
The flip flop is a great thing to accuse a politician of, because you get to use the truth, and put in the mind of the voter that the candidate was wrong. Just like a salesperson will get you to agree to some trivialities just to get you to say "Yes", getting the voter to associate being wrong with a specific politician sets up a line of thinking in the voter's mind. "If he was wrong on that, he must be fallible, and if fallible, then he will fail at a future decision." Once you can get the voter thinking like this, then it's easy to get the voter to imagine all sorts of ways the candidate will screw up if elected.
But not everything secret (lower-case "s") is necessarily classified. There could well be stuff that's locked up and long-forgotten precisely *because* it hasn't been formally classified, and thus isn't subject to all the above.
That's what I'm thinking about. When data is gathered from the field, there's an assumed level of secretness before it can be formally classified. (Need to Know) At the end of WWII, the US gathered literally tons of stuff from the German rocket programs, documents, physical objects and scientists. There's no way all of it was properly accounted for, there was just too much stuff, gathered ASAP. Even NASA doesn't have a proper accounting for all the moon material that was returned, and that was orders of magnitude less stuff and didn't have a secrecy burden.
Even worse for LV, is the perception in the public that a fake LV is just as good, or even better than a real LV. "Look, that *Star* is using a fake LV, I must get a fake LV for myself".