I can't point to law, and I'm not sure it's exactly a law with a USC number (it could be derived from a few different laws or simply policies regarding handling of classified information), but anyone who has ever had a clearance _and_ worked in a secure facility can tell you that. If you plug a thumb drive into a secure computer, that thumb drive can't leave the lab. If you connect a laptop to a secure network, that laptop can't leave the lab. Further, neither could be then connected to an unsecured network.
Previous poster wasn't specific about what kernel configuration was used to build it quickly. Make allnoconfig is a fast build, of course. Further, the kernel is C which compiles fast. C++ with lots of templates (and/or use of the STL), is a completely different story.
Whatever you think you may have read, 8(a) is HUGE in the government services business. Many contracts are 8(a) set-aside, meaning only 8(a) companies can bid on them. Companies who acutally do the work often will "shop around for a prime" contractor, meaning they will look for an 8(a) company to take the prime contractor position (who they will then sub to) on a job they can execute. The 8(a) prime gets a percentage for management.
Once you get your 8(a) status, you keep it for ten years.
If you're an Alaskan Native-owned company, you're in even better shape.
So I can't say for sure about women and veterans, but for minorities, there is _huge_ advantage in the government services sector.
Nope, my experience with Delta has to do with personal in-seat experience.
I'm pretty sure in-seat experience is different than _SAFETY_. You said initailly:
and I don't feel unsafe except on a couple of carriers in the US. First, anything flown by Republic which is a contract carrier for US Airways and others and secondly, Delta.
Sorry your in-seat entertainment TV crashed, but that's no reason to say you feel unsafe on an airline. Seems like someone who flies "100 to 150 times a year" would know the difference.
On an objective scale yes. But most of us here in America think that America's scale is complete, instead of starting in the middle and going right.
Says who? We have two parties who refuse to do anything but increase the size of government. I say we start in the middle and go left.
Who gets to define what "the middle" is anyway? In my experience, there's a basic human tendency to try to find equal and opposite in everything. For some it makes them feel like they're above (ie: superior to) the fray. Just read the comments here. The theme of "it's the same on both sides" is pervasive. Someone above suggests that Fox News and MSNBC are the same but opposite. Think objectively for a second. Can that possibly be true? Equal? Or is it more reasonable to think that one of them (whichever one) is _more_ biased than the other. It almost _has_ to be that way.
Fox news supporters say "right of the left is not the same thing as right of center." It's tautology. You can't dispute it. Everyone thinks they're in the middle and balanced and everyone else is nuts.
It's easier to hate everyone (in this case both sides) because if you don't support anything, you never have to defend anything; you can just throw rocks.
By the way, I'm a right-wing nutjob. I can admit it.
Yes, much of it is inflation, but we didn't go from inflation to deflation then back to inflation again right as the Bush tax cuts were passed.
Like you, I would like to see that graph normalized for inflation. You're right that it's not comparing the right kinds of terms, but I disagree that it means nothing. Revenue was coming down, then tax cuts, then it went up.
As far as inflation goes, the way we measure it now is a joke. If oil, food, and housing don't count, I'm not sure what the point of the quantity even is. Of course that's a different debate for a different day.
Do you have any economic papers or non mass media sources that back up your analysis?
Unfortunately not anymore. I looked this stuff up several years ago, getting federal revenue and tax rates from different sources. "Original research" I suppose. I don't remember which sites those were at exactly. It took me about half an hour, iirc.
If the first two results for you were those two (particularly the first one, obamaftw.com, seems like it's going to be a bit partisan), I might questioning the biases of your search engine.
Of course search engines are smart, maybe each engine is giving each of us what it thinks we'll personally like:)
We blew the largest part of our budget surplus on the Bush Tax Cuts,
Revenue went up the year after the Bush tax cuts. Same for Reagan's tax cuts. People can debate why, and they can debate whether receipts would have been even higher without the tax cuts, but the idea that we "blew" or "spent" the surplus on tax cuts is simply false.
Google for "Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue," or look at the tables yourself. I've done both.
... the best forecasting system for predicting Sandy was not American, rather it was the model of the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) in Reading, England.
Yeah, every model has a different track, and some hurricanes follow one model and other hurricanes follow other models. Hurricanes are unpredictable. Just because this one lined up with a particular forecast doesn't mean that forecast is better in all (or necessarily any other) cases. It's like this for every single hurricane.
I know it's popular on here (and on the internet and media in general) to say that American stuff sucks and that Europe is better, but there isn't anyone pointing out the times when NOAA has the more accurate forecasts. It simply wouldn't be news that people would want to read.
If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.
The problem I have is that when times are good, governments spend the excess on crap, and then when it comes time to make cuts, they whine about how they'll have to cut essential services. We see it all the time with local governments as property taxes fluctuate. When revenues are down they say they have to cut police and fire departments and teachers, but there's never any talk about cutting what was _added_ during the fat years. We always had teachers and police and fire departments during the previous lean years, so what's the problem with going back to how it was?
We're seeing the same thing on the federal level, the difference being that there haven't been good times (ie: surplus) in over a decade. Replace "good times" with "when we're borrowing even more from China."
We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that? I think that's what the GP is getting at.
The building is not only paid for in full but he could literally spend $50 million redoing the interior(the next ~two years of income) and then rent out the space for another 5-10 million a year.
Should we make that law then? As soon as your building is paid for, you shall renovate it and rent it out? What if that's one of many other buildings he owns, the rest of which _lose_ money. What then?
Liberals talk about how horrible it is to judge the social morality of others, but they have no problem doing it economically.
It is what is wrong with the Republican Piss Down Theory. This guy is literally sitting on his money.It isn't really doing him as good as it should. If he was actually investing in that property I could see it but he isn't.
The problem with your line of thinking is that if someone invests huge sums of money, time, and life, and makes a profit, they're evil and they should give that profit away, but if they take a loss, then well that's just their own fault for not being a better businessman.
In NYC that location? he could be doing 50-100% more income on that property.
I bet you could do 50-100% more on your own income. How many jobs do you have? Don't have your doctorate yet? That's what's wrong with personal liberty. Not everyone works up to their full potential.
See how ridiculous it sounds when you try to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own money and their own life? Get your own life, and don't judge the actions of other people based on 5 sentences you read in a slashdot summary.
But the meme in the U.S. right now is that all the little guys don't do anything and basically don't even deserve enough money to live.
_The_ meme. Interesting take on a country that just re-elected the most income-distributing president of all time. We know he didn't win on his economic record. He won on the same kind of class warfare talk that you're giving right now.
right now as a country we seem to be believing the grunts aren't responsible for the success of these groups at all. At least that is what the CEOs are, as a class, believing. As a result many are saying that these people don't even believe a decent wage or deserve to share in the success of the companies they work for.
How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.
Also, how much more should a person with a degree make than this base "living wage." I mean a real degree which enables someone to produce something of value. I'm talking about engineering, or science, or something medical (and there are plenty of others), not philosophy or communications or something that qualifies you to be a barista.
And there are plenty of people... people that hang on every word of the CEOs like they're super human, that are willing to believe it. Slashdot seems to get more of the CEO worshipers every day and are happy with the idea that corporations should be able to screw over anyone they choose as long as there is a "benefit to the shareholders."
Like the people here who worship Steve Jobs? I don't get CEO worship either, but I bet if you polled nationally, you'd find that most people _don't_ worship large corporation CEOs either. That said, I don't know what these people (most of them) do that commands the kind of money they make. No doubt many of them are _way_ overpaid, but I also bet you and I both have a lot to learn about what makes a large corporation tick.
And this article highlights another one... it's fine for a building to sit empty as long as some corporate entity is making money.
Who should be the one making it not-fine? Maybe you don't like it, but are you suggesting that there should be law that if you own a building that you should have to bring it up to modern code and rent out space? Do you have any idea what the condition of that particular building is? (I don't). Should there then be law about how much he should rent the space out for? What's your master plan for this? Don't just spout off about how evil it is that he makes a profit. Tell us what he should do, and tell us what you think the role of government is in this situation, especially with respect to private property rights.
The US has about 3 times the number of houses available then there are homeless people and many of those houses were obtained by the banks by nefarious means... but since a corporation benefits no one does anything.
Think so? I'm going to call for citation on that one. Again, what's your end-game proposal here? Should the government force the banks to let homeless people live in bank-owned houses? What's the government's role in this?
I can tell you care deeply about the homeless. How many have you taken into your home to live with you? Should the government force you to take in homeless? So I guess it's fine for a room in your home to sit empty (or "spare") while
Slashdot Mirror
Because privacy is a basic human right, unless it's records about others.
I can't point to law, and I'm not sure it's exactly a law with a USC number (it could be derived from a few different laws or simply policies regarding handling of classified information), but anyone who has ever had a clearance _and_ worked in a secure facility can tell you that. If you plug a thumb drive into a secure computer, that thumb drive can't leave the lab. If you connect a laptop to a secure network, that laptop can't leave the lab. Further, neither could be then connected to an unsecured network.
The best way to resize windows in xfce is to hold down alt, and then with the right-mouse-button, click in the window and drag.
This feature makes me not miss the window border and drag handle, but if you want borders, you can use a different window manager theme.
I'd expect the same. Their nominee already said she "[doesn't] know how it works digitally at all."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
Yes, all of this. It could not be more true. I try to live the same way. Thank you for posting.
And that is because of a law other than the first amendment.
Previous poster wasn't specific about what kernel configuration was used to build it quickly. Make allnoconfig is a fast build, of course. Further, the kernel is C which compiles fast. C++ with lots of templates (and/or use of the STL), is a completely different story.
The change in propellants is completely transparent to the puffers efficacy.
As an asthmatic user of albuterol inhalers, I assure you that the old (CFC) ones were much better.
How does this help the children? That's what RPi is all about, right?
If you think that the "women, minorities, veterans preference" means anything at all in the real world, please give some examples. Good luck.
You've obviously never worked on US Government contracts. Have a look at the 8(a) business development program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8(a)_Business_Development_Program#8.28a.29_Business_Development_Program
Whatever you think you may have read, 8(a) is HUGE in the government services business. Many contracts are 8(a) set-aside, meaning only 8(a) companies can bid on them. Companies who acutally do the work often will "shop around for a prime" contractor, meaning they will look for an 8(a) company to take the prime contractor position (who they will then sub to) on a job they can execute. The 8(a) prime gets a percentage for management.
Once you get your 8(a) status, you keep it for ten years.
If you're an Alaskan Native-owned company, you're in even better shape.
So I can't say for sure about women and veterans, but for minorities, there is _huge_ advantage in the government services sector.
"And then a zealous believer named Paul turned the story into an organized religion based on guilt."
Paul taught that the Gospel brings _freedom_ from guilt. He even called himself the chief of sinners.
Have a read of Romans chapter 8 for a better idea of what the Gospel really means.
Reading it again, it's clear to me now that I misunderstood what you meant by "personal in-seat experience."
My apologies.
Nope, my experience with Delta has to do with personal in-seat experience.
I'm pretty sure in-seat experience is different than _SAFETY_. You said initailly:
and I don't feel unsafe except on a couple of carriers in the US. First, anything flown by Republic which is a contract carrier for US Airways and others and secondly, Delta.
Sorry your in-seat entertainment TV crashed, but that's no reason to say you feel unsafe on an airline. Seems like someone who flies "100 to 150 times a year" would know the difference.
Because the industrial and economic policies of their governments are shifting them into increasingly valueless industries.
It's easy to throw stones and walk away. It's harder to propose solutions. What do you propose?
On an objective scale yes. But most of us here in America think that America's scale is complete, instead of starting in the middle and going right.
Says who? We have two parties who refuse to do anything but increase the size of government. I say we start in the middle and go left.
Who gets to define what "the middle" is anyway? In my experience, there's a basic human tendency to try to find equal and opposite in everything. For some it makes them feel like they're above (ie: superior to) the fray. Just read the comments here. The theme of "it's the same on both sides" is pervasive. Someone above suggests that Fox News and MSNBC are the same but opposite. Think objectively for a second. Can that possibly be true? Equal? Or is it more reasonable to think that one of them (whichever one) is _more_ biased than the other. It almost _has_ to be that way.
Fox news supporters say "right of the left is not the same thing as right of center." It's tautology. You can't dispute it. Everyone thinks they're in the middle and balanced and everyone else is nuts.
It's easier to hate everyone (in this case both sides) because if you don't support anything, you never have to defend anything; you can just throw rocks.
By the way, I'm a right-wing nutjob. I can admit it.
Yes, much of it is inflation, but we didn't go from inflation to deflation then back to inflation again right as the Bush tax cuts were passed.
Like you, I would like to see that graph normalized for inflation. You're right that it's not comparing the right kinds of terms, but I disagree that it means nothing. Revenue was coming down, then tax cuts, then it went up.
As far as inflation goes, the way we measure it now is a joke. If oil, food, and housing don't count, I'm not sure what the point of the quantity even is. Of course that's a different debate for a different day.
The first result from DuckDuckGo for me was this from Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Interesting that it's giving us different results. I've never used DDG before on this computer.
Do you have any economic papers or non mass media sources that back up your analysis?
Unfortunately not anymore. I looked this stuff up several years ago, getting federal revenue and tax rates from different sources. "Original research" I suppose. I don't remember which sites those were at exactly. It took me about half an hour, iirc.
Sorry I can't give you any better than that.
The Forbes link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
has a very clear graph, showing the slope changing significantly (from negative to positive) when Bush changed the rate of the top bracket.
The first result I got was this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
It has a pretty clear graph.
If the first two results for you were those two (particularly the first one, obamaftw.com, seems like it's going to be a bit partisan), I might questioning the biases of your search engine.
Of course search engines are smart, maybe each engine is giving each of us what it thinks we'll personally like :)
We blew the largest part of our budget surplus on the Bush Tax Cuts,
Revenue went up the year after the Bush tax cuts. Same for Reagan's tax cuts. People can debate why, and they can debate whether receipts would have been even higher without the tax cuts, but the idea that we "blew" or "spent" the surplus on tax cuts is simply false.
Google for "Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue," or look at the tables yourself. I've done both.
... the best forecasting system for predicting Sandy was not American, rather it was the model of the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) in Reading, England.
Yeah, every model has a different track, and some hurricanes follow one model and other hurricanes follow other models. Hurricanes are unpredictable. Just because this one lined up with a particular forecast doesn't mean that forecast is better in all (or necessarily any other) cases. It's like this for every single hurricane.
I know it's popular on here (and on the internet and media in general) to say that American stuff sucks and that Europe is better, but there isn't anyone pointing out the times when NOAA has the more accurate forecasts. It simply wouldn't be news that people would want to read.
If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.
The problem I have is that when times are good, governments spend the excess on crap, and then when it comes time to make cuts, they whine about how they'll have to cut essential services. We see it all the time with local governments as property taxes fluctuate. When revenues are down they say they have to cut police and fire departments and teachers, but there's never any talk about cutting what was _added_ during the fat years. We always had teachers and police and fire departments during the previous lean years, so what's the problem with going back to how it was?
We're seeing the same thing on the federal level, the difference being that there haven't been good times (ie: surplus) in over a decade. Replace "good times" with "when we're borrowing even more from China."
We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that? I think that's what the GP is getting at.
The building is not only paid for in full but he could literally spend $50 million redoing the interior(the next ~two years of income) and then rent out the space for another 5-10 million a year.
Should we make that law then? As soon as your building is paid for, you shall renovate it and rent it out? What if that's one of many other buildings he owns, the rest of which _lose_ money. What then?
Liberals talk about how horrible it is to judge the social morality of others, but they have no problem doing it economically.
It is what is wrong with the Republican Piss Down Theory. This guy is literally sitting on his money.It isn't really doing him as good as it should. If he was actually investing in that property I could see it but he isn't.
The problem with your line of thinking is that if someone invests huge sums of money, time, and life, and makes a profit, they're evil and they should give that profit away, but if they take a loss, then well that's just their own fault for not being a better businessman.
In NYC that location? he could be doing 50-100% more income on that property.
I bet you could do 50-100% more on your own income. How many jobs do you have? Don't have your doctorate yet? That's what's wrong with personal liberty. Not everyone works up to their full potential.
See how ridiculous it sounds when you try to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own money and their own life? Get your own life, and don't judge the actions of other people based on 5 sentences you read in a slashdot summary.
But the meme in the U.S. right now is that all the little guys don't do anything and basically don't even deserve enough money to live.
_The_ meme. Interesting take on a country that just re-elected the most income-distributing president of all time. We know he didn't win on his economic record. He won on the same kind of class warfare talk that you're giving right now.
right now as a country we seem to be believing the grunts aren't responsible for the success of these groups at all. At least that is what the CEOs are, as a class, believing. As a result many are saying that these people don't even believe a decent wage or deserve to share in the success of the companies they work for.
How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.
Also, how much more should a person with a degree make than this base "living wage." I mean a real degree which enables someone to produce something of value. I'm talking about engineering, or science, or something medical (and there are plenty of others), not philosophy or communications or something that qualifies you to be a barista.
And there are plenty of people... people that hang on every word of the CEOs like they're super human, that are willing to believe it. Slashdot seems to get more of the CEO worshipers every day and are happy with the idea that corporations should be able to screw over anyone they choose as long as there is a "benefit to the shareholders."
Like the people here who worship Steve Jobs? I don't get CEO worship either, but I bet if you polled nationally, you'd find that most people _don't_ worship large corporation CEOs either. That said, I don't know what these people (most of them) do that commands the kind of money they make. No doubt many of them are _way_ overpaid, but I also bet you and I both have a lot to learn about what makes a large corporation tick.
And this article highlights another one... it's fine for a building to sit empty as long as some corporate entity is making money.
Who should be the one making it not-fine? Maybe you don't like it, but are you suggesting that there should be law that if you own a building that you should have to bring it up to modern code and rent out space? Do you have any idea what the condition of that particular building is? (I don't). Should there then be law about how much he should rent the space out for? What's your master plan for this? Don't just spout off about how evil it is that he makes a profit. Tell us what he should do, and tell us what you think the role of government is in this situation, especially with respect to private property rights.
The US has about 3 times the number of houses available then there are homeless people and many of those houses were obtained by the banks by nefarious means... but since a corporation benefits no one does anything.
Think so? I'm going to call for citation on that one. Again, what's your end-game proposal here? Should the government force the banks to let homeless people live in bank-owned houses? What's the government's role in this?
I can tell you care deeply about the homeless. How many have you taken into your home to live with you? Should the government force you to take in homeless? So I guess it's fine for a room in your home to sit empty (or "spare") while
I agree. We're all far to sensitive to being data mined. Sometimes companies use the information to actually help us.