I admire your utopian idea that there can be some magical transformation of our economy and/or systems of government.
Consider however all of the productivity gains in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many similarly utopian thinkers have dreamed of a world where workers were so productive that the bulk of humanity could be relieved of grueling labor-intensive work. The naive idea being that there would be such abundance that people could work short hours to meet their needs and have ample leisure time. Thousands can now do the work that formerly required millions, so why are people working longer and harder than ever while still seeing their standard of living declining? With all of that productivity gain, why do we still have huge numbers of hungry and homeless people?
There are so many watch lists with such ridiculous and arbitrary criteria that it's impossible to tell which ones or how many you are on. Trying to board an airplane would tell you if you are on the "No Fly" list of course. If you're allowed to board but often get singled out for extra scrutiny, you might be on the terrorism watch list. When you try to buy a gun, you'll find out if you're on a list of "prohibited persons", but that's not exactly a "watch list". Usually that check happens in a few minutes, but the feds can impose a 72 hour delay. They will claim it's due to high volume or that your personal info is similar to that of some prohibited person, but getting singled out makes me very suspicious that I'm on some list which causes them to subject me to extra scrutiny. Thanks to the government's network of "fusion centers", any state, local and federal authorities can file a "suspicious activity" report about you, even if you've committed no crime (never give them your ID unless you are required by law to do so). Ever heard those PSAs "If you see something, say something."? That 1-800 # (rat-on-your-neighbors hotline) probably gets you on the same list.
I'd say that if you've ever engaged in any sort of political activism, especially libertarian causes, but also environmentalism, pacifism, drug legalization or digital privacy, you're probably on a list. If you visit a mosque or have an Arab-sounding name, assume you're on a list. Basically, there's no other logical course of action than to assume you're on a list and that all of your actions and communications are being constantly monitored.
Good point, but with normal race and sports betting, they dictate the odds. The sports bookies have got this down to enough of a science so that the odds are almost always in their favor. i.e. no matter how much of an expert you are, it's impossible to win consistently betting on sports or horse racing because you have to take the odds they offer. Just like Vegas, the longer and more often you play, the more the probability favors the house. e.g. you can actually place a bet on the opening coin toss in the super bowl, but the bet will pay out 90 cents on the dollar or something and the bookie will take equal "action" on both sides. Therefore, they win regardless of the result. Is fantasy sports stacked against the players like this? I wasn't really following this story, but now I'm getting interested in the question of how you differentiate a game of skill from a game that's gambling.
"Is it lack of skill or chance when the RB in your lineup tears his ACL on a play in the 1st quarter? Is it chance or lack of skill that the QB you chose had to leave the game with a concussion?"
I see your point. There's definitely an element of chance involved. Still, operating as the coach or GM of a team is a skilled position and they face the same sort of risks when making their personnel decisions.
I don't fully understand how fantasy sports work, but I'm skeptical of your claim that a team chosen by random chance would be competitive. Aren't fantasy teams basically "all star" teams? A fan committed enough to play fantasy sports can differentiate the star players from the average players from the bottom tier players. If you chose randomly, you'd get a sprinkling of average and below-average players that would undermine your team. Maybe if you considered only the top, say 1/3 of all players stats-wise and chose a random team from that limited pool? Sounds like an interesting experiment to me.
Exactly. The government throws so-called "mafia" figures in jail for running numbers games, then they move in and take over the businesses for their own personal gain. Lotteries are nothing other than the traditional "numbers rackets" (with far worse odds!)
Well said. There's definitely a subtle alteration of perspective going on when you put a monetary loss into the equation. I think you've nailed it by suggesting that wagering diminishes the "wishful thinking" influence on a belief.
There are plenty of problems with the derivatives that were being cooked up in the early '2000's.
A "Credit Default Swap(CDS)" was basically a fraud perpetrated by companies like AIG. It was a way of selling "insurance" without calling it "insurance" and thus evading the capital requirements for traditional insurance policies. You bought bonds from XYZ Inc and want "insurance"(a CDS) in case they don't pay you back. AIG is happy to oblige, even though AIG doesn't have sufficient funds to cover your loss. That's a problem. Even worse was what they called a "Naked" CDS, which is the same as taking out an insurance contract on your neighbor's house. Firm 'A' loans money to Firm 'B'. Firm 'A' buys a CDS from AIG to "insure" the loan. Then, some other company sells a "naked CDS" to firm 'C'. Thus, firm 'C' is placing a pure bet on the inability of one firm to pay back the other, even though firm 'C' is not party to the original loan. THAT is a big problem! Mortgage backed securities were also a huge problem because risk was misrepresented and half the time the assets hadn't been officially put in trust before the things were sold. WTSHTF in the mortgage market, there were cases where they literally did not know which mortgages went with which trust.
I'd qualify your statement by saying "there's nothing wrong with derivatives" provided they are marked to market on a regular basis and every firm is required to hold capital reserves to cover all of their bets.
In Vegas, yes, because the odds always favor the house. In the real world, the odds might be in your favor. You read a paper describing an experiment and the results. It's up to you to determine if it makes sense and if you think the results can be replicated. Asking yourself "Would you bet money on it?" just puts it in a different perspective. In our culture, bringing money into the equation puts a new twist on things. I think that asking that question is simply analyzing another dimension of your thoughts.
I think capitalism is ruined by the fact that whenever we perceive a problem, the instantaneous reaction is always:
"Government needs to regulate..." or "We need to pass a law..."
We should consider passing laws and regulations or imposing mandates only as an absolute last resort when every other solution has failed. Gee, my heart bleeds for people who have to pay an extra few bucks or go through a clumsy interface to get their full dose of mind-numbing entertainment. Has our society really devolved to the point where we need Big Brother to get involved in THIS? Laws funded by confiscation of wealth and enforced at gunpoint so that it's easier and cheaper for people to access cable TV??? WTF?
Yes, because the "remedies" are nothing but an excuse for another massive government power grab. Just like the "remedies" necessary to protect us from the evil terrorists. The remedies to assuage the fear about global warming, *cough* "climate change" will be more of the same. When someone proposes a "remedy" to global warming *cough* "climate change" that doesn't involve another massive government bureaucracy, I'll be more concerned.
The difference is that celestial mechanics is an exact science (when everything is taken into account).
Climate models are speculative bullshit that have consistently failed in their predictions.
Given the fact that the government cure to your headache would be to wrap a tourniquet around your head, doing nothing is an entirely rational response.
Just curious. How do you burn through 300 GB in a week? I think an hour of Netflix programming ~= 1GB, so 24x7 use of Netflix would be about 100 GB in a week. What's a bigger bandwidth hog than that?
From the perspective of a DM, I don't think those definitions are workable. What's the point of "Alignment" if it can change on a day to day basis? Alignment should absolutely constrain the thoughts and actions of your character. That doesn't necessarily mean a straightjacket, merely a way the character would be inclined to behave. This is especially true if you're playing an ad-hoc game where the DM created the characters(remember game tournaments?). With a character you've never played before, or maybe played 2-3 times you need some sort of moral and behavioral guidance. Perhaps the narrative is set up so that the characters in the party don't even know each other? The plot could be that they joined up as a matter of circumstance? In that case, they must necessarily treat others in the party with the same sort of suspicion they would treat an NPC. Maybe the DM intended on conflicts within the party as an integral part of the game dynamic? In the author's example, I can totally imagine a Lawful Good character intervening when the Chaotic Evil guy was torturing the innkeeper. In fact, if I was DM, I'd be annoyed if such tension didn't arise. Certain characters, even say a "True Neutral", might nevertheless seize the opportunity to manipulate other characters in the party for selfish reasons while a lawful good probably wouldn't. Maybe trying to swindle others out of their share of the treasure by trickery? I think 'Alignment' has a very useful purpose in the game. Yes, the goal is totally fun, but for me as DM, a large part of the fun is the role playing aspect and having players who consider their characters' attributes accordingly. A D&D adventure that devolves to the intellectual level of a FPS where your goal is to "beat the game" through an endless series of violent encounters would be hideously boring. That being said, I do think a "fun" game should turn out sort of like PG-13 movies where the most of the good guys survive and the quest is at least partially completed.
In certain states, you can surreptitiously record a conversation. In others, all parties must consent to being recorded. Police have tried to argue that "two party consent" laws apply in situations where police are interacting with citizens, but it hasn't held up in courts. There have also been 100s of recorded incidents where police have wrongly harassed and attacked people merely for trying to film them. They will claim that filming, even from a distance, constitutes "interference" in their activities, but that's BS too. AFAIK, both state and federal courts have ruled that citizens have every right to record audio and video of LEOs in action. Check out "Cop Block" and "Filming Cops" for videos and information on filming police.
If you know of a case where someone has actually been charged with a crime for filming/recording, definitely let them know.
"they have a reputation for perpetuating gratuitous physical violence"
Yeah, 50 years ago. Nowadays they are a pathetic joke. Anonymous stays anonymous because they don't want to admit to stealing the data, not because they're afraid of the KKK. Also, the prison gang you're talking about is "The Aryan Brotherhood" and it's like any other criminal gang. They don't give two shits about your political opinions. It was formed purely as a survival mechanism for white guys in prison. You don't want to be a lone white dude in a prison full of Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafiosos, MS-13ers or whatever.
I challenge your understanding of the whole concept. The idea of "freedom of speech" transcends The First Amendment. Yes, The Constitution is specific in that it denies government the power to pass laws infringing upon free speech, but it doesn't end there. It may be "legal" for private organizations and individuals to suppress speech that they don't like, but those efforts ARE infringing on "freedom of speech". You admit in your last sentence that this is exactly what's happening here. When you have to live in fear of repercussions, violent or otherwise, for expressing your opinions, you don't have "freedom of speech". It doesn't matter if the repercussions are a result of government policy or the efforts of private parties. The accusation is entirely appropriate. Our society is f***ed up for allowing the persecution of people who say unpopular things. It's also incredibly hypocritical because so many people (particularly academics) claim to support freedom of expression in principle, but do everything possible to stifle ideas that they don't like.
I don't give a damn about global warming *cough* "Climate Change!" First, because the models have made so many incorrect predictions that they're worthless, and second because all of the so-called "solutions" involve granting more power to governments in one way or another. To hell with that.
The phrase "think global, act local" is very appropriate for getting a start on the plastic pollution issue. The problem is already enormous. It becomes mind boggling when considering the amount of crap that's continually being added and the fact that the quantity is trending sharply upward. Cutting off the flow is the only way to get a handle on it.
Plenty of smug, self-righteous environmentalists around but I don't see a lot of them out there picking up garbage on a regular basis. Why? Because as you said, it takes actual work, not to mention getting your hands dirty.
"all citizens would be paid a taxless benefit sum free of charge by the government."
"Free of charge" and "taxless" after the government has confiscated the wealth of working people (aka "taxes") to pay for this "free" benefit? Will people never understand that governments have no money to "pay" for anything and no wealth with which to provide benefits "free of charge"?
That might not be the full value. Note that this was a fine imposed for violations of the "Health and Safety Work Act". Maybe the UK is different, but in the USA, you could be certain that a civil lawsuit was in the works.
I tend to doubt that the terms of the job stated that there would be bare wires running through the data center. Nobody hired to work as a maintenance person would reasonably expect that such a hazard existed. The idea that he was completely aware of these risks and took the job anyway is speculative nonsense.
Furthermore, if you RTFS, this was a FINE imposed on the company, not the result of a lawsuit by the deceased's family. I'm sure that the UK has workplace safety regulations which prohibit exposed high voltage wires, reenforcing the idea that a worker would not anticipate finding one.
SEC. 106. Protection from liability. (b) Sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators.â"No cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any court against any entity, and such action shall be promptly dismissed, for the sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators or defensive measures under section 104(c) ifâ"...
In other words, whatever privacy arrangements you've established with 3rd parties are hereby null and void.
Later in the bill they do include verbiage about how the legislation does not affect such agreements, but given the above provision, that's absurd. When there are no consequences or remedies for breaking the terms of a contract, the contract is worthless because neither party need abide by the terms. The government is now asserting that any information you might share with a third party can be handed over to government and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. No privacy agreement can protect you and you have no legal recourse whatsoever when a company hands over your data.
"both the F-22 and F-35 programs were awarded based off of non-representative demonstrators, and the actual production examples were then developed from scratch after the contracts were awarded "
Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were both given $750m contracts for prototype development. This resulted in the Lockheed Martin X-35 and Boeing X-32. After evaluating the performance of the prototypes it was determined that both planes met the design specifications. Those aren't "non representative demonstrators". They actually built functioning aircraft that met the specs. After the planes were evaluated, the Lockheed Martin design was deemed superior, and they were awarded the contract. The F-35 is based on the X-35 prototype. I see no evidence to suggest that Lockheed Martin started from scratch after their prototype won them the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
I admire your utopian idea that there can be some magical transformation of our economy and/or systems of government.
Consider however all of the productivity gains in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many similarly utopian thinkers have dreamed of a world where workers were so productive that the bulk of humanity could be relieved of grueling labor-intensive work. The naive idea being that there would be such abundance that people could work short hours to meet their needs and have ample leisure time. Thousands can now do the work that formerly required millions, so why are people working longer and harder than ever while still seeing their standard of living declining? With all of that productivity gain, why do we still have huge numbers of hungry and homeless people?
There are so many watch lists with such ridiculous and arbitrary criteria that it's impossible to tell which ones or how many you are on.
Trying to board an airplane would tell you if you are on the "No Fly" list of course. If you're allowed to board but often get singled out for extra scrutiny, you might be on the terrorism watch list.
When you try to buy a gun, you'll find out if you're on a list of "prohibited persons", but that's not exactly a "watch list". Usually that check happens in a few minutes, but the feds can impose a 72 hour delay. They will claim it's due to high volume or that your personal info is similar to that of some prohibited person, but getting singled out makes me very suspicious that I'm on some list which causes them to subject me to extra scrutiny.
Thanks to the government's network of "fusion centers", any state, local and federal authorities can file a "suspicious activity" report about you, even if you've committed no crime (never give them your ID unless you are required by law to do so). Ever heard those PSAs "If you see something, say something."? That 1-800 # (rat-on-your-neighbors hotline) probably gets you on the same list.
I'd say that if you've ever engaged in any sort of political activism, especially libertarian causes, but also environmentalism, pacifism, drug legalization or digital privacy, you're probably on a list. If you visit a mosque or have an Arab-sounding name, assume you're on a list. Basically, there's no other logical course of action than to assume you're on a list and that all of your actions and communications are being constantly monitored.
Good point, but with normal race and sports betting, they dictate the odds. The sports bookies have got this down to enough of a science so that the odds are almost always in their favor. i.e. no matter how much of an expert you are, it's impossible to win consistently betting on sports or horse racing because you have to take the odds they offer. Just like Vegas, the longer and more often you play, the more the probability favors the house.
e.g. you can actually place a bet on the opening coin toss in the super bowl, but the bet will pay out 90 cents on the dollar or something and the bookie will take equal "action" on both sides. Therefore, they win regardless of the result.
Is fantasy sports stacked against the players like this?
I wasn't really following this story, but now I'm getting interested in the question of how you differentiate a game of skill from a game that's gambling.
"Is it lack of skill or chance when the RB in your lineup tears his ACL on a play in the 1st quarter? Is it chance or lack of skill that the QB you chose had to leave the game with a concussion?"
I see your point. There's definitely an element of chance involved. Still, operating as the coach or GM of a team is a skilled position and they face the same sort of risks when making their personnel decisions.
I don't fully understand how fantasy sports work, but I'm skeptical of your claim that a team chosen by random chance would be competitive. Aren't fantasy teams basically "all star" teams? A fan committed enough to play fantasy sports can differentiate the star players from the average players from the bottom tier players. If you chose randomly, you'd get a sprinkling of average and below-average players that would undermine your team. Maybe if you considered only the top, say 1/3 of all players stats-wise and chose a random team from that limited pool? Sounds like an interesting experiment to me.
Exactly. The government throws so-called "mafia" figures in jail for running numbers games, then they move in and take over the businesses for their own personal gain. Lotteries are nothing other than the traditional "numbers rackets" (with far worse odds!)
Well said. There's definitely a subtle alteration of perspective going on when you put a monetary loss into the equation. I think you've nailed it by suggesting that wagering diminishes the "wishful thinking" influence on a belief.
"there is nothing wrong with derivatives."
There are plenty of problems with the derivatives that were being cooked up in the early '2000's.
A "Credit Default Swap(CDS)" was basically a fraud perpetrated by companies like AIG. It was a way of selling "insurance" without calling it "insurance" and thus evading the capital requirements for traditional insurance policies. You bought bonds from XYZ Inc and want "insurance"(a CDS) in case they don't pay you back. AIG is happy to oblige, even though AIG doesn't have sufficient funds to cover your loss. That's a problem.
Even worse was what they called a "Naked" CDS, which is the same as taking out an insurance contract on your neighbor's house. Firm 'A' loans money to Firm 'B'. Firm 'A' buys a CDS from AIG to "insure" the loan. Then, some other company sells a "naked CDS" to firm 'C'. Thus, firm 'C' is placing a pure bet on the inability of one firm to pay back the other, even though firm 'C' is not party to the original loan. THAT is a big problem!
Mortgage backed securities were also a huge problem because risk was misrepresented and half the time the assets hadn't been officially put in trust before the things were sold. WTSHTF in the mortgage market, there were cases where they literally did not know which mortgages went with which trust.
I'd qualify your statement by saying "there's nothing wrong with derivatives" provided they are marked to market on a regular basis and every firm is required to hold capital reserves to cover all of their bets.
"Gambling is a losers game."
In Vegas, yes, because the odds always favor the house. In the real world, the odds might be in your favor. You read a paper describing an experiment and the results. It's up to you to determine if it makes sense and if you think the results can be replicated. Asking yourself "Would you bet money on it?" just puts it in a different perspective. In our culture, bringing money into the equation puts a new twist on things. I think that asking that question is simply analyzing another dimension of your thoughts.
"Would I bet money on it and with what odds?"
I think capitalism is ruined by the fact that whenever we perceive a problem, the instantaneous reaction is always:
"Government needs to regulate ..." or "We need to pass a law..."
We should consider passing laws and regulations or imposing mandates only as an absolute last resort when every other solution has failed.
Gee, my heart bleeds for people who have to pay an extra few bucks or go through a clumsy interface to get their full dose of mind-numbing entertainment. Has our society really devolved to the point where we need Big Brother to get involved in THIS? Laws funded by confiscation of wealth and enforced at gunpoint so that it's easier and cheaper for people to access cable TV??? WTF?
"we should do 0% of whatever proposed remedies."
Yes, because the "remedies" are nothing but an excuse for another massive government power grab. Just like the "remedies" necessary to protect us from the evil terrorists. The remedies to assuage the fear about global warming, *cough* "climate change" will be more of the same.
When someone proposes a "remedy" to global warming *cough* "climate change" that doesn't involve another massive government bureaucracy, I'll be more concerned.
Well, IIRC, those old magic books DO predict a future catastrophe, probably somewhere in the Middle East.
Isaiah 13:9 "Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it."
The difference is that celestial mechanics is an exact science (when everything is taken into account).
Climate models are speculative bullshit that have consistently failed in their predictions.
Given the fact that the government cure to your headache would be to wrap a tourniquet around your head, doing nothing is an entirely rational response.
Just curious. How do you burn through 300 GB in a week? I think an hour of Netflix programming ~= 1GB, so 24x7 use of Netflix would be about 100 GB in a week. What's a bigger bandwidth hog than that?
From the perspective of a DM, I don't think those definitions are workable. What's the point of "Alignment" if it can change on a day to day basis? Alignment should absolutely constrain the thoughts and actions of your character. That doesn't necessarily mean a straightjacket, merely a way the character would be inclined to behave. This is especially true if you're playing an ad-hoc game where the DM created the characters(remember game tournaments?). With a character you've never played before, or maybe played 2-3 times you need some sort of moral and behavioral guidance. Perhaps the narrative is set up so that the characters in the party don't even know each other? The plot could be that they joined up as a matter of circumstance? In that case, they must necessarily treat others in the party with the same sort of suspicion they would treat an NPC. Maybe the DM intended on conflicts within the party as an integral part of the game dynamic? In the author's example, I can totally imagine a Lawful Good character intervening when the Chaotic Evil guy was torturing the innkeeper. In fact, if I was DM, I'd be annoyed if such tension didn't arise. Certain characters, even say a "True Neutral", might nevertheless seize the opportunity to manipulate other characters in the party for selfish reasons while a lawful good probably wouldn't. Maybe trying to swindle others out of their share of the treasure by trickery? I think 'Alignment' has a very useful purpose in the game. Yes, the goal is totally fun, but for me as DM, a large part of the fun is the role playing aspect and having players who consider their characters' attributes accordingly. A D&D adventure that devolves to the intellectual level of a FPS where your goal is to "beat the game" through an endless series of violent encounters would be hideously boring.
That being said, I do think a "fun" game should turn out sort of like PG-13 movies where the most of the good guys survive and the quest is at least partially completed.
In certain states, you can surreptitiously record a conversation. In others, all parties must consent to being recorded. Police have tried to argue that "two party consent" laws apply in situations where police are interacting with citizens, but it hasn't held up in courts. There have also been 100s of recorded incidents where police have wrongly harassed and attacked people merely for trying to film them. They will claim that filming, even from a distance, constitutes "interference" in their activities, but that's BS too. AFAIK, both state and federal courts have ruled that citizens have every right to record audio and video of LEOs in action.
Check out "Cop Block" and "Filming Cops" for videos and information on filming police.
If you know of a case where someone has actually been charged with a crime for filming/recording, definitely let them know.
If you don't understand that I was responding only to the quoted passage at the beginning of my comment your English skills are woefully deficient.
"they have a reputation for perpetuating gratuitous physical violence"
Yeah, 50 years ago. Nowadays they are a pathetic joke. Anonymous stays anonymous because they don't want to admit to stealing the data, not because they're afraid of the KKK.
Also, the prison gang you're talking about is "The Aryan Brotherhood" and it's like any other criminal gang. They don't give two shits about your political opinions. It was formed purely as a survival mechanism for white guys in prison. You don't want to be a lone white dude in a prison full of Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafiosos, MS-13ers or whatever.
I challenge your understanding of the whole concept. The idea of "freedom of speech" transcends The First Amendment. Yes, The Constitution is specific in that it denies government the power to pass laws infringing upon free speech, but it doesn't end there. It may be "legal" for private organizations and individuals to suppress speech that they don't like, but those efforts ARE infringing on "freedom of speech". You admit in your last sentence that this is exactly what's happening here. When you have to live in fear of repercussions, violent or otherwise, for expressing your opinions, you don't have "freedom of speech". It doesn't matter if the repercussions are a result of government policy or the efforts of private parties. The accusation is entirely appropriate. Our society is f***ed up for allowing the persecution of people who say unpopular things. It's also incredibly hypocritical because so many people (particularly academics) claim to support freedom of expression in principle, but do everything possible to stifle ideas that they don't like.
Yes! A person after my own heart!
I don't give a damn about global warming *cough* "Climate Change!" First, because the models have made so many incorrect predictions that they're worthless, and second because all of the so-called "solutions" involve granting more power to governments in one way or another. To hell with that.
The phrase "think global, act local" is very appropriate for getting a start on the plastic pollution issue. The problem is already enormous. It becomes mind boggling when considering the amount of crap that's continually being added and the fact that the quantity is trending sharply upward. Cutting off the flow is the only way to get a handle on it.
Plenty of smug, self-righteous environmentalists around but I don't see a lot of them out there picking up garbage on a regular basis. Why? Because as you said, it takes actual work, not to mention getting your hands dirty.
"all citizens would be paid a taxless benefit sum free of charge by the government."
"Free of charge" and "taxless" after the government has confiscated the wealth of working people (aka "taxes") to pay for this "free" benefit?
Will people never understand that governments have no money to "pay" for anything and no wealth with which to provide benefits "free of charge"?
That might not be the full value. Note that this was a fine imposed for violations of the "Health and Safety Work Act". Maybe the UK is different, but in the USA, you could be certain that a civil lawsuit was in the works.
Trolling?
I tend to doubt that the terms of the job stated that there would be bare wires running through the data center. Nobody hired to work as a maintenance person would reasonably expect that such a hazard existed. The idea that he was completely aware of these risks and took the job anyway is speculative nonsense.
Furthermore, if you RTFS, this was a FINE imposed on the company, not the result of a lawsuit by the deceased's family. I'm sure that the UK has workplace safety regulations which prohibit exposed high voltage wires, reenforcing the idea that a worker would not anticipate finding one.
SEC. 106. Protection from liability. ...
(b) Sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators.â"No cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any court against any entity, and such action shall be promptly dismissed, for the sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators or defensive measures under section 104(c) ifâ"
In other words, whatever privacy arrangements you've established with 3rd parties are hereby null and void.
Later in the bill they do include verbiage about how the legislation does not affect such agreements, but given the above provision, that's absurd. When there are no consequences or remedies for breaking the terms of a contract, the contract is worthless because neither party need abide by the terms. The government is now asserting that any information you might share with a third party can be handed over to government and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. No privacy agreement can protect you and you have no legal recourse whatsoever when a company hands over your data.
"both the F-22 and F-35 programs were awarded based off of non-representative demonstrators, and the actual production examples were then developed from scratch after the contracts were awarded "
Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were both given $750m contracts for prototype development. This resulted in the Lockheed Martin X-35 and Boeing X-32. After evaluating the performance of the prototypes it was determined that both planes met the design specifications. Those aren't "non representative demonstrators". They actually built functioning aircraft that met the specs. After the planes were evaluated, the Lockheed Martin design was deemed superior, and they were awarded the contract. The F-35 is based on the X-35 prototype. I see no evidence to suggest that Lockheed Martin started from scratch after their prototype won them the contract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...