More like 45% when you add it all up, and also include all the explicit and implicit taxes. Implicit taxes like monetary inflation and increased debt.
If government makes you do things -- accounting, for instance -- or build things -- ramps or light-bulb alternatives, for example -- no taxes are collected and the government itself doesn't spend the money. But it's still a cost when people are forced to do it. None of that's in that 45%.
People of an extremely suspicious nature have speculated that the charges are a frame-up, totally bogus, to allow that exact scenario to play out. Under a previous administration, FWIW.
Given the extremely dishonest nature of statements made by the CIA -- even to the Congress, in sworn testimony -- perhaps being extremely suspicious is reasonable.
Or rather, the people within the NSA who knew didn't have the authority (or willingness) to announce it, and the people within the NSA who had the authority (or willingness) to announce it didn't know.
It's possible one or both of those two sets of people -- the knowledgeable and the authorized-and-willing -- were not the null set.
My money would be on the NSA knowing and choosing not to reveal. Not that we'll ever know.
It's called "Teaching your garden to weed itself". Automatically filter out the bad prospects, leaving only the suckers.
Anybody who is gullible enough to believe that (or that a Nigerian petroleum minister would contact them via e-mail, etc.) will believe anything. No time wasted on trying to convince the mark it's for real.
That's just another good reason why the network -- the data center, the cables in the road etc. -- should be open to competition instead of a government-granted monopoly like water pipes and electricity.
The term "technical debt" would seem to be especially helpful in explaining the need to phase out those COBOL programs as quickly as prudently possible.
If anyone ought to get the aptness of the metaphor, it should be people in the financial sector. How debts not paid keep growing until disaster inevitably occurs. And if a firm has a disaster, it goes out of business.
At least, that's what I would have thought before 2008.
Estimating costs and takes time. Better estimates cost more and take more time.
If you want an extremely accurate estimate, build it and note how much money and time it took. This is not normally practical.
So, you stop short of going that far. How much short?
Nobody knows, and it varies from project to project.
If you want to know how much short, you could create a number of estimates, and noting how much money and time each took. And then build it, noting how much money and time it took, and compare that to your various estimates. Then use the estimate that has the optimal combination of accuracy, cost and time. This is not normally practical.
Don't know what version, but it was on a time-sharing (a sort of antediluvian version of "the cloud"), and at first, program storage was on paper tape.
I've worked for a couple of companies that grew pretty fast for many years in a row, and part of the transition from mom-and-pop shop where company meetings can take place in a conference room to one that makes meeelyons of dollars is to leave "cowboy mode" behind.
Yeah, that adds delays, and is occasionally frustrating. But it also means not ending up like Barings Bank.
Somebody's got to have complaints about this, plausible or imaginary or deliberate B.S. I'm not creative enough to think of what will come, but here's some possibilities to get you started.
Ultrasonic dryers will damage dogs' hearing.
Ultrasonic dryers will be annoying to dogs, and set off a wave of barking in the neighborhood.
Ultrasonic dryers will damage human hearing.
Ultrasonic dryers will be marginally-detectable by children and teens. They will flee the house when laundry chores are being done.
Ultrasonic dryers will cause autism.
Ultrasonic dryers will cause vaccination.
Ultrasonic dryers will be too expensive for the poor, leading to an "ultrasonic dry gap". Press conferences, marches, and legislation will result.
What matters is: can they reliably launch successfully and reach their target, whether launched from within North Korea or from a submarine which manages to get somewhat near the U.S.?
The available evidence suggests the answer is "no". Which means they're only useful for bluster (if not launched) or as a desperation move (if launched).
Eventually, things will likely get desperate, unless the end-game is like East Germany or Czechoslovakia, and it just kinda fizzles out.
That is not likely to happen in the immediate future, and maybe never will be a likely end, but it's a possibility worth preserving. (How, I don't know.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ned Ludd, call your attorney. People are stealing your act.
More like 45% when you add it all up, and also include all the explicit and implicit taxes. Implicit taxes like monetary inflation and increased debt.
If government makes you do things -- accounting, for instance -- or build things -- ramps or light-bulb alternatives, for example -- no taxes are collected and the government itself doesn't spend the money. But it's still a cost when people are forced to do it. None of that's in that 45%.
So that 45% estimate is low.
Amusing pair of Slashdot stories today.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
Amusing pair of Slashdot stories today.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
People of an extremely suspicious nature have speculated that the charges are a frame-up, totally bogus, to allow that exact scenario to play out. Under a previous administration, FWIW.
Given the extremely dishonest nature of statements made by the CIA -- even to the Congress, in sworn testimony -- perhaps being extremely suspicious is reasonable.
I'm pretty sure Trump wasn't president 7 years ago. Or 6 years ago. Or 5, 4, 3, or 2 years ago. Or 1 year ago.
Golly, I wonder if that whole "back channel" thing was under consideration before Jan 20, 2017?
YMMV.
If you give something an nice-sounding name, it doesn't matter how useless or even bad it is. You'll get people to support it.
Like this "net neutrality" thing, that is a "solution" in search of a problem.
Nobody likes temporary solutions, or an endless chain of partial solutions, of half-assed solutions, of interim fixes.
Give them a solution that is the last one. The final one.
Godwin!
Or rather, the people within the NSA who knew didn't have the authority (or willingness) to announce it, and the people within the NSA who had the authority (or willingness) to announce it didn't know.
It's possible one or both of those two sets of people -- the knowledgeable and the authorized-and-willing -- were not the null set.
My money would be on the NSA knowing and choosing not to reveal. Not that we'll ever know.
It's called "Teaching your garden to weed itself". Automatically filter out the bad prospects, leaving only the suckers.
Anybody who is gullible enough to believe that (or that a Nigerian petroleum minister would contact them via e-mail, etc.) will believe anything. No time wasted on trying to convince the mark it's for real.
Galileo will be as thrilled to learn of this as Adam Smith will be of a similar event for economists in half a millennium or so.
AltaVista Is As Close To a Natural Monopoly As the Bell System Was In 1956
FTFY.
That's just another good reason why the network -- the data center, the cables in the road etc. -- should be open to competition instead of a government-granted monopoly like water pipes and electricity.
FTFY.
I'm sorry, but Macron doesn't sound like the name of the head of state of an important country. It sounds like the name of a robot on "Futurama".
(And don't get me started on the depressingly worsening sequence of nitwit-scoundrels who've worked in the Oval Office.)
Could be worse. Len Pen could have been defeated by Le Sword.
Shit, folks, the federal government can't even run its veterans' hospitals well. And you want to give it more to screw up?
When they've gotten the hang of that existing responsibility, then it might make sense to expand their responsibilities. Not before.
A joke that has something to offend everybody (well, people on both sides of the aisle) apparently offends only people on one side.
Guess which one?
Unless that company is owned by the Chinese government, it makes a difference.
Idiot headline writer? Or just hasty? Agenda-driven, perhaps?
Does it matter?
Because you like the name of the introductory course, of course: Beginning Finnish.
The term "technical debt" would seem to be especially helpful in explaining the need to phase out those COBOL programs as quickly as prudently possible.
If anyone ought to get the aptness of the metaphor, it should be people in the financial sector. How debts not paid keep growing until disaster inevitably occurs. And if a firm has a disaster, it goes out of business.
At least, that's what I would have thought before 2008.
Estimating costs and takes time. Better estimates cost more and take more time.
If you want an extremely accurate estimate, build it and note how much money and time it took. This is not normally practical.
So, you stop short of going that far. How much short?
Nobody knows, and it varies from project to project.
If you want to know how much short, you could create a number of estimates, and noting how much money and time each took. And then build it, noting how much money and time it took, and compare that to your various estimates. Then use the estimate that has the optimal combination of accuracy, cost and time. This is not normally practical.
If only there were a better way.
http://duckducgo.com/q=agile+scrum
Of course, you could estimate
Don't know what version, but it was on a time-sharing (a sort of antediluvian version of "the cloud"), and at first, program storage was on paper tape.
Separation of authority. Good management.
Stuff like that.
I've worked for a couple of companies that grew pretty fast for many years in a row, and part of the transition from mom-and-pop shop where company meetings can take place in a conference room to one that makes meeelyons of dollars is to leave "cowboy mode" behind.
Yeah, that adds delays, and is occasionally frustrating. But it also means not ending up like Barings Bank.
The nurses themselves are presumably interested in the health of the nurses.
The rest is left as an exercise for the students of the land of Autodidactica.
Somebody's got to have complaints about this, plausible or imaginary or deliberate B.S. I'm not creative enough to think of what will come, but here's some possibilities to get you started.
Ultrasonic dryers will damage dogs' hearing.
Ultrasonic dryers will be annoying to dogs, and set off a wave of barking in the neighborhood.
Ultrasonic dryers will damage human hearing.
Ultrasonic dryers will be marginally-detectable by children and teens. They will flee the house when laundry chores are being done.
Ultrasonic dryers will cause autism.
Ultrasonic dryers will cause vaccination.
Ultrasonic dryers will be too expensive for the poor, leading to an "ultrasonic dry gap". Press conferences, marches, and legislation will result.
Ultrasonic dryers will not be recyclable.
So, what'd I miss?
"what's inside is anyone's guess"
What matters is: can they reliably launch successfully and reach their target, whether launched from within North Korea or from a submarine which manages to get somewhat near the U.S.?
The available evidence suggests the answer is "no". Which means they're only useful for bluster (if not launched) or as a desperation move (if launched).
Eventually, things will likely get desperate, unless the end-game is like East Germany or Czechoslovakia, and it just kinda fizzles out.
That is not likely to happen in the immediate future, and maybe never will be a likely end, but it's a possibility worth preserving. (How, I don't know.)
For all we know, the U.S. Navy has already sunk a North Korean sub or three that got too far from home.
Obligatory Red October quote: "You've lost another submarine?"