FYI. The SMAW isn't designed to be an anti-personnel weapon.
"Mission: To destroy bunkers and other fortifications during assault operations as well as other designated targets with the dual mode rocket and to destroy main battle tanks with the HEAA rocket."
I suppose any weapon (or almost anything else for that matter) could be considered anti-personnel, though the SMAW was designed for another purpose.
After reading a few of the replies to this post, I started to think about what auto mechanics must have thought when, to stay competive and battle the public perception of many repair shops, the burden of a certification was thrust upon them. "The technology is moving too quickly", "Fixing a is as much an art as a science, you can't measure it effectively", etc. The bottom line is that having a certification that is universal, trusted, and easy for consumers to understand is good for business and will separate the quality technicians from the hacks. Lets face it, the "boot camp" method of certifying technicians has proven many existing commercial certifications (e.g. MCSE) to not be worth what they proclaim to be worth. When a relative newbie can go to MCSE bootcamp and 2 weeks later be an MCSE, what's the value? Don't get me wrong, there are many MCSE's who are fantastic technicians but unfortunately, thanks to boot camps also many who need more experience. I don't think the answer is for government to sponsor certification, nor do I think there is a need for government to do anything but issue a business license. What is probably needed is some cooperation and consolidation of the certifications available today. Unfortunately, most companies seem to use certification as a way to sell their product, not to actually make sure technicians have the skills to effectively utilize them.
I'm missing the point of this/. story. M$ bashing? An attempt to establish a position on the "moral highground" for the non-M$ community? Trying to convince IE users to switch to another browser because using IE would constitute a standards violation (say it isn't so!)?
I grew up across the Columbia River from Oregon and could never understand why gas stations in Oregon require a highly trained "fuel distribution technician" to dispense gas to those of us who were smart enough to get a driver's license, but not smart enough to fill up our own gas tanks. It soon became evident that the requirement to have someone fill up my gas tank was nothing more than a social program designed to provide minimum wage jobs. Even though I'll bet they only make minimum wage, I'm sure using gas stations as a state mandated employment program adds a significant cost overhead to a gallon of gas.
Unsolicited advice to Oregon law makers:
Get rid of the mandated gas station attendants, keep the price of gas the same, pocket the difference and balance your budget.
"The military services don't provide the contractor with the data. They provide the DoD bureaucrats (civilians) with the data (required), who in turn, provide the data to the contractors. The military services have no control or voice in what is done with the personal data of their members once it's given to DoD."
I think the point of the response to your post was that the military services have NOTHING to do with maintaining the security of the data passed to the contractors in TRICARE, as you implied by calling the military services "dumbshits".
How is this different than any other license? Here is a snipet from the article: "According to court documents, Microsoft said Kmart had not specifically identified which Microsoft software licenses it planned to transfer to United Online as part of the sale." Since bluelight.com was the licensee then doesn't it make sense that when you sell the asset (software license) to someone else (United Online), that you should let the entity you licensed the software from (Micro$oft) know that the license has changed owners? Lacking more specific information than the article provides, I guess that I just don't see the problem here. The article doesn't really say that they have to ask M$ for permission to sell the license. It's probably just me...
For a number of years now, there has been a large effort to take the ownership and management of a lot of the telecom (data comm) infrastructure out of the hands of the federal government. Outsourcing. Unfortunately, because the ability to communicate over this infrastructure has become so important to national security, the federal gov must make sure it remains functioning. Look at some of the postings from a couple of days ago relating to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). That project relies exclusively on the financial health of EDS, the prime contractor. These "Internet Pioneers" should remember that the federal government IS the internet pioneer and that the only reason most of them have a job to begin with is the fact that Uncle Sam was kind enough to give up most of the direct control of the infrastructure that the internet is based on. Wheew! Glad I got that off my chest....
Remember earlier in the week when/.ers were hammering the story about the guys in Africa who were using HF to send email using packet radio? Every frequency range has its up and down sides. Heck, I think the Navy uses (used?) ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) to communicate with submarines. Only problem is that at those frequencies, a one bandwidth length antenna is a few miles long....
If his family is smart, they'll tape it and send the resulting (disaster) home video in to these guys. Maybe they could win the $100,000 prize and retire to a nice condo in Florida.
OK. Think about it. You're measuring the time it takes for a radio wave to travel between your PDA and another receiver/transmitter. If you do not have perfect radio line of sight between your PDA and the other station, then you're actually measuring a longer period of time than you would be if you had line of sight because the signal you're measuring is actually bouncing off of something first. This will cause your triangulation calculation to be inacurrate because your measurement of the time it takes for the radio wave to travel between the PDA and the other site will take longer and make your calculation reflect a greater distance between you and the other station than there really is. Check out this web site for a similar idea on position detection that uses "radio finger prints" to identify your location www.uswcorp.com.
I posted earlier in support of buying new PC's. Just thought I'd throw out another idea: lease them. Given that PC's are business tools that aren't going away, you might be better off with a 24 month lease. Though terms of the lease itself would indicate whether it was beneficial or not. Your company avoids the initial expenditure of funds to purchase your own PC's. Just a thought.
While building a PC for home use might make good economic sense and be supportable (if you do your own tech support), if you build the machines you can be held responsible by your leadership for their failure. How dependant on PC's is your company? And unless your company is made up of computer geeks, tech support on home grown PC's could be overwhelming to a small support section. Also remember that when you build a PC you buy parts made by a number of companies. When a part breaks, you often are forced to go to that particular vendor and make them honor their warranty. On the other hand, if you buy a new PC the only vendor you'll need to deal with in the event of a problem is the company that sold you the PC. Time is money. You also need to get your PC replacement schedule on a cycle that supports the level of machine you need to do business. Example, if most of your PC's are used for word processing then think about setting up a budget that allows you to replace 25% of them each year over a four year cycle (or even 20% yearly for a five year cycle). If you need something more robust and your company is often upgrading to new software to perform critical functions (DTP, CAD, etc.)you may need to go on a three year replacement cycle. Just my $.02 worth....
I'm not sure how you can defend their decision. After reading the articles it appears that two people will spend the next six months manually reentering the data on two PC's. I'd be willing to bet that will cost a little more than $850/month. Once you factor in all of the lost time due to the disruption in other areas of the city government, besides the fact that the two people entering the data can't do the jobs they normally do (assuming the city didn't hire two new people to accomplish the data input), the actual monetary loss is probably pretty significant.
If a non-governmental entity made this mistake do you think the state of California would come to their rescue? Those of you who are hammering government for wasteful spending should remember how many dot com companies with stupid ideas have died over the last two years, largely because of their inability to understand that money doesn't grow on trees...
You're right, there are much worse things than the government deciding which content is suited for you or your children. Giving someone the power to manipulate the information which doesn't support their agenda is worse. Oh, that's right...government controlled censorship of the media would allow that. Should parents exercise some control over what their children watch on TV and which video games they play? Easy answer. Do they? Not so easy answer. What this bill is doing is one step closer to taking control of your TV remote. One step closer to a CompUSA store where all the games feature a big purple dinosaur. Sure, there ARE much more pressing issues for people to be concerned about. CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE AND TELL THEM THAT!!!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
FYI. The SMAW isn't designed to be an anti-personnel weapon.
"Mission: To destroy bunkers and other fortifications during assault operations as well as other designated targets with the dual mode rocket and to destroy main battle tanks with the HEAA rocket."
I suppose any weapon (or almost anything else for that matter) could be considered anti-personnel, though the SMAW was designed for another purpose.
After reading a few of the replies to this post, I started to think about what auto mechanics must have thought when, to stay competive and battle the public perception of many repair shops, the burden of a certification was thrust upon them. "The technology is moving too quickly", "Fixing a is as much an art as a science, you can't measure it effectively", etc. The bottom line is that having a certification that is universal, trusted, and easy for consumers to understand is good for business and will separate the quality technicians from the hacks. Lets face it, the "boot camp" method of certifying technicians has proven many existing commercial certifications (e.g. MCSE) to not be worth what they proclaim to be worth. When a relative newbie can go to MCSE bootcamp and 2 weeks later be an MCSE, what's the value? Don't get me wrong, there are many MCSE's who are fantastic technicians but unfortunately, thanks to boot camps also many who need more experience. I don't think the answer is for government to sponsor certification, nor do I think there is a need for government to do anything but issue a business license. What is probably needed is some cooperation and consolidation of the certifications available today. Unfortunately, most companies seem to use certification as a way to sell their product, not to actually make sure technicians have the skills to effectively utilize them.
I'm missing the point of this /. story. M$ bashing? An attempt to establish a position on the "moral highground" for the non-M$ community? Trying to convince IE users to switch to another browser because using IE would constitute a standards violation (say it isn't so!)?
Boring.
Another pdf HERE that gives a high level use case of the process using a GPS.
Found a pdf on the Oregon Dept of Transportation web site dated July 2002 HERE . Provides a little insight into their thinking...
re Smart pumps: Probably not any more expensive or time consuming than implementing some nutty GPS enabled tax system!
Later!
- Unsolicited advice to Oregon law makers:
Get rid of the mandated gas station attendants, keep the price of gas the same, pocket the difference and balance your budget.What you said in your original post:
"Dumbshit Military"
The response to your post said:
"The military services don't provide the contractor with the data. They provide the DoD bureaucrats (civilians) with the data (required), who in turn, provide the data to the contractors. The military services have no control or voice in what is done with the personal data of their members once it's given to DoD."
I think the point of the response to your post was that the military services have NOTHING to do with maintaining the security of the data passed to the contractors in TRICARE, as you implied by calling the military services "dumbshits".
How is this different than any other license? Here is a snipet from the article:
"According to court documents, Microsoft said Kmart had not specifically identified which Microsoft software licenses it planned to transfer to United Online as part of the sale."
Since bluelight.com was the licensee then doesn't it make sense that when you sell the asset (software license) to someone else (United Online), that you should let the entity you licensed the software from (Micro$oft) know that the license has changed owners? Lacking more specific information than the article provides, I guess that I just don't see the problem here. The article doesn't really say that they have to ask M$ for permission to sell the license. It's probably just me...
Wow! He sure managed to do a lot of damage in 2 years. Do you think the previous 8 years could have had an impact too?
sarcasm
For a number of years now, there has been a large effort to take the ownership and management of a lot of the telecom (data comm) infrastructure out of the hands of the federal government. Outsourcing. Unfortunately, because the ability to communicate over this infrastructure has become so important to national security, the federal gov must make sure it remains functioning. Look at some of the postings from a couple of days ago relating to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). That project relies exclusively on the financial health of EDS, the prime contractor. These "Internet Pioneers" should remember that the federal government IS the internet pioneer and that the only reason most of them have a job to begin with is the fact that Uncle Sam was kind enough to give up most of the direct control of the infrastructure that the internet is based on. Wheew! Glad I got that off my chest....
Thanks. I forgot to mention that!
So for practical purposes, we might reach a distance of ~25 miles (approximate LOS max under optimal conditions)?
Remember earlier in the week when /.ers were hammering the story about the guys in Africa who were using HF to send email using packet radio? Every frequency range has its up and down sides. Heck, I think the Navy uses (used?) ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) to communicate with submarines. Only problem is that at those frequencies, a one bandwidth length antenna is a few miles long....
Pay per view? I'd pay $39.99 to see it!
I think a comparison to Warner brothers might more accurate....
If his family is smart, they'll tape it and send the resulting (disaster) home video in to these guys. Maybe they could win the $100,000 prize and retire to a nice condo in Florida.
OK. Think about it. You're measuring the time it takes for a radio wave to travel between your PDA and another receiver/transmitter. If you do not have perfect radio line of sight between your PDA and the other station, then you're actually measuring a longer period of time than you would be if you had line of sight because the signal you're measuring is actually bouncing off of something first. This will cause your triangulation calculation to be inacurrate because your measurement of the time it takes for the radio wave to travel between the PDA and the other site will take longer and make your calculation reflect a greater distance between you and the other station than there really is. Check out this web site for a similar idea on position detection that uses "radio finger prints" to identify your location www.uswcorp.com.
I posted earlier in support of buying new PC's. Just thought I'd throw out another idea: lease them. Given that PC's are business tools that aren't going away, you might be better off with a 24 month lease. Though terms of the lease itself would indicate whether it was beneficial or not. Your company avoids the initial expenditure of funds to purchase your own PC's. Just a thought.
While building a PC for home use might make good economic sense and be supportable (if you do your own tech support), if you build the machines you can be held responsible by your leadership for their failure. How dependant on PC's is your company? And unless your company is made up of computer geeks, tech support on home grown PC's could be overwhelming to a small support section. Also remember that when you build a PC you buy parts made by a number of companies. When a part breaks, you often are forced to go to that particular vendor and make them honor their warranty. On the other hand, if you buy a new PC the only vendor you'll need to deal with in the event of a problem is the company that sold you the PC. Time is money. You also need to get your PC replacement schedule on a cycle that supports the level of machine you need to do business. Example, if most of your PC's are used for word processing then think about setting up a budget that allows you to replace 25% of them each year over a four year cycle (or even 20% yearly for a five year cycle). If you need something more robust and your company is often upgrading to new software to perform critical functions (DTP, CAD, etc.)you may need to go on a three year replacement cycle. Just my $.02 worth....
I'm not sure how you can defend their decision. After reading the articles it appears that two people will spend the next six months manually reentering the data on two PC's. I'd be willing to bet that will cost a little more than $850/month. Once you factor in all of the lost time due to the disruption in other areas of the city government, besides the fact that the two people entering the data can't do the jobs they normally do (assuming the city didn't hire two new people to accomplish the data input), the actual monetary loss is probably pretty significant.
If a non-governmental entity made this mistake do you think the state of California would come to their rescue?
Those of you who are hammering government for wasteful spending should remember how many dot com companies with stupid ideas have died over the last two years, largely because of their inability to understand that money doesn't grow on trees...
You're right, there are much worse things than the government deciding which content is suited for you or your children. Giving someone the power to manipulate the information which doesn't support their agenda is worse. Oh, that's right...government controlled censorship of the media would allow that. Should parents exercise some control over what their children watch on TV and which video games they play? Easy answer. Do they? Not so easy answer. What this bill is doing is one step closer to taking control of your TV remote. One step closer to a CompUSA store where all the games feature a big purple dinosaur. Sure, there ARE much more pressing issues for people to be concerned about. CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE AND TELL THEM THAT!!!!!!