The 'uniform' where I work is long-sleeved shirts for management types, short-sleeved shirts for all others, including polos. No one wears a jacket unless they are meeting the 'big guys', which is pretty rare.
But I would not be wearing a fanny pack anyways. I'm looking for a hand bag to keep a bigger phone, front-pocket wallet, and sunglasses in. And not look too jolly. Not hopeful, unless I make one out of duck tape.
Incompetence. This sounds like explaining to the boss how you can't write a program to pay 3.25 million employees accurately and on time.
Then explaining how you can't write a program that pays 325,000 employees accurately and on time.
Then explaining how you can't write a program that pays 32,500 employees accurately and on time.
But they did in the 60s.
Just as the FAA has sunk $ into new air traffic controls software with nothing to show for it, and New York City ditto with payroll software, incompetence. But I was watching the NMCI grind its way towards me a few years ago, and that was disaster on afterburners. I should know by now the Government is probably not the model of competence in many areas.
I wonder, though if they might ask Social Security how they get checks out every month. Maybe that is the software model they should look at, or *gasp*, consider that they cannot use a better tool then COBOL. So stop looking.
If we really wanna do this, we better claim ALL of it, or there will be all sorts of parks there, and I'll have to buy permits for every damned one, and use every different reservation system to get a campsite. And that is annoying.
Not to mention I'm not about to drive all that way to see a bleached flag. I can do that on a sound stage in Arizona for cheapo.
Seriously, we have no other pressing issues to consider? Disrespect Congress much?
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government grant gay people these rights, merely because *their* personal beliefs say that gay people are entitled to acceptance by society."
It still makes sense.
The argument should be about civil recognition of marriages regardless of the genders of the couple, and that would be the civil issue.
My sister-in-law has considered herself married to her female partner for a few years now, but having the stamp of approval from the government is very, very important to her. She already had mine, but that license and all the benefits that go with it (simplified inheritance, HIPPAA compliance, in her case favorable tax treatment, and various insurance advantages) was the motivator.
So this is all about civil recognition. Works for me. Of course, telling me that *my* religious beliefs cannot, repeat *cannot* be considered a valid for my opinion on this topic, and so invalidates my opinion in their opinion, is hypocritical, but winning in court should soothe their souls.
No, rights should not be voted on, except for the 11th and onward Amendments to our Constitution. Back then, voting was ok. Today, not so much.
Seriously. Trading oil, pollutants, and wasteful designs for electricity, opportunities for more manageable pollutants, and less wasteful designs? This is so hard? This is controversy?
A full-on electric car today needs batteries that the equal of oil in pollution in manufacturing. Recycling is a positive, but not a solution. Ultra-capacitor storage sounds like an elegant solution, though I've seen the damage from a really large capacitor failure, and it will be spectacular to see one storing enough energy to get me to work and back for one day go up. Boom.
Hydrogen sounds like a working solution - crack water, discard the oxygen, repeat. Electricity to crack water is the issue.
All in all, electric cars, be they using batteries, hydrogen, or whatever/wherever the source of electricity, all move the pollution source from one place to another. If you have plug-ins, that gas plant down the road is the source, or the nuke plant elsewhere. Add in manufacturing impacts, and it is at best a wash, I suspect.
But having said that, I think electric is the way. Oil has so many problems, it had only the advantage of being practical at the time. We can do so much better today, from plug-in charging ports at parking lots to non-contact charging to much better fuel options.
If I could, I would hack together an electric car form a lightweight chassis, all the drive train stuff, and simple lead-acid batteries. All dependent on the smallest practical generator charging the batteries, driven by the smallest practical turbo diesel tucked away in a compartment. Allow for a spot charge to keep the batteries up, and be prepared to upgrade the batts when possible. It seems an electric drivetrain is very efficient. Of course I'm missing something.
But oil can be obsoleted. It's practical, and the solutions to the 'new' problems of electric cars are not insurmountable.
It's always possible to fail. But Soyuz launches seem to be using the Soyuz FG rocket nowadays, so Proton failures are not directly affecting the Soyuz program.
Space flight is not yet as routine as a trip to the Circle-K for an ICEE.
So you think the police, or even the National Guard or the Army was instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement? Other than being the visible and tangible evidence that discrimination was unpopular and no longer acceptable?
Re-read the Declaration of Independence, my friend. 'Self-evident' being the key phrase. Then re-read the Constitution.
Government can only limit your liberties. If this make no sense to you, especially in this debate, you may have missed some of the key points in our Constitution.
"We must continue to do nothing, nada, zip, zilch!"
Proof that you are an idiot.
- Hybrid/electric vehicles are largely a response to the global warming question. And to energy costs. sure. - Increasingly stringent environmental regulations, many specifically designed to answer the global warming debate.
Just two example of how we are NOT in a "do nothing, nada, zip, zilch!" mode.
Stupid git. You even reference a response in your post. Hopefully you are not campaigning to be a poster child for either the scientific method OR a humanist response. You contradict yourself too quickly to be a professional Progressive, so you must be a rank amateur.
I am no longer a sysadmin, but I know many, and I listen now to the complainers who complain about their sysadmins, programmers, etc.
I often hear complaints about how stuff doesn't work right, or doesn't do what they want. Their complaints often boil down to 'There ought to be..."
No, there ought not be. Stuff works the way it is built. If it was built wrong and works wrong, that's a fix. If it was built for a task, and you don't like the task, or you don't like the results, well, that's a design problem. Design of the process, not necessarily the tools.
We just had this discussion yesterday about a process that requires us to resolve issues in a limited number of ways. the complaints from others (with much less experience than some of us have) devolved into the complaint that our system should allow for options that don't exist in the systems that are the source of the data we deliver. Put differently, they want our users to see data that they cannot see elsewhere, and in fact is not delivered elsewhere. Despite pointing out that our system merely delivers data, and does so according to the rules of the data owners, they persisted in complaining that our users want this, and it would solve problems.
In this instance, it would solve the problem of users changing things in other systems, and expecting them to stay the same elsewhere. I did not bother to continue to discussion into the realm of our legal constraints. We are a highly regulated business, and what they wanted to do would eventually violate multiple laws. Not understanding that our own internal controls were the first limit, however, made me feel like legality would be similarly lost on them.
If you wonder why sysadmins sometimes consider your requests ludicrous, consider you may not have an ogre for a sysadmin. They may be protecting you from yourself. Or they may know the 'why' you have not yet considered.
And if you can define your request as 'There oughta...', be prepared for the bit NO. No, there doesn't oughta.
So her invoking her Fifth Amendment rights was either unnecessary or superfluous?
She thought she was giving testimony in a manner that required either honesty or silence, and could result in penalties or punishment. And she should have been correct in that.
The current system is "We have information on John Doe #1 that indicates they are a suspected terrorist. We have details of their calls between John Doe #2 and John Doe # from way back when, and would like to use all that to create the case against them. So we really don't need your permission, and we aren't actually asking now. And while we're looking into these three, we will be seeing who else is involved. So far, there are hundreds."
They ARE hiding something illicit. Hoovering up call details without a warrant is entirely unconstitutional. Warrants without even the hint of probable cause are unconstitutional, but that is a very unpopular opinion nowadays.
And our rights are not ratified by polls. They are described in our Constitution as being granted by our Creator (feel free to define that as you wish), and RECOGNIZED by our Constitution - not granted by it. Our government, in all branches, is charged with protecting and defending them.
Two weeks before Thanksgiving, you can find Durkees Fried Onion Rings on the shelf. Two days before, and all you can find is the store brand.
Is this because the brand name product is sold out, or because they understocked it, and are selling their brand at a higher profit to those who waited to the last moment to buy? After all, they wouldn't run out of that very popular ingredient on purpose, would they?
Contrast this with a competently-run convenience store, which relies on beer sales to make profits. Their goal is empty shelves Monday morning, not Sunday afternoon, selling every last drop. If they run out of Budweiser Sunday afternoon, they are losing sales because people will in fact drive to another store for their brand. A well-run store will stop listening to the Miller rep trying to convince them that people will buy Miller if Bud is out. And the Bud rep coming in on Monday will point out the Miller on the shelf and the Bud shelf empty, and tell them they lost sales. The Miller shelf would ALSO be empty if it were the right size, and they would have sold more Bud to go along with the Miller they were going to sell anyways. And yes, if there are three partial 6-packs left in a good-sized cooler, that is the equivalent of 'empty'.
But grocers know we do not so often drive to another store. And they can divert sales to store brands with different profits margins. And they don't have store brands of loyalty driven products such as beer. Don't think they can't play nice with the alcoholic beverage laws and make it happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The 'uniform' where I work is long-sleeved shirts for management types, short-sleeved shirts for all others, including polos. No one wears a jacket unless they are meeting the 'big guys', which is pretty rare.
But I would not be wearing a fanny pack anyways. I'm looking for a hand bag to keep a bigger phone, front-pocket wallet, and sunglasses in. And not look too jolly. Not hopeful, unless I make one out of duck tape.
And now we're duping the comments.
Brilliant!
Seriously, a Billion Dollars?
Incompetence. This sounds like explaining to the boss how you can't write a program to pay 3.25 million employees accurately and on time.
Then explaining how you can't write a program that pays 325,000 employees accurately and on time.
Then explaining how you can't write a program that pays 32,500 employees accurately and on time.
But they did in the 60s.
Just as the FAA has sunk $ into new air traffic controls software with nothing to show for it, and New York City ditto with payroll software, incompetence. But I was watching the NMCI grind its way towards me a few years ago, and that was disaster on afterburners. I should know by now the Government is probably not the model of competence in many areas.
I wonder, though if they might ask Social Security how they get checks out every month. Maybe that is the software model they should look at, or *gasp*, consider that they cannot use a better tool then COBOL. So stop looking.
And you have an example of a valid basis?
Sorry, but the Moon is not our territory.
If we really wanna do this, we better claim ALL of it, or there will be all sorts of parks there, and I'll have to buy permits for every damned one, and use every different reservation system to get a campsite. And that is annoying.
Not to mention I'm not about to drive all that way to see a bleached flag. I can do that on a sound stage in Arizona for cheapo.
Seriously, we have no other pressing issues to consider? Disrespect Congress much?
Gee, when I re-write this as;
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government grant gay people these rights, merely because *their* personal beliefs say that gay people are entitled to acceptance by society."
It still makes sense.
The argument should be about civil recognition of marriages regardless of the genders of the couple, and that would be the civil issue.
My sister-in-law has considered herself married to her female partner for a few years now, but having the stamp of approval from the government is very, very important to her. She already had mine, but that license and all the benefits that go with it (simplified inheritance, HIPPAA compliance, in her case favorable tax treatment, and various insurance advantages) was the motivator.
So this is all about civil recognition. Works for me. Of course, telling me that *my* religious beliefs cannot, repeat *cannot* be considered a valid for my opinion on this topic, and so invalidates my opinion in their opinion, is hypocritical, but winning in court should soothe their souls.
No, rights should not be voted on, except for the 11th and onward Amendments to our Constitution. Back then, voting was ok. Today, not so much.
Seriously. Trading oil, pollutants, and wasteful designs for electricity, opportunities for more manageable pollutants, and less wasteful designs? This is so hard? This is controversy?
A full-on electric car today needs batteries that the equal of oil in pollution in manufacturing. Recycling is a positive, but not a solution. Ultra-capacitor storage sounds like an elegant solution, though I've seen the damage from a really large capacitor failure, and it will be spectacular to see one storing enough energy to get me to work and back for one day go up. Boom.
Hydrogen sounds like a working solution - crack water, discard the oxygen, repeat. Electricity to crack water is the issue.
All in all, electric cars, be they using batteries, hydrogen, or whatever/wherever the source of electricity, all move the pollution source from one place to another. If you have plug-ins, that gas plant down the road is the source, or the nuke plant elsewhere. Add in manufacturing impacts, and it is at best a wash, I suspect.
But having said that, I think electric is the way. Oil has so many problems, it had only the advantage of being practical at the time. We can do so much better today, from plug-in charging ports at parking lots to non-contact charging to much better fuel options.
If I could, I would hack together an electric car form a lightweight chassis, all the drive train stuff, and simple lead-acid batteries. All dependent on the smallest practical generator charging the batteries, driven by the smallest practical turbo diesel tucked away in a compartment. Allow for a spot charge to keep the batteries up, and be prepared to upgrade the batts when possible. It seems an electric drivetrain is very efficient. Of course I'm missing something.
But oil can be obsoleted. It's practical, and the solutions to the 'new' problems of electric cars are not insurmountable.
It's always possible to fail. But Soyuz launches seem to be using the Soyuz FG rocket nowadays, so Proton failures are not directly affecting the Soyuz program.
Space flight is not yet as routine as a trip to the Circle-K for an ICEE.
So you think the police, or even the National Guard or the Army was instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement? Other than being the visible and tangible evidence that discrimination was unpopular and no longer acceptable?
Re-read the Declaration of Independence, my friend. 'Self-evident' being the key phrase. Then re-read the Constitution.
Government can only limit your liberties. If this make no sense to you, especially in this debate, you may have missed some of the key points in our Constitution.
Why is the cost of this service not included in your registration fee?
Is this so darned hard to figure out? No.
They don't include logic in teh humanities? Oh noes...
"We must continue to do nothing, nada, zip, zilch!"
Proof that you are an idiot.
- Hybrid/electric vehicles are largely a response to the global warming question. And to energy costs. sure.
- Increasingly stringent environmental regulations, many specifically designed to answer the global warming debate.
Just two example of how we are NOT in a "do nothing, nada, zip, zilch!" mode.
Stupid git. You even reference a response in your post. Hopefully you are not campaigning to be a poster child for either the scientific method OR a humanist response. You contradict yourself too quickly to be a professional Progressive, so you must be a rank amateur.
NAFTA failed. The Chinese obsoleted it.
So you don't deserve what you paid for?
Though I feel for these employees that will watch their work go elsewhere, cheaper, more flexible/captive, and lower quality.
It's the lies IBM will tell its customers, starting with the quality lies, then the onshore/offshore lies, and finally the resource commitment lies.
And how the government customers will roll over and ignore the contract provisions.
And later will stop asking IBM to even bother to keep work and data onshore when it is required by law.
Corpratists. Crony Capitalism. we are being fleeced.
Since you don't live and work where I do, your experience is immaterial. Sod off.
No matter what they say, 47C is 47C. The planes stop taking off at 49C.
I am no longer a sysadmin, but I know many, and I listen now to the complainers who complain about their sysadmins, programmers, etc.
I often hear complaints about how stuff doesn't work right, or doesn't do what they want. Their complaints often boil down to 'There ought to be..."
No, there ought not be. Stuff works the way it is built. If it was built wrong and works wrong, that's a fix. If it was built for a task, and you don't like the task, or you don't like the results, well, that's a design problem. Design of the process, not necessarily the tools.
We just had this discussion yesterday about a process that requires us to resolve issues in a limited number of ways. the complaints from others (with much less experience than some of us have) devolved into the complaint that our system should allow for options that don't exist in the systems that are the source of the data we deliver. Put differently, they want our users to see data that they cannot see elsewhere, and in fact is not delivered elsewhere. Despite pointing out that our system merely delivers data, and does so according to the rules of the data owners, they persisted in complaining that our users want this, and it would solve problems.
In this instance, it would solve the problem of users changing things in other systems, and expecting them to stay the same elsewhere. I did not bother to continue to discussion into the realm of our legal constraints. We are a highly regulated business, and what they wanted to do would eventually violate multiple laws. Not understanding that our own internal controls were the first limit, however, made me feel like legality would be similarly lost on them.
If you wonder why sysadmins sometimes consider your requests ludicrous, consider you may not have an ogre for a sysadmin. They may be protecting you from yourself. Or they may know the 'why' you have not yet considered.
And if you can define your request as 'There oughta...', be prepared for the bit NO. No, there doesn't oughta.
Assuming they don't patch the kernel and go 64 bits. That gets them to HDOTU before the next rollover.
Around January 19, 2038, they will have either made some changes or changes will be made.
But that's a long time from now.
So her invoking her Fifth Amendment rights was either unnecessary or superfluous?
She thought she was giving testimony in a manner that required either honesty or silence, and could result in penalties or punishment. And she should have been correct in that.
Yes I can. Doing the wrong thing is never justified by the majority.
But that's not how this is working.
The current system is "We have information on John Doe #1 that indicates they are a suspected terrorist. We have details of their calls between John Doe #2 and John Doe # from way back when, and would like to use all that to create the case against them. So we really don't need your permission, and we aren't actually asking now. And while we're looking into these three, we will be seeing who else is involved. So far, there are hundreds."
And of course they claim this has been effective.
They ARE hiding something illicit. Hoovering up call details without a warrant is entirely unconstitutional. Warrants without even the hint of probable cause are unconstitutional, but that is a very unpopular opinion nowadays.
And our rights are not ratified by polls. They are described in our Constitution as being granted by our Creator (feel free to define that as you wish), and RECOGNIZED by our Constitution - not granted by it. Our government, in all branches, is charged with protecting and defending them.
Sadly, government can only diminish liberty.
Two weeks before Thanksgiving, you can find Durkees Fried Onion Rings on the shelf. Two days before, and all you can find is the store brand.
Is this because the brand name product is sold out, or because they understocked it, and are selling their brand at a higher profit to those who waited to the last moment to buy? After all, they wouldn't run out of that very popular ingredient on purpose, would they?
Contrast this with a competently-run convenience store, which relies on beer sales to make profits. Their goal is empty shelves Monday morning, not Sunday afternoon, selling every last drop. If they run out of Budweiser Sunday afternoon, they are losing sales because people will in fact drive to another store for their brand. A well-run store will stop listening to the Miller rep trying to convince them that people will buy Miller if Bud is out. And the Bud rep coming in on Monday will point out the Miller on the shelf and the Bud shelf empty, and tell them they lost sales. The Miller shelf would ALSO be empty if it were the right size, and they would have sold more Bud to go along with the Miller they were going to sell anyways. And yes, if there are three partial 6-packs left in a good-sized cooler, that is the equivalent of 'empty'.
But grocers know we do not so often drive to another store. And they can divert sales to store brands with different profits margins. And they don't have store brands of loyalty driven products such as beer. Don't think they can't play nice with the alcoholic beverage laws and make it happen.
They just don't see the profit opportunity yet.