Comment Re:Let me know (Score 1) 115
Any recommendations? Seriously. I'd pay for a 24-27" 4K display with a more usable aspect ratio.
Any recommendations? Seriously. I'd pay for a 24-27" 4K display with a more usable aspect ratio.
I've had the same issues on the Mac version for years.
My estimate of the data costs was from an interview with the man who created this proposed enhanced black box. I think he knows more than either of us what the data requirements of his device are.
He may be a great engineer, but if he's seriously proposing a system that will cost $20/passenger/flight, he's a fool. At that price, it had better guarantee incident-free flight.
I'm fat and I get up at 6:00 and am generally at work before the sun comes up. It must be because I'm lazy, and not because I commute and work stupid hours.
Well, you are too lazy to change your sig
I was in the audience for a sitcom episode where the actors just couldn't get their lines straight. Watching them mess up horribly for multiple takes wasn't as bad as it sounded. The actors made fun of themselves/each other, made other jokes, and generally just made it all amusing. When they finally got it, it was somehow quite funny.
Of course, they could always move laughs around with a little editing.
Did you have direct authority over people who would have reason to believe that those donations indicated your personal prejudice against them?
At some, I had direct authority over people. And those progressive organizations were in pretty strong legal+ethical conflict with the organizations I have worked for.
Some of the people I directly supervised were extremely conservative... they would likely [wrongly] consider my funding of Prop 8 opposition a direct attack on their religious freedom. I know my moral stance is the right one, but I am glad we had a culture of "what you do in your off hours is fine as long as you don't involve our organization"
Corporations are people, my friend.
If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job
I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.
Telling people that your CEO should be fired because he's a pink commie after 5:01 is political activities during their off hours.
It's also a political activity, yes, but I think it goes well beyond that. I can't find the right words at the moment, but I'm sure you can see the difference. If the CEO was also the mayor, an employee running a campaign to defeat him in the election would be fine. The employee running a campaign to turn public support against the CEO in an effort to get him fired/pressured to step down? Not okay.
My boss? A mere difference of opinion is fine as long as we can be adult about it. If he has publicly called for me and people like me to be stripped of rights and made second class citizens AND put his personal money into helping to make that happen, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that there's a high potential for a problem there.
Maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that he did not publicly call for anything. He privately donated money to campaigns (which I despise), but TFA and this thread make no mention of any other activity.
I have worked for extremely conservative organizations while donating to the ACLU, FSF, Planned Parenthood, Courage Campaign, and many others. Should they have had the right to fire me if those donations became public knowledge?
Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.
You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract. Does the contract you signed with your employee say that he doesn't have the right to discuss your politics?
Really? I think you're misrepresenting the GP.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.
While I wouldn't agree with instant/automatic firing, this is about bringing politics to your workplace. And that's fair. If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job. Employees publicly calling for their CEO's resignation because of their [legal] political activities are childish at best.
For the record, I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.
The consequence of this is that everyone who derives their income from labor rather than return on capital is screwed. There are only two choices: invest enough to become financially independent (and hope that you can do it before you lose your career to automation), or hope that society sees fit to redistribute wealth so that those without control of capital don't starve.
The catch-22 is that the people whose occupations are most in danger from automation are also those with the lowest capacity for investing...
I've reached the same conclusions, but it is worth noting a few points that should alter the outcome:
I find it extremely likely that those in power will ultimately realize that they are better off when the needs of all are met, enabling a compromise wherein some form of minimum income/welfare ensures comfort for all. The transition could be smooth, or it could be bloody, but I don't see how it's avoidable in the long-run.
Historically, this is the progression we have observed in the welfare state.
Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?
So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?
I can't tell if you're trolling or just... nevermind.
Clearly that is not what I believe. And I am quite sure you know that.
Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.
I was a huge critic of that move, and said this would happen. But let's be honest here:
Obama was among those leading the charge to kill the program, but:
- Congress killed the F-22's funding
- Senate votes had more to do with where production was located than political affiliation
- SecDef Gates wanted the F-22 dead
- The JCS and many others in the Pentagon supported him
- John McCain co-sponsored the amendment that killed funding
Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.
Hey, thanks for the recognition! I was predicting precisely this on Slashdot at the time, and the consensus here was that I am an idiot... but it's all good. I'm sure those who advocated replacing F-22s with F-35s will happily volunteer to pay the difference.
We kill them on the ground and with ground to air weapons before we take to the air.
That's not even close to true. Aircraft are in the air in the earliest stages: infiltrating special ops; conducting reconnaissance, targeting, and BDAs; escorting unarmed platforms.
We never went to war without overpowering air superiority since, so there were almost no US dogfights since.
Does it follow that the US will never go to war without air superiority again? Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?
I would agree that Afghanistan and Iraq did not have particularly threatening aircraft. Do you really think Russia, China, or some future rising power will be the same scenario? American soldiers have been safe from enemy air attack since Korea. I am willing to pay a little more to ensure it stays that way.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
