Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.

You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.

GP confused inflation and deflation within a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.

In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.

It need not be invasive. It would be quite easy to construct a system that would automatically erase any footage the moment a plane successfully lands and docks at the airport.

The only footage that would be seen then, is when there is a real problem.

Let me put it a different way: inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand... in this case the supply and demand of money. Its direct (if delayed) effects include the market value of goods to be exchanged for that money. This is expressed as prices of those goods.

It can always be measured in price. They are not independent.

That would really suck wouldn't it?

But think of the money the electric company would have to pay you, if you used enough of them.

You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.

A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.

Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.

And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.

I know what CRI is, you pedantic twit. This doesn't address my comment at all, which was in reference to GP's vague statement about "light quality".

If GP had written CRI, then I (and everybody else) would have known what he meant.

Please explain what this has to do with validation, which I thought was the topic under discussion?

Exactly what it is supposed to do: assurance that it will work as built across all major browsers.

Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.

It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.

Browsers will never be "standardized" on the very latest features. That's not how it works. So if you don't want to get stuck, don't use the latest features. What else do you expect me to say?

Also, note: this feature of healthy markets is called "deflation" in that particular market. But... deflation is precisely the hated bugaboo of Obama and his crony Keynesian-interventionist-mainstream economists.

They hate success, if it doesn't include them.

It sucks all the light out of other nearby fixtures.

"Light quality" is so vague as to be meaningless. Not enough light? Don't like the color temperature? You get rainbows instead of "white" light? Photons moving too slow for your taste? What?

Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.

What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.

You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.

I did read TFA, thanks very much. I was asking WHY her claims were rejected. We already knew THAT they were rejected.

Your comment adds nothing to the "why?"

I have also had business experience with government contracts. One of the problems there (though it was in a somewhat different field, so doesn't apply as much here) is that those who couldn't properly make it in the engineering business ended up going to work for the government... and became the regulators. Rather the opposite of the "corporate capture" idea, but still a kind of revolving door.

As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.

Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.

Then where are they?

Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.

NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.

NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.

If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.