But how many US pilots have been in an actual dogfight since, say WWII. Most wars these days are no longer in the air, no large nations are fighting each other and ISIS doesn't have the capacity to fly an F16-like aircraft. Even during the Cold War, the most action was recon missions in enemy airspace which went largely unnoticed.
Well, a Tomcat splashed some Libyan MIGs that decided to come out and play when we crossed the Line of Death.
fighters do to new, unique maneuver ability.
Col. Boyd must be turning over in his grave. Looks like the USAF is buying another very expensive crew bus...
it would seem the defendant(s) would have a pretty good defense if they can show receipts for rework, notices of failed inspections, proof of injury to the daughter and the resultant investigation, etc
Absolutely correct. On the other hand, if, as the owner suspects, they have none of those things, they'd better try to settle as fast as they can!
If they are one person as the owner suspects I highly doubt they have them and should be talking to a lawyer about crafting a settlement, a you point out.
Once it was deemed to interfere with commercial activity it got trumped.
Somewhere along the line it became illegal to say "I hired this company and they gave shitty service".
No, it becomes libel when, rather than stating an opinion that you were not happy with the results you make up things to harm the other's reputation. It's been that way a long time before this internet thing...
But what if it isn't? What if its 8 different honest reviews? Does their privacy get eviscerated because some corp has money for lawyers?
It sounds like he is pretty sure they are false, so yes, libel trumps privacy in this case. If the reviews are honest they can go to court and request to be dropped from the suit if named or provide proof to Yelp and ask not to be unmasked.My guess and TFA indicate he has agog idea who it is based on work he has done but needs Yelp to verify who did it prior to naming them.
And $8m for $165k damages? CA is a failed state.
Actual and punitive damages. He can ask but may not get anywhere near that number.
Personally, this sounds like a project that, for whatever reason, went south and rather than cut their losses one side decided to get revenge and is now finding out that may not have been a good idea.
It's already illegal to intentionally make false statements in writing for the purpose of causing harm. It's called Libel, and it's not new. This is not an "on the internet" law, this is just a law.
Come on, you've been around long enough to know that facts and law doesn't matter when posting to
All in all, I don't think a real engineer will see management as a step up, except in terms of pay, but many engineers can become good leaders in the real sense.
Thus encapsulating much of the hubris and disdain in the comments. Managing, like engineering, is about figuring out how a system works and solving problems to het it to work like you wanted. Except, instead of dealing with things you are dealing with people; in a system that is infinitely more complex and challenging. That is a real engineering problem that not all engineers can solve. Programmers are even worse than engineers because people don't follow a prescribes set of rules like a program does.
Yeah - sorry dice - dressing pretty to become a boss just shows how stupid people who want to be bosses are.
And that's why competent people hate them.
Clothing does not reflect ability. I'm quite sure I can code far better naked than someone who thinks spend two or three grand on an Armani overhaul can.
You are correct that clothes do not reflect ability; but then in a not so subtle ironic statement you claim that because someone dresses nicely that you are more competent than them.
Dice's advice is spot on. Appearances do count as you move up; coding ability, OTOH, becomes less valuable. I don't pay managers to code, that's why we hired programmers; I need them to actually manage the project and make it successful. If they are busying coding either we have made the wrong person manager or we need to fire the programmers and hire ones who can code.
of programmers. They reflect a belief that managers know nothing but arrogantly act like they do and that they are the more important than the programmers; while the programmers know they actually do know everything and are truly the most important people in the company.
The reality, of course, lies somewhere in-between. There are bad managers just as there are programmers who never seem togged the message their job is to ship code that works, not spend a lifetime creating their one great masterpiece. Assuming everyone falls into one of those two camps is a recipe for failure; the reality is you are in it together.
One piece of advice I'd give aspiring managers is to make friends with sales. They can help you understand what the company needs to make to be successful as well as broaden your perspective beyond doing a product. You can help them understand what the product can and can't do and that helps them make sales. Managing is as much about building a network so you can anticipate needs and deliver results as it is about shepherding a project to completion.
Also, make sure your team understands the direction and end game for what they are developing. They are in the trenches and can see problems and solutions and offer advice to make the project successful. Recognize their contributions and ensure they get credit when deserved.
Because the value of gold and silver is somehow less arbitrary than electronic bank balances.
Depends on who's running the bank, doesn't it? The value of gold and silver fluctuate with supply and demand worldwide. They have industrial and decorative uses and a widespread base of people willing to own them. In the absence of large-scale deep-space asteroid mining technology flooding the market with excess supplies, they're going to remain fairly valuable.
Or a cheap way to extract gold from seawater; remember aluminum was once considered a precious metal on par with gold. It's not really scarcity of the resource but the scarcity of the available supply.
That's incorrect. Gold fluctuates pretty wildly with mass hysteria, compete with massive deflation and inflation. Much like bitcoin. Prior to the 20th century, when communication wasn't quite so instant and pervasive, gold did a pretty good job because it was rare for *everyone* to panic more or be more confident all at once.
Which is why Bitcoin is more of a speculative hedge, like gold, than a currency. For Greece situation, the hedge makes sense because you are worried about local impact, rather than a world wide event. However, I question demand going up to the levels in the article. At some point, individuals will look for alternatives such as gold if the price gets too high; and those who bought cheap ought to dump theirs and take the profits before the inevitable drop; especially since moving BitCoins out of Greece is easier than moving Euros. They can get Euros or Dollars, since the bigger danger for them is not a collapse of the Euro but the Greek government deciding to convert Euros in Banks back to Drachmas and exit the Euro zone. Having Euros or Dollars outside of Greece is what they want, not a speculative hedge and if Bitcoin let them do that they'll buy it; but sell it as well lessing the chance of a big runup.
Nah. They'll just rename it General Grant and put a US Flag on top. They'll have to change the horn, too. They'll make it toot out Yankee Doodle instead of Dixie.
Nah, make it General Sherman. The way it rips through the south makes that a more appropriate name...
Some people say the flag means that, some people say it means states rights, who knows. But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union? Maybe they just want to stand for a weaker Federal government, something many people support today.
The states rights issue is really not a valid one as regards to the reasons behind the Civil War. The southern states were all in favor of forcing northern states to obey the Fugitive Salve Laws and for the federal government to use its power to enforce them over objections of the states; what they didn't like was the specter of the Federal government enforcing laws they didn't like in their own states. So the next time someone brings up states rights as the argument for succession you can point out the hypocrisy in their argument. I realize you are not making that argument and not saying you are being hypocritical, rather pointing out the fallacy of that argument.
. . . parts that are eagle to congenitally made parts . .
.
Let me guess, you're using voice recognition software?
Nah, just using a speal cheeker...
We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan
