Forgot your password?

+ - Alleged Hooker and Heroin Kill a Key Google exec on his Yacht in Santa Cruz->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Authorities allege model, makeup artist, and self-described "hustler" Alix Catherine Tichelman initially met 51-year-old Google executive Forrest Hayes of Santa Cruz and other Silicon Valley executives at for sexual encounters that fetched $1,000 or more. Last November 22, Tichelman met Hayes in-person on his white, 50-foot yacht, "Escape," in the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor. She brought heroin and needles into the yacht's cabin where she injected Hayes, causing him to overdose, said Santa Cruz Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark.

It has recently become known that a security camera in the cabin showed her pack drugs and syringes into her purse, clean off a table and draw a window blind. When she stepped over Hayes' lifeless body to drink from a glass of wine, she left behind a fingerprint on the glass, which helped investigators to identify her, Clark said. The yacht's captain found Hayes dead the next morning.

Santa Cruz police said they continued to probe Tichelman's possible involvement in another suspicious death out of state, but they declined to elaborate.

Hayes joined Apple in 2005 and worked there for several years, according to a brief profile on the business networking website LinkedIn. He started working for Mountain View-based Google about a year ago and joined its secretive "X" division, which is responsible for what the company likes to call "moon shot" projects including self-driving cars and the computer headset known as Glass.

"Seeking Arrangement," is a website that aims to connect "sugar daddies" and "sugar babies." suggesting, "Financial Stability: Unpaid bills no longer have to be a concern.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Sunk cost fallacy (Score 1) 289

by EmagGeek (#47423015) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere

The whole program is a sunk cost fallacy at this point. Congress needs to look at the cost and return of fixing the F35 program versus scrapping the entire thing, which is probably the best decision it could make.

The F35 is an unmitigated disaster. It is everything a military jet SHOULDN'T be. The entire process was destined to fail from the beginning, and it all boils down to the DoD's decision processes, like those that award contracts based on the race and gender of a company's owner rather than the merit of that company's products, and the ones that say "gee, if there could only be one plane that did everything, that would definitely be the best way to go!"

Jack of all trades, master of nothing, is not what we need in a fighter. The reason we have different branches of the military is because each has starkly unique needs compared to the others. Their needs are so unique that even the most junior engineer can look at the F35 proposal and say "hahaahh fuck no."

+ - Warrant issued to force teen to pose nude for cops-> 1

Submitted by GatorSnake
GatorSnake (1978412) writes "A Manassas City teenager accused of “sexting” a video to his girlfriend is now facing a search warrant in which Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take a photo of his erect penis, possibly forcing the teen to become erect by taking him to a hospital and giving him an injection, the teen’s lawyers said."
Link to Original Source
The Military

The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere 289

Posted by Soulskill
from the flights-of-fancy dept.
schwit1 writes with an update on the U.S. government's troubled F-35 program, the cost of which keeps rising while the planes themselves are grounded. A fire in late June caused officials to halt flights for the entire fleet of $112 million vehicles last week. Despite this, Congress is still anxious to push the program forward, and Foreign Policy explains why: Part of that protection comes from the jaw-dropping amounts of money at stake. The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443 of the planes. However, over the course of the aircrafts' lifetimes, operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion. Lockheed has carefully hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the program — and the jobs it has created — in place. "An upfront question with any program now is: How many congressional districts is it in?" said Thomas Christie, a former senior Pentagon acquisitions official. Counting all of its suppliers and subcontractors, parts of the program are spread out across at least 45 states. That's why there's no doubt lawmakers will continue to fund the program even though this is the third time in 17 months that the entire fleet has been grounded due to engine problems."

Comment: De river, she is deep (Score 2) 534

by fyngyrz (#47417253) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

"Complex" is not for laymen. There is only so much that you can do with any "appliance". Beyond that, you actually have to know what you are doing. This "problem" has nothing to do with programming.

This. Thinking about the web apps I've written, most of them required fairly deep knowledge in the area of the app -- auroras, photography, specialized group management, history, genealogy, measuring instruments, Chinese, retail procedure -- all areas an interested party could potentially bring to the table.

But the tools to instantiate, manipulate and present those ideas? Those simply don't exist in "amateur" form -- I had to create them. And in doing so, I used knowledge starting with HTML and CGI and CSS, but which extended well into Python, (replaced Perl), C, SQL, a fair bit about the underlying structure of the host OS(s), knowledge of how to structure an application in the first place, and to wrap it all together, a fairly deep knowledge of what's efficient and what isn't.

Now I will admit that I am particularly resistant to Other People's Code, partially because I am unwilling to be subject to other people's bug fix schedules (or lack thereof), and permissions (or lack thereof) and functinonal choices (or lack thereof); and partially because the more stuff I write, the more handy tools of my own I have to bring to bear on the next problem that depend on no one but myself and the host language(s) -- which frankly is quite enough dependency for me anyway. Plus it's been writing all this stuff that's made me a decent programmer in the first place. So even if there *were* a library out there to generate general purpose readout dials, I wouldn't have used it; the result would have been the same. All my own code. Not the least bit reluctant to reinvent the wheel.

Still, the idea of making all that stuff both available and trivially usable (and that's what we're talking about here, because a non-programmer will have to hit this at a trivial level) seems to me to have been tried multiple times in multiple venues, and to have failed every time. Personally, I think it's because as programmers, we underestimate the complexity because we've internalized so much; we can't see the actual level of difficulty very well, because it starts out relative to our own skills. This has resulted in quite a few attempts to "make it easy", and none of them have hit any serious stride. The best any of these can boast is a small following making very limited applications, if you really want to stretch what "application" means.

I don't think the idea is ready to fly. The only context I can visualize this actually working is where you have some *very* smart software that can take an abstract description and write code *for* you. That software would have to be (a) very damned smart and (b) conversant with an enormous range of general human knowledge. Right now, as far as I know, that's the precise description of a competent applications programmer. And nothing else.

Comment: Re:Normal? (Score 1) 534

by fyngyrz (#47416991) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Ideas don't arrive in convenient order. Interruptions occur. The world is not a smooth surface, it's full of bumps, pits and detours. Sometimes (as here) there are even reasons to top post. Such as, so someone will actually see it. So get over it. Notably, the AC comment you're objecting to contributed more to the conversation than yours (or mine) does. There's a lesson there.

Comment: Re:Not surprising. (Score 1) 688

by mi (#47416187) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Thoughts are irrelevant.

Racism, which you proposed to ban earlier is exactly that — a thought... To avoid such semantic problems in the future, do try to use more precise terms.

And in civilised countries racist actions are already banned.

And the Blacks only seem to be worse off over the decades. It is not anybody's "racist action", that causes residents of government housing projects (affectionately known as "ghettos") to pee in the stairwells...

Black racism consists of the assumption that they are criminal, violent and or stupid. Theses are not the assumptions about Asians or Jews.

I'm not exactly sure, what beef American Blacks have with the Asians, but, being myself a European Jew, I do know, what anti-semites claim: we are, supposedly, thieves and cheaters (whom nobody should be hiring, of course), constantly scheming to undermine the nations we happen to live in for the sake of Israel (thus should not be hired into government either). Oh, and we use the blood of Christian babies to make matzos...

Are you going to sincerely claim, such accusations don't affect "employment opportunities"?

Which means they don't suffer the same disadvantages in the employment market that blacks do.

Nonsense. Of course, the disadvantages are the same — or worse. In Russia, for example, there were official limits on how many Jews can enter universities, how many could live outside specially-set areas. Certain trades were closed off completely. Yet, somehow, that didn't prevent the Jews from doing well back then. USSR dispensed with the official racism of the Tsars, but the sentiment remained: my own father, for example, had to go to a different city's university — in the late 1960ies — because Kyiv State University was famous for anti-Semitic admission officers. Yet, that didn't prevent him from succeeding — even he remained sufficiently bitter to move his family to the US upon the first opportunity.

Post-Soviet Russia today remains anti-Semitic (though the other ex-Soviet republics no so much), but Jews manage to strive anyway: there are industrialists (of Russian kind) and politicians in addition to the customary lawyers, doctors, and engineers. Perhaps, that's because nobody tried to be condescending to them — the way American Illiberals are towards Blacks...

Comment: Re:Not surprising. (Score 1) 688

by mi (#47412919) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

That statement was asserted (by you) out of context.

This was a good opportunity for you to provide the surrounding context, but you missed it for some reason...

Which is an altogether different matter.

Is it different? When the same person believes, "the unfit" should be either encouraged to not procreate or simply prohibited from procreating, goes on and establishes a network of abortion clinics, can it really be denied, that the belief and the act are rather connected to each other? Of course, they are...

Comment: Re:It's already going on... (Score 1) 343

by mi (#47412885) Attached to: Here Comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies

They were not at all a small operation. That makes your counterpoints a red herring.

Ok, who were the milkmen?

You skipped the whole HMO thing even though it is the most on-target example.

The health insurance in this country is so screwed-up, it does not make a good example for anything other than itself.

Then you could get a discount if you drove a sedan with a smaller engine. Now that 'discount' has turned into a hefty surcharge on cars with a smaller engine than what we used to consider a regular car had.

I don't really see a difference here. The prices for everything are going up — because of the inflation, costs of regulations, and rising taxes — it sucks, but it is not a conspiracy to defraud us (not on the part of the insurers).

I smell frog soup.

Oh, yes, of course. But we aren't being boiled by the "corporations". It is the politicians — who've assumed so much control over us, that Congress can't even deal with it all, which forces them to offload their responsibilities to the giant (and unelected) government bureaucracies. It is bad and is getting worse — but private auto-insurers aren't the problem...

You might have mail.