"it appears that the word wrack
"it appears that the word wrack
Just think of it as a jobs program/economic stimulus/enrichment of a random company on the public dole. It makes perfect sense if you buy into the economic value of the government scaling big bureaucracies that depend on a competent contractor to help them scale so big being beneficial to the economy. Just think about how much more beneficial it is, then, to have it done three or four times to get it right.
On the other hand, consumers could have spent that money rather than paying the government to pay those extra contractor costs. But then again, consumers tend to over-spend anyway and corrode the economy. Sometimes that's to the point that the government has to choose between bailing out the banks and bailing out the consumers. Then again, the government encourages that, too. And of course rather than bailing out the consumers they bail out the banks so they can create more consumer debt and start all over.
The main difference between big government folks and small government folks, you see, isn't that one thinks the government is well intentioned and the other thinks it is evil and needs to be kept in check. That's certainly a factor, but it's not the main one. The main difference is that big government people have an idealized concept of the government as a doer of good. Small government people are skeptical that anything too big and too detached from the lives of real people can reasonably accomplish good things for the majority of people on a regular basis.
So far it has fewer than 1,000 signatures, but do we really need it to have more? Is there a jurisdiction in the US where breaking a window to save a human life is actually considered a crime by police and the courts? If so, what madness is that? Do Congress and the President really need to state in a statute that saving a life is justifiable grounds for what it basically minor property damage?
Is this a case of overly cautious people, overly litigious civil society, or overzealous enforcement of laws? How does it interact with good samaritan laws? What makes doing the right thing so hard?"
Two words: hamster ball
In a way it does. They are offering that since the simplest answer was incomplete there's at least one slightly more complicated way things might work. You see, the simplest explanation isn't the thing. The simplest explanation that actually explains things is.
Indeed. The PC was IBM's way to fill a top-to-bottom order without letting other vendors in at the desktop/workstation levels. That was about it.
A Cell is a PPC core with extra coprocessors, and was the secret processor that caused delays for Apple that IBM couldn't explain. IIRC it was no secret what chip was going into the PS3 before launch. Again, IIRC, Microsoft forced IBM into a minimum delivery rate and wouldn't allow them to disclose to other chip customers where the capacity had gone.
G5s ran too hot for notebooks. IBM's manufacturing capacity for Power/PPC cores outside its own servers and workstations was eaten up by Microsoft for its XBox line. Apple was waiting too much on inventory. They switched to Intel not because their chips were more powerful, but because their chips were more available and could be used more flexibly.
I am a US citizen. I don't consider criticism of the US government to be anti-American. In fact, I consider criticizing the US government to be one of the most pro-American and American-like things one can do. The US government isn't America. The people are the country. The government when it hurts the people is the anti-American one. Loving the government over the people is anti-American. Loving the people of America and pointing out or correcting the failings of the government is the legacy of the country.
And yes, I have been pointing out that the government here has been favoring businesses over people and favoring one business over another for some time. Basically whichever business is best for the legislators gets the best laws, and whichever is best for the executive gets the most preferential enforcement of those laws. I think it's hard to say that's far from fascism if we're to be honest. It's a kinder, gentler fascism than those we associate with the term, but for how long?
It is illegal to put oneself in a position which must by necessity lead to breaking one law or another. If they can't follow the jurisdiction of both governments then they have no right to operate across those jurisdictions as one business venture.
You can subpoena the party to produce the evidence. The people in the US are answerable to US law by definition. The people in Ireland are by definition under the control regarding the employer's data of their employers in the US. What would seem to be the problem?
I guarantee you that if you smuggled evidence from the US to Ireland that the US government would punish you for not producing it.