Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Dont do anyone any favors (Score 0) 644

You've skipped addressing the adoption analogy. In an adoption the same termination of parental rights and duties occurs yet people who give up a kid for adoption don't face this. What is so distinguishable to make it acceptable to bill bio-parent Here?

The difference is that an adoption contract doesn't have two parties, it has three: The birth parents, the adopting parents, and the state. The state is involved in the process, and will only allow adoption if the adopters can demonstrate financial security. In the sperm donor case, there were only two private parties, and their private agreement should not be able to force an expense onto the taxpayers.

Comment Re:Waste of money (Score 4, Insightful) 401

Industry can't meet requirements when the requirements are not nailed down until well in the development process.

This is so that the contract can be low-balled (wink, wink) and pushed through congress (more wink, wink) and then the "real" requirements can be tacked on later and the price jacked up, which is exactly what everyone (especially the winkers) expected.

There is a solution to this phony system: prediction markets. Big government contracts should not be able to be funded unless informed investors, wagering their own money, believe that there is at least a 50% probability of it being finished on time and under budget.

Comment Re:Waste of money (Score 3, Insightful) 401

That is not correct, at all. DoD and government requires different organizations to be involved at all stages, regardless of what you think about a 'military-industrial complex'.

They are the SAME PEOPLE. They just rotate jobs periodically. Government employees and politicians responsible for managing the procurement process routinely work for a while to build their connections and then leave and go work for the contractors. So when working on the government side of the MIC, they have no incentive to go against the interests of their future employers on the industry side.

Comment Re:Dont do anyone any favors (Score 0) 644

Because that's not allowed.

Baloney. If the state refuses to take your money (unlikely), you can donate it directly to the dad.

What's sad is that the state is using a technicality to override a valid contract, over the objections of all other parties.

Why should two private individuals be able to agree to dump expenses in the lap of the taxpayer?

Should I be able to sign a contract with my wife, absolving both of us of the responsibility of paying income tax?

Comment Re:Waste of money (Score 1) 401

how long does it take to fly around the globe vs. taking off from a nearby airfield or CV?

The nearby airfield is faster. Definitely. But what is your point? If you have a local airfield or carrier, you can use it to launch either drones or piloted aircraft. If you don't, then either drones or manned aircraft can use remote airfields and refuel en-route.

Comment Re:Every Time (Score 1) 401

Just to be fair, can anyone name a U.S. aircraft that was delivered ontime and at or below budget since the U2 or SR71? This is SOP, not that it's right.

There is a solution to this: Public prediction markets. No large public spending project should go forward unless informed investors, wagering their own money, believe it has at least a 50% chance of meeting the budget/schedule.

Comment Re:Waste of money (Score 5, Insightful) 401

In the mean time, where would you like to launch your drones from if there's not base nearby? Some drones are rather large.

Many large drones are capable of aerial refueling. They can circle the globe without landing. Or they can loiter indefinitely over a critical area. Drones are the future. The people that designed the F35 are like bad hockey players: they skate towards where the puck is, rather than where it is going.

Comment Re: One and the same (Score 1) 441

Ross Perot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... ), won a large amount of popular vote in 1992 (~19% the largest third party popular vote in almost a century) and I don't recall any big sea changes in the two big parties

Ross Perot didn't make much of a difference because, other than opposition to NAFTA, he didn't really stand for anything in particular.

Comment Re:Mod the parent up. (Score 4, Informative) 213

it's been like that for well over a century.

No it hasn't. In 1960, 5.3% of black babies were born out of wedlock. In 2012 it was 69%. We can "blame society" for many of the problems, due to misguided social policies on the left, and massive expansion of prisons on the right, but there is still plenty of additional blame to heap on the individuals for their own bad choices.

Comment Re:Comparison to Chess? (Score 1) 136

Apparently there is no decent Go computer player in the world that can beat more than an average Go human player.

This was true a decade ago. Today, both algorithms and hardware have made huge advances. There are some very good go programs. I consider myself an above average player of both chess and go (I have won amateur tournaments at both). I never win against a modern chess program. I rarely win against a modern go program.

Comment Re: One and the same (Score 4, Interesting) 441

That will never happen due to "winner takes all" laws in the States.

It has already happened, numerous times. A third party won in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln, of the upstart Republican Party, beat both the Democrats and the Whigs. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Socialist Party won enough votes that the Democrat Party co-opted much of their platform to win back those votes. In the 1990s, "culture war" conservatives like Pat Buchanan won enough votes to pull the Republican Party sharply to the right on social issues.

History has shown that voting third party is by far the most effective way to change how America is governed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Small is beautiful.

Working...