The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2013-06-05 Reply Admin

Rob:
Jazz, instead of treating the Tea Party as a group mind which they are not, you might consider the idea that what is being said is that the people who live in a coastal area should pay for the rebuilding costs, people who live and work in New York City should pay for the flooded subways that flooded due to the lack of flood barricades, people who live along the shore in New Jersey should pay the costs of rebuilding their houses, people who live down in Florida by Cape Canaveral should pay for their own storm cleanup, and realize that all that is being said, is "That the people who benefit by living in an area should pay the costs of living in that area."

As someone who considers himself a liberal democrat (though does not agree with every platform point, of course), I think that's a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had. But: the US has customarily provided federal aid to major disaster areas, and the time to decide that we don't want to do that isn't after the disaster it affects. If we want to set up a policy that discontinues such aid in the future, using Sandy aid or whatever to jumpstart that discussion is fine.

Simon:
["everyone should pay for their own stuff"] does not work when it comes to things like floods, earthquakes and even diseases or health care.

Actually I'd say that 'quakes provide some evidence to the contrary, a little bit. CA has a state-wide umbrella insurer essentially that provides earthquake insurance to residents who want it. I'm pretty sure it hasn't actually been tested -- in the sense of does it have enough money to be liquid in the face of a big 'quake -- but it does provide some evidence that this sort of thing need not be done at the federal level really.

2013-06-05 Reply Admin

Firstly, some people in this thread suggest firing Ramon. Since this story is set in the US that makes you psychopaths.

George Nacht:
Sorry, as my mother language is a Slavic one, can someone tell me, whether "what can I do you for" is still considered an innuendo, or did it already became a regular expression?

“What can I do you for?” is not a regular expression. A regular expression would be: /What can I do you for?/

synp:
This is not to say that it wouldn't be more efficient to just give these institutions some "flag budget" from the state and send them to deal with the manufacturers directly, but it makes more sense than private citizens buying state flags to fly on their lawns. Citizens would fly US flags, not the state flag.

I've in the past done some work for an quango in a pretty similar situation. I wouldn't be surprised, given the apparent volume of flag orders, that the state can do a much better job at finding the cheapest manufacturer and getting a bulk discount. When people cry ‘this is why we need a smaller government’, ‘this’ is usually something that shows we need a bigger, but also a more accountable government. In the case of the US, a good first step would be to switch to proportional representation.

2013-06-06 Reply Admin

Mark:
urza9814:
Essentially, you can't commit a crime if there is no victim, and the victim and perpetrator cannot be the same person.
Then what's your definition of "attempted suicide?"

What part of what I posted is unclear? Suicide should not be criminal -- whether you succeed or not. If you don't have a right to that then you are not free in any sense of the word. The right to have control over your own body is the most fundamental right there is. You can't have free speech if you have no right to control your mouth; you can't have religious freedom if you can't control your brain; you can't have a right to bear arms without a right to, well, human arms. And if you have all these things, you have a right to make them _stop_ doing things just as much as you have a right to do things with them.

Mark:

urza9814:
Since it doesn't hurt you at all if I'm sitting at home drinking two liters of soda or popping Viagra or snorting cocaine, none of those should be illegal.
What about the costs levied upon the health care system that insurance holders have to bear? Or the costs to a hospital system to process your subsequent death from cocaine consumption if you have no insurance? Who is hurt by that? Somebody has to pay for it, and is economically affected (read: hurt) by it.
Captcha: genitus

You shouldn't be required to purchase insurance; if you do choose to purchase it, then you choose to support those costs. Of course, I think healthcare should be a single-payer system, so yeah you'd be paying for it in taxes...but you also already would pay for smokers and alcoholics; you'd pay for the guy who was hunting and shot himself in the leg; you'd pay for the guy who decided to jump off his roof...so why shouldn't you pay for the guy taking cocaine too? The alternative is just to execute anyone who ever makes a stupid decision...so personally I prefer the former.

2013-06-06 Reply Admin

This comments section turned out just the way I though it would. Thanks America.

2013-06-07 Reply Admin

As a matter of fact, when someone is determined to fight you, then it is FAR FAR FAR better to move the fight into their house, than to let them continue to fight you in yours.

As long as we're fighting them in Afghanistan, very few of them come here.

Who would you rather have them attacking -- well-armed Americans who are also well-trained to respond to an attack, and to kill the attackers.... or, the typical clueless Americans wandering around a shopping mall, or sitting in their office trying to get work done, or what have you.

Me -- I would MUCH rather that they focus strictly on attacking Americans who are well-armed, well-equipped, well-trained, and who know how to deal with attacks by crazies with small arms and explosives. [And being that I'm one of those who has had his life interrupted a couple times to go BE one of those in the well-armed, etc. category, and I take a pay-cut when I do it, I'm certainly not saying that this job should be done by "someone else, not me"].

2013-06-08 Reply Admin

xaade:
4. Oh really. I don't think that you understand history. Certain groups in the world have chosen to hate us just to hate us.

A tip: If you're going to accuse someone of not understanding history, don't follow up that accusation with a claim that "(something) just happened for no reason"

2013-06-10 Reply Admin

Akulkis:
As a matter of fact, when someone is determined to fight you, then it is FAR FAR FAR better to move the fight into their house, than to let them continue to fight you in yours.
As long as we're fighting them in Afghanistan, very few of them come here.

Very few of them come here in any case, but it's noteworthy that there have been many more attacks "here" (either in the US or in the dar al-harb generally) since we started the war in Afghanistan than ever did before it.

But thanks, in any case, for putting your money where your mouth is. Even if I disagree with you about the need for the war, I have a lot of respect for that.

2013-06-24 Reply Admin

As a consultant in industrial automation it is my job to find these people and eliminate their position by replacing them with software or machine where appropriate, the fancy title is just so employees don't know right away why i am there for, people tend to get crazy when you explain that you are there to fire as many of their ass as possible. I have not worked for the government yet, they would never be able to withstand the slaughter.

2013-07-06 Reply Admin

“But let me tell you, it sure beats flipping burgers!”

He knew.

2013-07-06 Reply Admin

ObiWayneKenobi:
THIS is why we need smaller government, folks.

That depends on how you look at it. Maybe the government should hire some people to look for inefficiencies like this.

Who Automates the Automation?

Leave a comment on “Who Automates the Automation?”