Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) Do you outsource email? Have an exchange server through godaddy.com I think.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) You actually have and continue to argue that these studies are economically worthless. That is literally what you are arguing here. On what are you basing any of these assertions? Seriously, why do you believe that it isn't a big deal to delay research for a few years, that this research doesn't provide jobs and won't lead to technological developments? Does a fruit fly study directly lead to marketable technology? No, basic research usually doesn't. But it's the groundwork on which more practical and technological research and development is done, and to that extent, delaying and cancelling research obviously has a negative impact on our economic and societal future. because it's dumb, short-sighted, immediately and long-term detrimental and is being done in the stupidest way possible That was not part of your original statement at all. You responded to a series of posts discussing the impact on the sequester and the shut down on scientific research programs. You asked why we should care if these are shut down and implied that it is somehow linked to the economic recovery. That aside, there's still a couple of problems here. Namely, we don't actually have to cut funding from scientific research (or any other given program) in order to fund jobs programs or give out tax credits. We can also look at economic research and data to determine what the most useful expenditures are, both short- and long-term. Undermining substantial scientific research is going to be terrible long-term, and the economic benefits of tax cuts are pretty minimal at the federal level. Ugh, i'm done arguing with you. You're not even paying attention to what i'm saying. There is a very big difference in arguing that scientific research projects are worthless (not my argument, at all) and scientific research being delayed isn't necessarily going to have a negative effect on the economy (my argument).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) They're very useful for studying genetics. They're super-cheap to breed and maintain and have such short lifespans that you can go though many generations in a relatively short period. Nothing wrong with not knowing that, but jenks' post echoed the frequent lists of "projects with silly-sounding names proves government is wasteful" that get put out by people who sit on Congressional science committess but apparently have zero understanding or zero interest in the science they're criticizing as useless and wasteful. http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/c...esearch-no-joke The media not covering the ins and outs of scientific research is one thing, but isn't necessarily where I was going with that first criticism. Millions of the lower-middle class and working poor have been negatively impacted by the sequester and the shut down, but their stories aren't really covered. First off, stop being an ass and making assumptions about what i'm saying. I never implied that these studies are worthless. Second, for the 4th time, i'm stating that I do not believe that a delay or reduction in spending on these types of studies IN THE SHORT TERM, is really that big of a deal. Obviously the people involved will pay the price, but the economy in general won't. Seriously SS, what's the harm if that research study or others like gets delayed for 2 years. Is that project creating more jobs for Americans? Is it creating technology for a new industry for American companies? No. It's a study that beneficially increases our knowledge of the world but does little to assist with the recovery. In that sense, I'm asking why it's such a big deal, especially if we can take those funds and IN THE SHORT TERM apply it to more beneficial programs for creating jobs or giving people some of their money back in the form of tax breaks/credits.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) This implies that cutting certain government programs/funding would, at best, not be detrimental to an economic and societal recovery. Given the context (sequester, shut down), it's a transparently bad argument; cutting funding or programs is obviously going to have a detrimental effect on society/economy. The only way it could be neutral or positive is if that money were instead shifted elsewhere (other programs, or tax cuts) and you could actually show the impacts. As it is, it just looks like a shallow argument that government doesn't do anything useful so who cares if it gets cut anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again - i think what the house repubs are doing is stupid and dangerous. This isn't the best way to reduce spending in government. But I'm not buying the hype that this short term reduction/stoppage is going to royally screw up the recovery.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Oct 13, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) It all depends on the size of the business. The difference between hiring a full time IT staff internally and outsourcing is big difference. In addition, a lot of small businesses just don't budget properly and invest just enough to keep the business running. As far as Cryptolocker, the bad part about paying the ransom is that you can just as quickly get infected again (if they don't harden their network). AV vendors have yet to crack the encryption. Yeah, we're a 5 attorney, 10 person total office, so it makes no sense to have a full time IT person. We actually spend more on IT crap than I think it's worth. Sadly, for whatever reason, our email scanner didn't catch this and then my secretary opened up an email she shouldn't have. Paying the ransom did seem to work btw. Now i'm looking into signing up for a better email filter service. Anyone have any recommendations?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) This is great because it's a complete non-response but also demonstrates that you don't understand why scientists study fruit flies. edit: and really, you're shifting your argument here. You implied that cutting this research is somehow necessary or beneficial for a society recovering from an economic collapse. You then shifted that to a statement that cutting this research isn't detrimental. They're both just silly assertions, but they are different assertions. How and why would cutting government research funding help the economy and society? I said nothing like this. I don't know where you got that from. My statement was "hey guys, maybe it's not the end of the world if we cut funding for the short term. Maybe."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:44 AM) Your argument isn't supported by anything, though. Time will tell. When society has fallen because a scientist couldn't study the mating habits of a fruit fly, you can tell me I was wrong.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:37 AM) I think the demonstration here should scare us more for seeing that just a 15% cut in governmental operations is hitting pretty much everyone in the country. Granted part of that is done on purpose to maximize the hit, but still, I can't figure out why no one is more concerned with the entire country pretty much being utterly dependent on the government these days. We need to be asking how it happened, and what we can do to fix it. +1 And it happened with 60-70 years of one political party asking "what should the country be doing for me?"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) I didn't claim that it did. However, we are inevitably undercutting research that would improve society and the economy in the future, and we're doing it in such a stupid way that it negatively impacts society and the economy right now. We're just installing some equipment at LANL, but we're going to be kicked off site and payment for services will be stopped at the end of this week just because. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees aren't getting their paychecks that they'd spend in their local communities. Private research, investment and other work isn't getting funded. There's big ripple effects to all of this, and they're not helpful. Furthermore, there's still a problem with your central premise, that cutting government research funding (or any other number of non-essential government funding, e.g. the NPS) is necessary or helpful to a society and economy still in the middle of a recovery from a substantial economic collapse. No doubt it's stupid, I agree with you there. I just don't think the effect is going to be all that great. Projects lose funding all the time. Delays happen with construction projects or tech implementation that end up costing money. These things happen regardless of funding issues from the government and life moves on. You and I know this is all temporary. Spending cuts never stick around. Hell, the sequester cuts brought back spending levels to what, like 2 years ago? My premise isn't that cutting these programs is beneficial (they may or may not be). My argument is that they're not detrimental. And i'm speaking more towards research funding, not people receiving paychecks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise here. edit: more bluntly, cutting off our own feet with respect to scientific research and technological development isn't going to help the economy or our society in general. It's going to hurt it. Especially when it's done in such a stupid manner as its being done right now. Not every piece of scientific research or tech development funded by the government leads to some kind of economic benefit. I think that's a pretty faulty premise.

I'll prepare to be flamed here repeatedly, but at some point, maybe it's ok that certain government programs/funding gets put on the back burner while the economy and our society in general heals from a pretty major blow in the recent past? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

Despite spending 70 bucks (36 on tickets, 10 on drinks/popcorn, 25 on parking) Gravity was f'n amazing to watch. Everyone should see it in IMAX 3D.

I blame my moronic secretary for opening up a questionable email more than our contracted, out-of-office IT person.

That one shouldn't hurt AS bad with Bostic replacing him. Bostic will get beat a few times badly, but he'll make some big stops too.

We have two back-up systems, but the problem is it'll cost more to have IT people come get the backup stuff loaded back onto our server (on top of making sure all of the computers and server are clean). Our IT guy actually said it's easier/cheaper to just pay the ransom and they've been told that security companies have monitored what happens after you pay and it actually does unencrypt the files and uninstalls itself. We got a pre-paid card and provided the information to the hackers via the program. Unfortunately it takes up to 48 hours to verify payment. So that's awesome.

So one my secretaries got this "Cryptolocker" virus on her computer last night. It took over my entire firms' network. It's an awesome virus that installs itself and then encrypts every file on the host computer (and any drive connected to that computer, including our 10 year old shared drive with every document we've created). In order to get the key to unencrypt the files, you gotta pay a ransom of $300 bucks to the hackers in a pre-paid debit card form. Getting rid of the virus does nothing as the files are still encrytped and unusable. Gonna be a fun Friday getting this all figured out.

ugh, the defense is so bad.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:26 PM) term limits will concentrate the power with the people who donate the money and the candidates they put in place. How's that any different than the current system? At least if there were term limits the buddy-buddy, old gentleman's club crap would stop.

I love Archer:

#slideshowlinkfail. God I hate those things.

How on earth did a broken website cost 635 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS to create, let alone the original bid of 94 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS. Jesus, and you people want the government to be in charge of healthcare????????

GTA V's online crew system/party system sucks donkey balls. That is all.

I went to the MNF game against the Packers. They got beat, but it was still an awesome atmosphere.

Term limits. That's the only solution.

Anyone read the Ken Follett Century Trilogy books? I finished the first, Fall of Giants (WWI era), and i'm about a third into the second, Winter of the World (WW2 era). If you liked Pillars of the Earth or World Without End they're basically the same just set in a different world with different characters.