Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. The one exception to that I can speculate about (but don't have telecom expertise to say) would be if the White House switching system is big enough and sophisticated enough (and I've heard it's really something else) to have all that capability you'd expect of the telephone company. So the White House system, not the telephone company would have all the detail, and the phone company or outside NSA type couldn't "break into" it. In that case Mueller would have to get the number from whoever controlled the White House system. And that might be a problem. Just speculating without the facts.
  2. That would address my conflict because speed affects their cost. Content does not. Unfair discrimination is still possible but less so.
  3. I seek to have discussion on the topics which interest me. Often it happens without my prompting. But that's some high profile event. Topics in the category of "bad things liberals are doing" don't usually happen without special prompting. Topics in the category "most people know very little without reading a lot" also don't get much natural play.
  4. I have mixed feelings about net neutrality. I'm sure a lot of that is due to a lack of understanding of some of the issues. I think that: - there are some functions which are essentially a utility, and should be operated like a utility. To use an example I understand if somebody owns the interstate from Houston to Dallas they shouldn't be permitted to fuck over their competitors by treating their cars differently. - not all users are alike. Again an example I understand, it isn't right to expect the huge truck to pay the same fee as a car. The utility should be allowed to charge the truck a truck rate. These points conflict, and the answer lies in understanding the facts. And I don't. I know the trucking companies want one pricing system and subcompact car owners another. I can see the right balance for cars but not for internet users because I understand the real costs for highway usage but not for internet usage. And teo more things: 1. The model is a fixed cost model. Variable costs are almost zip. So utilization is very, very important. 2. The price performance of the technology changes dramatically. New capacity might be provided at one one hundredth the cost of a decade earlier. That also does ugly things to pricing models. It's not easy to understand and I distrust simple answers.
  5. I said "change to fix these issues". In the first and second, for example, I'd write rules which had the only thing required to happen on the floor was voting. I'd require bills to be in final form online a certain time before voting. I'd require revisions to be marked so that I could see when particular wording was added or deleted. I could easily see the difference between revision 4 and revision 5. In short I'd have the rules reflect the modern way of negotiating a big agreement, not the 1789 way, and not the PTA meeting way. The mechanics would be how IBM does a deal with AT&T. In 1789 they couldn't hand every legislator a copy of the bill, so they had readings. We can't read a 1,000 page health care bill. Even handing us a new version of a 1,000 page bill is no good if you don't say what's changed since the one you gave me yesterday. It's idiocy to think I'm supposed to reread the bill and figure that out. And voters don't need to see bullshit debate. They need to see the fucking bill, and see it in time to scream about it. Or somebullshit feature smeaked in at the last minute.
  6. Are you the Therepods from Shaggy? You don't seem at all like him. He was much smarter and much nicer. You just flunked logic. My statement was not about Junior's lying. For it to be false you need to show Mueller does not have many, many more tools. Proving or disproving my statement does not say whether Junior is lying. It says whether Mueller has tools. Theropods from Shaggy would know that. Maybe you're Theropods after five bourbons.
  7. I'm sure the number is available. I couldn't tell you if it is in the phone company records or the White House switching system records. In any case Mueller knows that info. More important Mueller will know the whole truth. I'm sure he has many, many more tools at his disposal to tell if Junior is lying. We can't tell shit from our vantage point.
  8. These two lists would look very different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/
  9. And I would make it five years from now even if the Dems were in power. It is more favorable to Dems to adopt these good government proposals now.
  10. Yep. Hyperbole to get amusement. No question. The topic is serious. I eventually gave a serious opinion. For those who want my opinion it's in the thread to find. But very few do. Poo flinging is what this site is about. I'd love for it to be different but until then I'll just deal in amusement to kick it off.
  11. For years I posted "intelligent" articles. They got no response. A panel on C-SPAN doesn't get the viewers that a rant by Sean Hannity does. About ten years ago I changed my methods. I'd do the "intelligent" articles if it would get discussed. I'd rather get five pages of amusement that no response.
  12. As always, the articles I post are vehicles for introducing an issue. They are rarely my opinion, although usually they are roughly in the vein of what my opinion is. As always I'm not trying to conduct a trial serving as both an advocate and a juror. I'm looking to discuss a topic. As such I'm not concerned if the article presents my case poorly. It would be nice if it did but I'm sure that anyone who really cares can get my opinion. And I'm well aware that many don't care what my opinion is. And in fact want to portray it as something it isn't.
  13. I don't doubt that there are a few people (Johnny Sack said three) of the 94 who are part-time and get paid out of another department. If the English Department carries them I'll let it pass. My quarrel is with the department budget. Cut it to about $200K from, say, $12 million (berkelet's is $20 million and 150 people), and I'll be happy. If English profs want a committee to have diversity ideas I'm happy. NOW, do your exercise for staff people. I think you found Johnny's three part-timers.
  14. I went through the downloaded file. Her salary of $199, 209.01 is paid by "Division of Diversity and Community Engagement". I will guess she keeps her prof title and may get some additional comp if she does anything for them. You lose.
  15. There are 91 full-time and 3 part-time. I have to believe she is one of the three part-time. Your argument may be valid for the three part-time, not for the 91 full-time. The validity will depend on what UT gets for her work in non-diversity roles.
  16. My rules all go to make things right. They do NOT give more power to the party in power. The Third gives less. The first two have nothing to do with power.
  17. In that case the HR committee wouldn't be paying them $600K. The lawyer in the environmental group would have most of his comp, probably all of it, charged to that department.
  18. This is the point. The Department of Diversity isn't paying for a woman who also teaches English for free. If she teaches English then the English Department pays her too. Which makes this shit WORSE because that comp is for a part-time person.
  19. You are 100% WRONG. All 94 positions are listed.
  20. The legal department handles it. I'm not opposed to defense. I'm opposed to being a plaintiff in suits like the one in the article.
  21. My new department would have one of those $42,185 outreach center counselors. Maybe two. That's it. Not 94 people. No budget for litigation.
  22. The article I linked in the OP. Berkeley's is 150, btw.
  23. The problem with large bureaucracies are twofold. They waste money and they do stupid shit to justify their existence. If UT had one staff person with no authority over programs and a mission to promote diversity among prospective students you wouldn't get the stupid shit. There would be no memos on how to dress at Halloween because the person would have more important shit to do, no authority to write memos to students and no audience with somebody who could. They'd be visiting the guidance counselor at Yates.
  24. It is a staff approaching 100. As I previously stated, it should be a staff of one person. They should have a modest salary (e.g. $50K for Austin) and no programs within UT. Their job should be to visit schools which have underrepresented demos and help them get admitted in a color-blind admissions process. Any time a bureaucracy is 100 times what it should be I'd say massive is an understatement. Imagine if a lawyer who needed one admin helper (who didn't bill) had 100. I'd be talking about his massive support staff.
×
×
  • Create New...