Badde wackaloon shitte happens when business processes are designed by people who haven’t the slightest fucken clue how the real business actually gets done, and they are so fucken deluded by their own cleverness that they don’t even realize how fucken clueless they are. And yes, the people who actually have to get the fucken business done *will* find workarounds for your bullshitte broken processes because THEY ARE SMARTER THAN YOU.
While I guess this is good, can someone explain to me how the older law is not without-any-question-whatsoever in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to require police to obtain a warrant before reading people’s emails, Facebook messages and other forms of electronic communication.
* * *
The vote is a victory for privacy advocates, who argue that current privacy rules are woefully out of date, and Leahy, who has been pushing for the change for two years.
* * *
Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, police only need a subpoena, issued without a judge’s approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There has been some discussion in the past about the recently implemented NIH policy to disallow second resubmissions of unfunded grant applications (“A2” applications). As I have pointed out, the idea that it is “unfair” to disallow A2 application because it means that “meritorious applications go unfunded” is completely fucken delusional and can only make sense if the laws of arithmetic are repealed:
There is only so much money available to fund competing applications, and the only effect changes in peer review in terms of actual funding of such applications could possible have is a change in which applications get funded. So the notion of “meritorious applications going unfunded because of this pernicious new rule” is nonsense. Limiting resubmissions can’t possibly change the number of “meritorious” applications that go unfunded.
Well, NIH has done some statistical analysis of empirical funding data and mathematical modeling, and–SURPRISE!–has discovered that the laws of arithmetic still are in effect:
Any revision to the policy to allow additional resubmissions of all or a subset of A2 applications will displace equally meritorious A0 and A1 applications, and increase the time to award for many applications.
I’m not sure why NIH felt it needed an empirical study and mathematical model to reach the conclusion that the laws of arithmetic still apply, but whatever.
Can someone please explain to me where this deranged idea came from that the US Postal Service needs to “operate like a business” and “be profitable”? Last I checked, mail delivery was a government service just like building and maintaining roads, police and fire departments, air traffic control, DMVs, etc.
Where did this fucked uppe sicke notion come from that postage is supposed to be the sole source of funds to operate the postal service? Do motor vehicle registration and driver’s license fees fully support your state’s DMV? Does anyone even ask that question or think they should?
Have you ever known someone who, when confronted with a subtle judgment call, invariably makes the wrong call?
Sometimes when I go in the bathroom, I look at myself in the mirror and sneer and flippe myself offe. This keeps me from getting complacent.
A great new strip is from Kaz’s Underworld, an awesome comic world created by Kazimieras “Kaz” G. Prapuoleni.
This comment by Doug Broome of Vancouver that I read today on a NY Times op-ed resonates with the fucken truth:
If inequality were a an hour-long parade the first 10 minutes would be invisible since the marchers have negative worth and consequently are underground. You would then have tiny marchers of up to a foot tall for 30 minutes before people gradually approached “normal” height at the 50 minute mark while the seven-footers start appearing at 55 minutes.
The big surprises of the parade are bunched together in the last seconds. The 200 feet tall giants followed by thousand foot towers and then the three mile high behemoths lost in the clouds, their feet pulverizing buildings.
It was The Economist which had this analogy of inequality about 20 years ago when things were much better.
Now inequality crushes democracy. The broken subterranean lives at the front of the march are shattered with the children of America cast aside. The entire direction of public policy is to pulverize the damaged. The controlling 0.1 per cent has utterly departed civil society to a world of private roads, schools, hospitals, airplanes, police. This plutocracy has no contact with or understanding of the lives of the proles. They own and control, but are devoid of sympathy and knowledge. Everyone is expendable for the purpose of profit.
And government exists to serve the plutocrats with tax cuts and further privileges as the republic declines. How much of this corruption can Americans stomach? It won’t end until the rich have everything as the people scurry from the boots of the five-mile-high overlords.
Is it possible that some people genuinely don’t perceive an e-mail with the specific question in it “When do you expect to complete blah task?” as soliciting a response, but rather see it as some sort of rhetorical question or general encouragement?