Of course, EVERY piece of software you run is security software, to some degree. In that it runs on your machine, has access to your files and (presumably) the internet.
Speaking of which, there are persistent stories of the new version of uTorrent connecting to hosts that have nothing to do with the torrents you are downloading...
The problem is that there are really three different types of insurance that are all rolled into "health insurance": injury, infection and chronic disorder. That's not an official list, just one I'm making up on the fly. But I think it fits.
Injury is something that is mostly unforeseen. It's about getting hit by a car, falling off a ladder, etc. For the most part, people cluster around the center of the distribution when it comes to likelihood of being injured. Sure, people who are 20 have a different chance than people who are 40, 60, etc. But these factors come in fairly granular chunks like age and sex. Insurance companies already ask questions about high risk activities like profession and sometimes hobbies (like skydiving). Other than that, though, it's really hard to tell which person at the office is more likely to break his arm next weekend.
Then there's the same kind of deal, only with infections. It's hard to tell who will get the flu or pinkeye or tetanus. Yes, medicine is always finding possibilities of genetic predispositions and lifestyle interacting with otherwise "unrelated" health issues. But again, this is fairly granular. We have age, sex, and substance use, but not much more.
Then there are the chronic disorders, for lack of a better term. By this, I mean things you are likely to get due to a genetic predisposition. Like TMJ, Crohn's disease, glaucoma, diabetes, certain types of cancer, etc. Again, there are lifestyle factors that can come into play here. But one of the main areas we are finding more and more information in is how to tell who is at risk simply due to their genes and/or how they spent the earlier years of their life and can't change.
Now, using BMI or even smoking to change premiums for injury is going to be fairly specious. Yes, the 500 lb man is probably at a much higher risk than the 175 lb one no matter what the BMI, but what's the real difference between two individuals within the normal range of weight you see every day, even if it's considered medically obese?
But for the third category, and to some degree the second, we're moving more and more down the path of finding out just how healthy or sickly a person might be AHEAD of time. This runs completely counter to the insurance industry. The insurance industry is about people paying a smaller amount of money to hedge against paying a larger amount of money. To actually work, the large payouts by the insurance company must be balanced by a certain number of people who are healthy enough to get less benefit than they paid for. So if we start putting people in classes where everyone has about the same outcome, rather than the same risk, it's no longer insurance and the whole system falls down.
I would think this is as bad for the insurance companies than for the insured. Because once they start really profiling people and finding those who are the healthiest, that group is not going to want to pay in more than their "fair share" for the insurance. On the other hand, the better you get at charging the class that is going to need large benefits for the actual cost of those benefits, there's no point in that group in having anything other than injury insurance, either. You're actually replacing health insurance for those conditions with a Health Savings Account.
People on both sides of the "argument" are engaging in a bit of a futile exercise. As you said, it's entirely subjective. Yet both are trying to prove the others' opinions to be wrong, when that goes against the very definition of opinion.
Google plans to compete on quality of service level. Existing companies prefer to compete on lack of choice and lock-in, especially by monopolies in service regions or with a particular technology.
No matter who provides the service, the users will likely be using Google as a search engine and get Google ads on their result pages (as well as all the pages with syndicated ads). In its current position, Google can always get a slice of the pie no matter who owns the tubes.
Both of these will also drive down the top bid price, as it will make it less lucrative to the current buyers to work under these constraints.
Forget framing your roomie, the people you want to frame are the people who are messing up the curve. Don't worry. In the future, the smart ones are going to pick some other school when they find out about this policy.
You could, and that would probably still be a GOOD thing. Because if MS fixed it quickly, it means those who purchased the exploit would get a lot less for their money. Therefore, they'd be less willing to buy exploits in the future, or at least pay less.
Such a market wouldn't be about *exclusive* knowledge of exploits.
Who are you arguing with? Because I know I never said it shouldn't be in PG. I was specifically responding to the claim that since there are 21k titles in PG, there must be something in there the OP would enjoy reading - claiming they just didn't look hard enough.
Oh, I don't deny that. I hate the system as much as anyone. My comment was solely on the mistake of implying that the 21,000 "titles" were things people would read.
Actually, my picking one example goes to the heart of the fallacy of simply using a big number to "prove" that there has to be something in there. It's wrong because, as my example shows, Gutenberg includes things people would never read. So you need to come up with an actual number of titles broken down by category. Until then, saying something like the original poster did is just ludicrous.
C'mon, I would be fairly disappointed with a library of 21,000 real books even if it contained only fiction from random authors from 1900-2000. Gutenberg doesn't even have that much depth.
That's not to take anything away from them. But to make claims about it being a good selection based on "21,000 - gee that's a big number" is a bit ludicrous.
I don't mean bandwidth purely in bytes/sec. Think of it more as capacity. I would guess that current system capacity is built around how many active mobile phones you're going to have. Since everything costs money, and having a mobile phone in use isn't going to be free, providers are going to build their capacity around what they think the maximum and average totals are going to be. I know I would. There must be some maximum at which the responsiveness of the system begins to degrade and some point at which it either totally fails (unlikely) or just stops denying new requests over the limit (more likely). I wouldn't think either of those situations would be pleasant. You'd build so that you don't come very close to this limit, but you'd try to overbuild to save money.
Putting them in a large percentage of cars would definitely change those numbers. This gets more and more true as you try to increase granularity of tracking. It's one thing to track where someone is once every three hours, another for every hour and quite another for every five minutes. At the lower granularity, you can just turn the mobile on, check in and turn it off. As you get more granular, you approach "always on" functionality. As you get to higher granularity, you call into question what they're really "tracking." Though neither are "good" to me, tracking where your car is once every three hours is definitely different than tracking where it is every five minutes.
Q: Does OnStar continuously monitor my car's location? A: No, OnStar does not continuously or routinely monitor, update or otherwise track the location of OnStar-equipped cars. OnStar only knows the location of a car when a user initiates a request for service, there is an Air Bag Deployment, an Advanced Automatic Crash Notification occurs, your OnStar equipment calls OnStar with data updates or when required to locate a car by a valid court order in criminal procedures or under exigent circumstances. OnStar requires police involvement for Stolen Vehicle Location Assistance and missing person requests.
Near as I can tell onstar uses nothing more than a cellphone and a gps receiver. It's fairly low-tech to have the cellphone phone home periodically and give it the location. Of course, having every car on the road doing this continuously would eat a lot of cellphone bandwidth.
Well, your first mistake would be having an email reader that displays active content. I know I have Thunderbird to show everything as plain text. It's not "pretty", but it's safe. Of course, for 99% of emails, "pretty" is completely unnecessary.
As a longtime gamer (starting with Atari), I'm not sure this is a bad thing. These days, it seems the "hardcore" gamer is the one who perfects their Halo or Half-Life skill, or who sinks 8 hours a day 7 days a week into WoW. In other words, hardcore now means large-time-investment. For those of us who love to play games but just don't want to invest that much of our lives in them, it would be a good thing. I liked to play WoW, but having to skew towards the "hardcore" players made the game less fun to casual players like me. So it would be great if it opens more niches like an "MMORPG for casual players."
Yes. And if there's one person in the world who understands what networks mean, the name of this person is Bob Metcalfe. I'm sure anything he has to predict about the future of the Internet MUST be right.
Nevermind will it work in the cell phone market (though I think the answer is no) - will it even work in the music player market? I have several friends whose iPods crapped out after less than two years. They're quite dissatisfied with that. They went ahead and bought another, but I just don't see how that can last more than a couple of cycles.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, EVERY piece of software you run is security software, to some degree. In that it runs on your machine, has access to your files and (presumably) the internet.
Speaking of which, there are persistent stories of the new version of uTorrent connecting to hosts that have nothing to do with the torrents you are downloading...
The problem is that there are really three different types of insurance that are all rolled into "health insurance": injury, infection and chronic disorder. That's not an official list, just one I'm making up on the fly. But I think it fits.
Injury is something that is mostly unforeseen. It's about getting hit by a car, falling off a ladder, etc. For the most part, people cluster around the center of the distribution when it comes to likelihood of being injured. Sure, people who are 20 have a different chance than people who are 40, 60, etc. But these factors come in fairly granular chunks like age and sex. Insurance companies already ask questions about high risk activities like profession and sometimes hobbies (like skydiving). Other than that, though, it's really hard to tell which person at the office is more likely to break his arm next weekend.
Then there's the same kind of deal, only with infections. It's hard to tell who will get the flu or pinkeye or tetanus. Yes, medicine is always finding possibilities of genetic predispositions and lifestyle interacting with otherwise "unrelated" health issues. But again, this is fairly granular. We have age, sex, and substance use, but not much more.
Then there are the chronic disorders, for lack of a better term. By this, I mean things you are likely to get due to a genetic predisposition. Like TMJ, Crohn's disease, glaucoma, diabetes, certain types of cancer, etc. Again, there are lifestyle factors that can come into play here. But one of the main areas we are finding more and more information in is how to tell who is at risk simply due to their genes and/or how they spent the earlier years of their life and can't change.
Now, using BMI or even smoking to change premiums for injury is going to be fairly specious. Yes, the 500 lb man is probably at a much higher risk than the 175 lb one no matter what the BMI, but what's the real difference between two individuals within the normal range of weight you see every day, even if it's considered medically obese?
But for the third category, and to some degree the second, we're moving more and more down the path of finding out just how healthy or sickly a person might be AHEAD of time. This runs completely counter to the insurance industry. The insurance industry is about people paying a smaller amount of money to hedge against paying a larger amount of money. To actually work, the large payouts by the insurance company must be balanced by a certain number of people who are healthy enough to get less benefit than they paid for. So if we start putting people in classes where everyone has about the same outcome, rather than the same risk, it's no longer insurance and the whole system falls down.
I would think this is as bad for the insurance companies than for the insured. Because once they start really profiling people and finding those who are the healthiest, that group is not going to want to pay in more than their "fair share" for the insurance. On the other hand, the better you get at charging the class that is going to need large benefits for the actual cost of those benefits, there's no point in that group in having anything other than injury insurance, either. You're actually replacing health insurance for those conditions with a Health Savings Account.
My ass. KISS IT.
I have. And they often make me want to kill myself, preferably taking several (specific) people out with me...
"Brevity is the soul of wit." -- William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
Yes. Because suicide bombers often repeat their attacks OVER AND OVER.
Reading comprehension FTW.
Nintendo's Wii caught them with their pants down.
Add to that the definition of "opinion."
You can't be wrong. You can, however, be out of the consensus of popular opinion. Or the consensus of critical opinion. Etc.
People on both sides of the "argument" are engaging in a bit of a futile exercise. As you said, it's entirely subjective. Yet both are trying to prove the others' opinions to be wrong, when that goes against the very definition of opinion.
- Google plans to compete on quality of service level. Existing companies prefer to compete on lack of choice and lock-in, especially by monopolies in service regions or with a particular technology.
- No matter who provides the service, the users will likely be using Google as a search engine and get Google ads on their result pages (as well as all the pages with syndicated ads). In its current position, Google can always get a slice of the pie no matter who owns the tubes.
Both of these will also drive down the top bid price, as it will make it less lucrative to the current buyers to work under these constraints.You could, and that would probably still be a GOOD thing. Because if MS fixed it quickly, it means those who purchased the exploit would get a lot less for their money. Therefore, they'd be less willing to buy exploits in the future, or at least pay less.
Such a market wouldn't be about *exclusive* knowledge of exploits.
Who are you arguing with? Because I know I never said it shouldn't be in PG. I was specifically responding to the claim that since there are 21k titles in PG, there must be something in there the OP would enjoy reading - claiming they just didn't look hard enough.
Oh, I don't deny that. I hate the system as much as anyone. My comment was solely on the mistake of implying that the 21,000 "titles" were things people would read.
Actually, my picking one example goes to the heart of the fallacy of simply using a big number to "prove" that there has to be something in there. It's wrong because, as my example shows, Gutenberg includes things people would never read. So you need to come up with an actual number of titles broken down by category. Until then, saying something like the original poster did is just ludicrous.
Yes, I particularly enjoyed Human Genome Project, Chromosome Number 08. Some fine reading there.
C'mon, I would be fairly disappointed with a library of 21,000 real books even if it contained only fiction from random authors from 1900-2000. Gutenberg doesn't even have that much depth.
That's not to take anything away from them. But to make claims about it being a good selection based on "21,000 - gee that's a big number" is a bit ludicrous.
I don't mean bandwidth purely in bytes/sec. Think of it more as capacity. I would guess that current system capacity is built around how many active mobile phones you're going to have. Since everything costs money, and having a mobile phone in use isn't going to be free, providers are going to build their capacity around what they think the maximum and average totals are going to be. I know I would. There must be some maximum at which the responsiveness of the system begins to degrade and some point at which it either totally fails (unlikely) or just stops denying new requests over the limit (more likely). I wouldn't think either of those situations would be pleasant. You'd build so that you don't come very close to this limit, but you'd try to overbuild to save money.
Putting them in a large percentage of cars would definitely change those numbers. This gets more and more true as you try to increase granularity of tracking. It's one thing to track where someone is once every three hours, another for every hour and quite another for every five minutes. At the lower granularity, you can just turn the mobile on, check in and turn it off. As you get more granular, you approach "always on" functionality. As you get to higher granularity, you call into question what they're really "tracking." Though neither are "good" to me, tracking where your car is once every three hours is definitely different than tracking where it is every five minutes.
Near as I can tell onstar uses nothing more than a cellphone and a gps receiver. It's fairly low-tech to have the cellphone phone home periodically and give it the location. Of course, having every car on the road doing this continuously would eat a lot of cellphone bandwidth.
Well, your first mistake would be having an email reader that displays active content. I know I have Thunderbird to show everything as plain text. It's not "pretty", but it's safe. Of course, for 99% of emails, "pretty" is completely unnecessary.
Of course very few people copy dvds. It would be rather silly for ALL of us to rip them before putting them up on bittorrent.
As a longtime gamer (starting with Atari), I'm not sure this is a bad thing. These days, it seems the "hardcore" gamer is the one who perfects their Halo or Half-Life skill, or who sinks 8 hours a day 7 days a week into WoW. In other words, hardcore now means large-time-investment. For those of us who love to play games but just don't want to invest that much of our lives in them, it would be a good thing. I liked to play WoW, but having to skew towards the "hardcore" players made the game less fun to casual players like me. So it would be great if it opens more niches like an "MMORPG for casual players."
Yes. And if there's one person in the world who understands what networks mean, the name of this person is Bob Metcalfe. I'm sure anything he has to predict about the future of the Internet MUST be right.
Nah. Direct financial cost is the one thing I believe has the ability to counteract it.
Nevermind will it work in the cell phone market (though I think the answer is no) - will it even work in the music player market? I have several friends whose iPods crapped out after less than two years. They're quite dissatisfied with that. They went ahead and bought another, but I just don't see how that can last more than a couple of cycles.