Forget your own point for just a moment, everyone is doing it...
Just because someone owns a PS3 does not mean they own a television that will benefit from the enhanced resolution over DVD...you forget, MANY MANY people still have standard def 480i tv's with NO hdtv's in their lives.
Oh come on. There is nothing in resistance so revolutionary that it requires that much space. I'm not saying that I doubt that it takes up that much space on disc, but I can ASSURE you that game could have been made to not be so overweight.
The developers had the space, so they filled it up. This could mean they filled it up with super huge textures in the menus, sound files that are way far beyond in quality what the human ear has the ability to distinguish (not to mention most people not having the setups or the ears to be able to tell the difference anyway)...see what I am getting at?
yes, games will eventually reach that size...all I'm saying is they don't necessarily need to be. Filling up a disc just because the space is there is not a good reason.
Well, SOME pharmaceutical companies are actually really REALLY good about helping out uninsured people...I'm not going to name names because I am not allowed to (confidentiality agreement when I was hired) but there is one company that I can think of specifically that will investigate what your income is and if it is below a certain level (which is not unreasonably low) and you are uninsured, they will GIVE you the product for free, no questions asked. Unfortunately, the product this is for is not very widely used, as it is made for a rather rare illness.
If I were to suggest a way to help decrease costs and help the uninsured, it would be to introduce government legislation that forced ALL pharma companies to do the same. Of course, this brings up a host of other issues, so that unfortunately is not very feasable.
I hate to say it, but as long as the healthcare industry considers itself a BUISNESS, there really isn't much that can be done. Due to our population in the country, it would be extremely difficult (with the current budget, anyway) to make all healthcare and insurance government ran and provided....again, like I mentioned, with the way the budget is that is nigh impossible. There would need to be serious alterations, and both you and I know it wouldn't happen.
If you asked me to make a somewhat informed however unsubstantiated guess as to how much of an increase we would need, I would say somewhere to the tune of at least 100 billion to 150 billion dollars ON TOP OF what is already allocated. But again, we all know that is not going to happen.
Insurance companies (most), Hospitals (some, not all), Pharmaceutical companies...the entire healthcare industry is a BUISNESS. It's about profit. While there are INDIVIDUALS and certain companies for whom the money is of no importance, the vast majority of the industry considers itself a buisness.
The goal of most buisnesses is to turn as large a profit as possible. Until the industry AS A WHOLE abandons their persuit of profits first, people second....well, I frankly can't think of any amount of change that would do enough to make a difference.
Now, if you are referring to govnerment programs like medicare and such...well, that's a subject that I don't have the space or the time to write about.
To sum it up, Government run insurance companies are WORSE than non-federal companies.
If by "system" you mean the process which a new drug gets approved, how it is built and tested, the allowable side effects and the frequency of them etc. well then there is no change needed.
If you mean in the regulation of insurance companies...I think it's broken beyond repair.
My answer to your question is exactly how I would answer someone who asked what I thought of the government.
The system in place is nearly perfect. It needs very very little change.
HOWEVER. The PEOPLE (in this case, insurance companies and big pharma companies) that run the system are where the problem lies. They are for the most part only regulated in their PRODUCT. As far as their SERVICE goes, they are given free reign to tell you that they will or will not cover something and why.
The FDA does not help either though. There are many drugs out there that work for multiple indications, and in some cases even have extensive clinical data that backs up that they are safe for other uses...however, because that is not what the drug was originally marketed for, the chances of the FDA approving it are about as likely as you are to winning the lottery.
No FDA approval in this country means you cannot use it. In fact, if a drug does not have FDA approval for certain diagnosis, we aren't even legally allowed to INFORM doctors that the drug has other uses and what those uses are.
Insurance companies fall right in line. Even if a certain drug will save your life, no matter how much clinical data there is assuring the saftey of it's use...if it is not FDA approved for that ICD-9 Diagnosis code, insurance companeis WILL NOT cover it no matter what you do or say.
Millionares think 900,000 dollars for a home is a great deal, whereas mr. and mrs. joe shmo can think 500 bucks a month for a one room apartment is a great deal.
Unless you have a burning desire to have blu-ray in your home, there really is no good reason beyond a personal opinion to spend 600 dollars on a PS3. the 360 has the same graphics (in some cases, better) and still uses "old" dual-layer dvd technology.
Had sony stayed out of the media market (which they have failed in time after time after time) and just stuck with what works, they would be in a much better position.
Nope, we are the good guys. We primariy run patient assistance programs and help out with prior authorization appeals.
For those not in the know:
PAP (patient assistance programs) basically means say you are 70 and your only income is social security. You need this injectable drug for the arthritis in your knees. Well, say you cannot afford your copayment. We will either A. Convince the insurance company to lower your copayment. B. Reimburse you in full for the copayment. Or C. Give you the drug for free.
PA Appeals (prior authorization appeals) means say you are taking a drug that requires a prior authorization to get it (i.e. your doctor needs permission from the drug company before prescribing it). Now say they deny that request for permission. We call the insurance company and try to get them to reverse that decision and authorize it.
I hate to tell you this, but MANY doctors know very little of what is on the market...a large portion of the ones I deal with on a daily basis (I work for a pharmaceutical consulting group, and speak to close to 70 doctors around the country every day...no not the same 708 every day) and a very large number of them do not know what alternatives there are to certain drugs or even what drugs are available for a given condition. Granted, there are doctors out there that are like encyclopedia's, but they are VERY few and far between.
Well for one, if a drug is pending FDA approval they legally are not ALLOWED to state what the drug does. Ditto if the drug has not completed post-approval clinical trials as well.
And the second reason may seem shitty from a consumers point of view, but from the industrie's point of view it makes sense: it causes you to go online and check out what it does. In the meantime, you get to see what else the company manufactures, and therefore you have more names that are associated with that company and the marketers hope that because you remember another name from their company, if the need to use the treatment that drug provides you are (again, they hope) more likely to use THEIR drug since it's a name you recognize. (Apologies for the run on sentence)
See, even though I would say I liked the Xbox over the PS2 by a VERY large margin, in retrospect there were more PS2 exclusives that I enjoyed than Xbox exclusives....
God of War, Shadow of the Collossus, Ico, Okami, Final Fantasy Series...there really were some amazing games for the PS2.
The EXACT opposite is happening now. Final Fantasy and Lair aside, there is not one single PS3 exclusive title that has been announced that I am looking forward to...the 360 already has exclusives that are out and have more on the way that I am VERY excited about.
I really want to like the PS3. I really do. It has a lot of power under the hood, and it looks decent....but I don't know man. I never try to shoehorn myself into a single console fanboy, I generally try to either own or borrow every console in each generation...as of yet though, I cannot find a reason to even look at a PS3.
Because when I want to study the nuances of a batters stance or the way a baseman catches a ball and tries to sweep the sliding runner, I want to do it on a screen smaller than an asshole.
lol oh come on you know what I meant...as others have said, the Xbox was a very western-oriented system...many of the games had a very "western" feel to them, hell even the interface of the dashboard felt like something right at home here in north america...granted while american culture has it's places in japan, it isn't going to overtake japan's own culture (just like although "americanized" chinese food is popular here, does not mean it will be MORE popular than our own food) If you compare the majority of the games for the xbox (and the 360 for that matter) to those of the ps1 and 2, the ps1 and 2 had MANY more titles available that would appeal to a traditional japanese gamers taste...
That being said, so far, the PS3 ironically doesn't actually seem to be targeting japan nearly as much as it seems to be targeting North America...which is, in my eyes, a huge mistake.
Standard "this is only my own opinion" boilerplate applies.
They are to blame for ABUSING their monopoly, but who gave them the income and market penetration to vault them to monopoly status in the first place? The consumers who bought their products.
No, there is no legitimate reason. Like I have said, I do not SUPPORT what microsoft has done, nor do I agree with it. However, consumers demand windows. Thus, the manufacturers have to supply windows.
If you want to delve into me being over analytical, one could argue that it is the CONSUMERS fault that microsoft has reached the point that it has. If there wasn't such a high demand for it, companies could get by selling something other than windows while having good income levels.
While microsoft is the one that has implemented all this horrendous requirements, consumers are the ones that have let them get away with it. They show their support by buying the product. If that 90% truly cared, they wouldn't be purchasing it (which is a trend that is starting to happen...people are finally realizing windows is NOT their only option, and are expressing their opinion with their wallet)
Not quite. My point is that the average consumers general stupidity (or lack of desire to look to other companies) it what has allowed microsoft to reach the status that it has. Consumers have only themselves to blame for allowing them to get away with it for so long, basically.
Is it right? No. Do I agree with it? Hell no. Is it the truth? Unfortunately.
True, but then that implies that those customers want windows. Whether it be because they don't realize there are better options out there, or because they simply don't care doesn't matter.
Your argument implies people want windows and want microsoft software. That means they are willing to put up with the bullshit that microsoft pulls. And you know what?
A large portion of people don't even realize it's going on. Those that finally do catch on do the smart thing and move away from microsoft.
I never once said that I agree with what microsoft has done. Not once. Look through all my posts and you find me where I said that Microsoft has done nothing wrong or illegal.
What I said was that people have options OTHER than microsoft products; they just don't care enough or aren't educated enough to do so.
Stop backing up an empty argument, read MY post, and see that you are wrong. PC's with windows are NOT the only computers you can buy, just like microsoft is NOT the only software company out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget your own point for just a moment, everyone is doing it...
Just because someone owns a PS3 does not mean they own a television that will benefit from the enhanced resolution over DVD...you forget, MANY MANY people still have standard def 480i tv's with NO hdtv's in their lives.
You are missing my point.
I'm not saying games should not progress. What I am saying is their size should not be artificially increased.
If the same quality graphics, sound, and LENGTH of game are coming out on dvd9 as on blu-ray...well, you can finish the sentence.
::shrug:: you just described nearly every pharma commercial on TV...what do you think the answer is?
Oh come on. There is nothing in resistance so revolutionary that it requires that much space. I'm not saying that I doubt that it takes up that much space on disc, but I can ASSURE you that game could have been made to not be so overweight.
The developers had the space, so they filled it up. This could mean they filled it up with super huge textures in the menus, sound files that are way far beyond in quality what the human ear has the ability to distinguish (not to mention most people not having the setups or the ears to be able to tell the difference anyway)...see what I am getting at?
yes, games will eventually reach that size...all I'm saying is they don't necessarily need to be. Filling up a disc just because the space is there is not a good reason.
Well, SOME pharmaceutical companies are actually really REALLY good about helping out uninsured people...I'm not going to name names because I am not allowed to (confidentiality agreement when I was hired) but there is one company that I can think of specifically that will investigate what your income is and if it is below a certain level (which is not unreasonably low) and you are uninsured, they will GIVE you the product for free, no questions asked. Unfortunately, the product this is for is not very widely used, as it is made for a rather rare illness.
If I were to suggest a way to help decrease costs and help the uninsured, it would be to introduce government legislation that forced ALL pharma companies to do the same. Of course, this brings up a host of other issues, so that unfortunately is not very feasable.
I hate to say it, but as long as the healthcare industry considers itself a BUISNESS, there really isn't much that can be done. Due to our population in the country, it would be extremely difficult (with the current budget, anyway) to make all healthcare and insurance government ran and provided....again, like I mentioned, with the way the budget is that is nigh impossible. There would need to be serious alterations, and both you and I know it wouldn't happen.
If you asked me to make a somewhat informed however unsubstantiated guess as to how much of an increase we would need, I would say somewhere to the tune of at least 100 billion to 150 billion dollars ON TOP OF what is already allocated. But again, we all know that is not going to happen.
Insurance companies (most), Hospitals (some, not all), Pharmaceutical companies...the entire healthcare industry is a BUISNESS. It's about profit. While there are INDIVIDUALS and certain companies for whom the money is of no importance, the vast majority of the industry considers itself a buisness.
The goal of most buisnesses is to turn as large a profit as possible. Until the industry AS A WHOLE abandons their persuit of profits first, people second....well, I frankly can't think of any amount of change that would do enough to make a difference.
Now, if you are referring to govnerment programs like medicare and such...well, that's a subject that I don't have the space or the time to write about.
To sum it up, Government run insurance companies are WORSE than non-federal companies.
If by "system" you mean the process which a new drug gets approved, how it is built and tested, the allowable side effects and the frequency of them etc. well then there is no change needed.
If you mean in the regulation of insurance companies...I think it's broken beyond repair.
My answer to your question is exactly how I would answer someone who asked what I thought of the government.
The system in place is nearly perfect. It needs very very little change.
HOWEVER. The PEOPLE (in this case, insurance companies and big pharma companies) that run the system are where the problem lies. They are for the most part only regulated in their PRODUCT. As far as their SERVICE goes, they are given free reign to tell you that they will or will not cover something and why.
The FDA does not help either though. There are many drugs out there that work for multiple indications, and in some cases even have extensive clinical data that backs up that they are safe for other uses...however, because that is not what the drug was originally marketed for, the chances of the FDA approving it are about as likely as you are to winning the lottery.
No FDA approval in this country means you cannot use it. In fact, if a drug does not have FDA approval for certain diagnosis, we aren't even legally allowed to INFORM doctors that the drug has other uses and what those uses are.
Insurance companies fall right in line. Even if a certain drug will save your life, no matter how much clinical data there is assuring the saftey of it's use...if it is not FDA approved for that ICD-9 Diagnosis code, insurance companeis WILL NOT cover it no matter what you do or say.
"getting a great deal" is subjective.
Millionares think 900,000 dollars for a home is a great deal, whereas mr. and mrs. joe shmo can think 500 bucks a month for a one room apartment is a great deal.
Unless you have a burning desire to have blu-ray in your home, there really is no good reason beyond a personal opinion to spend 600 dollars on a PS3. the 360 has the same graphics (in some cases, better) and still uses "old" dual-layer dvd technology.
Had sony stayed out of the media market (which they have failed in time after time after time) and just stuck with what works, they would be in a much better position.
Nope, we are the good guys. We primariy run patient assistance programs and help out with prior authorization appeals.
For those not in the know:
PAP (patient assistance programs) basically means say you are 70 and your only income is social security. You need this injectable drug for the arthritis in your knees. Well, say you cannot afford your copayment. We will either A. Convince the insurance company to lower your copayment. B. Reimburse you in full for the copayment. Or C. Give you the drug for free.
PA Appeals (prior authorization appeals) means say you are taking a drug that requires a prior authorization to get it (i.e. your doctor needs permission from the drug company before prescribing it). Now say they deny that request for permission. We call the insurance company and try to get them to reverse that decision and authorize it.
We are the good guys:-)
Touché, good sir. Touché.
I hate to tell you this, but MANY doctors know very little of what is on the market...a large portion of the ones I deal with on a daily basis (I work for a pharmaceutical consulting group, and speak to close to 70 doctors around the country every day...no not the same 708 every day) and a very large number of them do not know what alternatives there are to certain drugs or even what drugs are available for a given condition. Granted, there are doctors out there that are like encyclopedia's, but they are VERY few and far between.
Well for one, if a drug is pending FDA approval they legally are not ALLOWED to state what the drug does. Ditto if the drug has not completed post-approval clinical trials as well.
And the second reason may seem shitty from a consumers point of view, but from the industrie's point of view it makes sense: it causes you to go online and check out what it does. In the meantime, you get to see what else the company manufactures, and therefore you have more names that are associated with that company and the marketers hope that because you remember another name from their company, if the need to use the treatment that drug provides you are (again, they hope) more likely to use THEIR drug since it's a name you recognize. (Apologies for the run on sentence)
And yes I work in the pharmaceutical industry.
...you actually buy computers with a name on the front and with stuff already on the hard drive?
Wow...I thought you folks didn't exist anymore...at least not on teh slash....
See, even though I would say I liked the Xbox over the PS2 by a VERY large margin, in retrospect there were more PS2 exclusives that I enjoyed than Xbox exclusives....
God of War, Shadow of the Collossus, Ico, Okami, Final Fantasy Series...there really were some amazing games for the PS2.
The EXACT opposite is happening now. Final Fantasy and Lair aside, there is not one single PS3 exclusive title that has been announced that I am looking forward to...the 360 already has exclusives that are out and have more on the way that I am VERY excited about.
I really want to like the PS3. I really do. It has a lot of power under the hood, and it looks decent....but I don't know man. I never try to shoehorn myself into a single console fanboy, I generally try to either own or borrow every console in each generation...as of yet though, I cannot find a reason to even look at a PS3.
Because when I want to study the nuances of a batters stance or the way a baseman catches a ball and tries to sweep the sliding runner, I want to do it on a screen smaller than an asshole.
lol oh come on you know what I meant...as others have said, the Xbox was a very western-oriented system...many of the games had a very "western" feel to them, hell even the interface of the dashboard felt like something right at home here in north america...granted while american culture has it's places in japan, it isn't going to overtake japan's own culture (just like although "americanized" chinese food is popular here, does not mean it will be MORE popular than our own food) If you compare the majority of the games for the xbox (and the 360 for that matter) to those of the ps1 and 2, the ps1 and 2 had MANY more titles available that would appeal to a traditional japanese gamers taste...
That being said, so far, the PS3 ironically doesn't actually seem to be targeting japan nearly as much as it seems to be targeting North America...which is, in my eyes, a huge mistake.
Standard "this is only my own opinion" boilerplate applies.
The first Xbox did horribly in Japan too...why should we have expected the 360 to be much different?
Good point, sir.
They are to blame for ABUSING their monopoly, but who gave them the income and market penetration to vault them to monopoly status in the first place? The consumers who bought their products.
No, there is no legitimate reason. Like I have said, I do not SUPPORT what microsoft has done, nor do I agree with it. However, consumers demand windows. Thus, the manufacturers have to supply windows.
If you want to delve into me being over analytical, one could argue that it is the CONSUMERS fault that microsoft has reached the point that it has. If there wasn't such a high demand for it, companies could get by selling something other than windows while having good income levels.
While microsoft is the one that has implemented all this horrendous requirements, consumers are the ones that have let them get away with it. They show their support by buying the product. If that 90% truly cared, they wouldn't be purchasing it (which is a trend that is starting to happen...people are finally realizing windows is NOT their only option, and are expressing their opinion with their wallet)
So be pissed at the school for doing so.
Not quite. My point is that the average consumers general stupidity (or lack of desire to look to other companies) it what has allowed microsoft to reach the status that it has. Consumers have only themselves to blame for allowing them to get away with it for so long, basically.
Is it right? No. Do I agree with it? Hell no. Is it the truth? Unfortunately.
True, but then that implies that those customers want windows. Whether it be because they don't realize there are better options out there, or because they simply don't care doesn't matter.
Your argument implies people want windows and want microsoft software. That means they are willing to put up with the bullshit that microsoft pulls. And you know what?
A large portion of people don't even realize it's going on. Those that finally do catch on do the smart thing and move away from microsoft.
I never once said that I agree with what microsoft has done. Not once. Look through all my posts and you find me where I said that Microsoft has done nothing wrong or illegal.
What I said was that people have options OTHER than microsoft products; they just don't care enough or aren't educated enough to do so.
Stop backing up an empty argument, read MY post, and see that you are wrong. PC's with windows are NOT the only computers you can buy, just like microsoft is NOT the only software company out there.