The thing is outrageously hyperbolic headlines were around long before Google or even the Internet. The biggest problem with "journalism" is that too many of the people going into the field go into "journalism" in order to "change the world". People should get into journalism in order to tell people what is going on, if you want to "change the world", go into politics.
Of course if you really want to change the world, become a Big Brother/Big Sister and touch someone's life. As a general rule you can't change the world for the better, but you can change some one's world for the better. The only way to make the world a better place is one person at a time.
You mean the way that the grant money at the CRU went from thousands to millions? Oh that's right, that was for supportingAGW.
Please provide some evidence for you assertion regarding the reverse. Everything I have seen says that in total the usual suspects (oil companies, coal companies, etc) have spent more money on grants to AGW promoters than they have to AGW skeptics. In addition, there are all those organizations that have billions tied up betting on the policy changes that AGW Alarmists promote (GE, etc).
This is part of developing the technology to take out GPS and other communication satellites in case of a confrontation with the U.S.A. . Much of the U.S. war fighting capability is highly dependent on GPS and satellite based communication. The Chinese military is preparing to fight a war against the U.S. (this is completely independent of whether or not they are planning to fight such a war). The scary part of this is that even if current planners have no intention of ever fighting a war against the U.S. history has shown that when military and political leaders believe that they are in a position to win such a war they often choose to wage it even if a rational analysis says that it is a bad idea (see World War I).
According to the Wikipedia cite, it is known that it occurred in Europe and the North Atlantic, but the evidence for the rest of the world is inconclusive. Your other cite is a website that is home to AGW propagandists, while it bases its viewpoints on scientific evidence, it also dismisses out of hand any scientific evidence that does not support AGW and it promotes greater government regulation. Climate scientists who support AGW would go a long way towards improving their credibility if they would stop promoting "solutions" and stick to declaring what they perceive to be happening.
One of the interesting things about the medieval warm period (even if it was localized to Europe and the North Atlantic) and the little ice age (which the concensus agrees was global) that followed is that storms in the North Atlantic were more mild during the warm period and more violent during the little ice age which followed, which is exactly the opposite of what the AGW Alarmists tell us should be the case.
Because if you don't generate results that indicate that more study is desperately needed, you won't get the next grant. If the results of the study funded by this grant says that there is nothing to worry about then the next grant will go to some other field of study or to some scientists who says that there is a disaster waiting to happen and we need to do more study to understand how to stop it.
As you demonstrate, those who benefit financially from believing in AGW, do so (the scientists, take a look at how much money has been poured into climate science in the last few years, and how much of it went to scientists who are skeptical of AGW vs how much went to strident supporters of AGW) and those who benefit from not believing in AGW do not. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the rest of us which is correct.
However, the real question is, is it more efficient to spend money ameliorating the negative affects (sorry if I got the wrong one of those two words, I always have trouble with them) of global warming or to try and stop it?
What makes you think that cable companies are natural monopolies? Because the government regulated them into existence as monopolies? How about phone companies? Guess what, same thing, telephone companies exist as monopolies because the government regulated them into monopoly status. Small town banks, guess why they closed down or were bought out? That's right, more government regulations.
Look at the situation with offshore oil drilling, if BP survives the aftermath of this spill (which there is a good chance they will), they will be better off than they were before. Why? Because the new government regulations will put all the small players out of business. Of course the best part about the new government regulations is that they won't be enforced any better than the existing ones. If existing regulations had been enforced, this spill would never have happened.
What free market fundamentalists like you fail you comprehend is that we humans have a relatively short lifespan. Life is too short to wait a decade for the mythical "competition" to maybe sorta improve the airline market. Free marketeers remind me of a religion. Those, too, promise that all wrongs will be fixed a few decades later once your life ends and you are in heaven. Maybe, but I'd rather have them fixed in this life, and soon. For the last 30 years, lunatic free market policies have caused crisis after crisis while making life worse for working people. It's time to dump this discredited, outdated religion for a 21st century pragmatic approach that actually makes life better for those who work, rich scum squealing notwithstanding.
What approach is that? The one where the government institutes regulations that inhibit competition and ensure that the established companies make a nice profit and deliver piss poor customer service?
There are already laws about false advertising. Why do we need some special regulation for airlines that do false advertising? Why do people think that the solution to those who already break the law are more laws? Or to companies that break existing regulations that the regulators don't enforce is more regulations that the regulators will enforce selectively?
We need them so when you show up in my ER gorked out of your head or unconscious and unable to respond, we:
1, have some sort of freaking idea what preexisting issues you might have and may have caused your gorkedness,
2. so we don't repeat a test you just had in some other ER yesterday, which is where the potential cost savings comes into play.
Problem as you refererred to is the security of this information. It will be stored insecurely and abused, you can bet your ass on that.
So, how many people would that be each year? According to the stats I can find indicate that there are approximately 400 ER visits for every 1000 people in the U.S.. Based on my experience, I have to believe that the overwhelming majority of those are coherent. Ultimately, I just can't see that the number of people who will be helped by this justifies the costs and risks.
As important as the abuse and fraud that this system will be subject to, is the dangers from the information in this system being corrupted. "I'm sorry, Mr Smith, we can't treat your condition because your EMR says that you have a serious heart condition (some other life threatening condition) and the treatment has unacceptable complications with that."
"But, I don't have a heart condition (other life threatening condition)."
"I'm sorry sir but it says right here that you do. Your EMR would not list if it wasn't so."
I just don't see the advantage of a government mandated system outweighing the problems by enough to justify the expense.
A cut in healthcare expenses puts just as much capital in consumer pockets as a tax cut. Arguably, unlike the tax cut, it puts the capital in the consumer pockets that are likely to need it.
Consumers then spend that money, into the productive economy but without screwing up a budget surplus.
That's great. Now when is somebody going to do something to reduce healthcare expenses?
I haven't worked in healthcare IT. However, I do work in a related field that must follow the GxP guidelines (there are actually a couple of related guidelines here, the two I'm familiar with are Good Laboratory Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices). These are less stringent than the HIPPA guidelines. The thing is there is a lot of debate about what is necessary to correctly implement GxP regulations. I am quite sure the same is true of the HIPPA guidelines. Not only that but the new health care law contains mandates for a bunch of new regulations to be written, I am quite sure that a significant number of those new regulations will have requirements for the IT department in a health care organization and those regulations have not been written yet (and there is significant evidence that the relevant agency will nto have written them by the time they go into force according to the law itself).
I'm guessing users were trading child porn or the owner wasn't handling his taxes correctly.
I mostly agree with your post. However, there is one thing I want to add. My inclination is that there is a good reason for these websites to be shut down. However, I am not willing to take the government's word that they had a good reason. I want to know the reason. If I agree that it was a good reason, all's well. If not, well then it depends on how many other people also think it wasn't a good reason.
Basically, my point is that this event is not on its face evidence of the government doing something wrong. It is something to take note of and demand an explanation from the government. They don't need to provide the explanation tomorrow or next week, but by this time next month, we should know what happened and why. Maybe not the details, depending on what the reasons for this were, but at least an explanation of the reason for this action. Under certain circumstances the details and evidence supporting the reasons can remain under wraps pending court cases.
As others have said, if you yell at me during the interview, I'm not taking the job. If you thump the table during the interview, I'm not taking the job. I find hypothetical questions very hard to diagnose. I had an interview once where they asked me how to solve a problem that I had solved just the week before on the job I had at the time. It took me longer to remember how I diagnosed and resolved the problem than it had taken me to do it.
There was a book about assassinating Bush, there was a movie about assassinating Bush. Both of these received rave reviews in the NYT. Here is a link to some of the signs held up at protests http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html Have you seen anything similar on Fox (in particular the CBS show that had a picture of Bush with "Snipers Wanted" inserted). I see by your comment about Cheney that you are a fan of Bill Maher who said that someone should kill Dick Cheney..
if anyone would have talked about Bush when he was in office the way Murdoch's "news" station talks about Obama, Faux News and the neocons would have called them "traitors" and screamed bloody murder.
Did they call for his assasination the way the left did of Bush?
The surprising part is that Obama announced he supports the plan.
I never cease to be amazed at the things Obama does that surprise people. Why are you surprised? This is a move that is very good for a limited number of very big companies. Democrats have always been in favor of government regulations that favor big companies (see the latest Fat Cat Enablement...I mean Finance Reform Act, put together by the people who brought you the housing market bubble ans subsequent crash: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd).
Your mistake is in not realizing that geeks have a significant impact on the attitudes of other users toward technology devices. There are a large number of geeks who think that the Iphone is a wonderful device and happily tell all of their friends that. There are also lots of geeks who tell their friends how wonderful Android phones are because they are open, "but not that one, it's not really open."
No what sells the Android based phone in the larger cell phone market is the geek recommendation.
As an aside, it is amusing how often my non-geek friends ask my opinion on non-computer technology items (digital cameras, cell phones) that they know more about than I do. Over the years I have become an expert at getting people to tell me what I need to know about technology items in order to tell them which one will best fill their uses for the device.
You need to work on reading comprehension. I said that if a phone running Android is locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get an Iphone. It being implied that I meant instead of getting that phone. br.
From a marketing perspective, you compete only with the mind share leader in your market.
Because that doesn't work. Cheapskates are cheapskates, and nothing will change that.
Then why are they spending lots of money to prevent those cheapskates from pirating games that you just admitted those cheapskateswon't pay for anyway? If you are a company, the only people who matter are the ones that give you money. Basing a business strategy on making life miserable for those who try to use your product but won't ever, under any condition, pay for it is just wasting money.
Offering a game for "pay what you want" is not the correct answer because when you do that you signal that you don't care if people pay for it or not. Set as low of a price as you can afford to sell it for. Recognize that pirated versions are free advertising. Maybe even put a splash screen that comes up every time someone opens the game that says "this game can be downloaded from www.foobargames.com for $X".
You apparently are unaware that the Bush Administration spent a lot more money to fight AIDS in Africa then any President before or since. Oh what a shame, the UN kleptocrats didn't get their cut.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is outrageously hyperbolic headlines were around long before Google or even the Internet. The biggest problem with "journalism" is that too many of the people going into the field go into "journalism" in order to "change the world". People should get into journalism in order to tell people what is going on, if you want to "change the world", go into politics.
Of course if you really want to change the world, become a Big Brother/Big Sister and touch someone's life. As a general rule you can't change the world for the better, but you can change some one's world for the better. The only way to make the world a better place is one person at a time.
They may not be there yet, but that is their goal.
You mean the way that the grant money at the CRU went from thousands to millions? Oh that's right, that was for supportingAGW.
Please provide some evidence for you assertion regarding the reverse. Everything I have seen says that in total the usual suspects (oil companies, coal companies, etc) have spent more money on grants to AGW promoters than they have to AGW skeptics. In addition, there are all those organizations that have billions tied up betting on the policy changes that AGW Alarmists promote (GE, etc).
This is part of developing the technology to take out GPS and other communication satellites in case of a confrontation with the U.S.A. . Much of the U.S. war fighting capability is highly dependent on GPS and satellite based communication. The Chinese military is preparing to fight a war against the U.S. (this is completely independent of whether or not they are planning to fight such a war). The scary part of this is that even if current planners have no intention of ever fighting a war against the U.S. history has shown that when military and political leaders believe that they are in a position to win such a war they often choose to wage it even if a rational analysis says that it is a bad idea (see World War I).
According to the Wikipedia cite, it is known that it occurred in Europe and the North Atlantic, but the evidence for the rest of the world is inconclusive. Your other cite is a website that is home to AGW propagandists, while it bases its viewpoints on scientific evidence, it also dismisses out of hand any scientific evidence that does not support AGW and it promotes greater government regulation. Climate scientists who support AGW would go a long way towards improving their credibility if they would stop promoting "solutions" and stick to declaring what they perceive to be happening.
One of the interesting things about the medieval warm period (even if it was localized to Europe and the North Atlantic) and the little ice age (which the concensus agrees was global) that followed is that storms in the North Atlantic were more mild during the warm period and more violent during the little ice age which followed, which is exactly the opposite of what the AGW Alarmists tell us should be the case.
Because if you don't generate results that indicate that more study is desperately needed, you won't get the next grant. If the results of the study funded by this grant says that there is nothing to worry about then the next grant will go to some other field of study or to some scientists who says that there is a disaster waiting to happen and we need to do more study to understand how to stop it.
As you demonstrate, those who benefit financially from believing in AGW, do so (the scientists, take a look at how much money has been poured into climate science in the last few years, and how much of it went to scientists who are skeptical of AGW vs how much went to strident supporters of AGW) and those who benefit from not believing in AGW do not. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the rest of us which is correct.
However, the real question is, is it more efficient to spend money ameliorating the negative affects (sorry if I got the wrong one of those two words, I always have trouble with them) of global warming or to try and stop it?
I guess if you like banks that are "too big too fail" and other companies like that.
What makes you think that cable companies are natural monopolies? Because the government regulated them into existence as monopolies? How about phone companies? Guess what, same thing, telephone companies exist as monopolies because the government regulated them into monopoly status. Small town banks, guess why they closed down or were bought out? That's right, more government regulations.
Look at the situation with offshore oil drilling, if BP survives the aftermath of this spill (which there is a good chance they will), they will be better off than they were before. Why? Because the new government regulations will put all the small players out of business. Of course the best part about the new government regulations is that they won't be enforced any better than the existing ones. If existing regulations had been enforced, this spill would never have happened.
What free market fundamentalists like you fail you comprehend is that we humans have a relatively short lifespan. Life is too short to wait a decade for the mythical "competition" to maybe sorta improve the airline market. Free marketeers remind me of a religion. Those, too, promise that all wrongs will be fixed a few decades later once your life ends and you are in heaven. Maybe, but I'd rather have them fixed in this life, and soon. For the last 30 years, lunatic free market policies have caused crisis after crisis while making life worse for working people. It's time to dump this discredited, outdated religion for a 21st century pragmatic approach that actually makes life better for those who work, rich scum squealing notwithstanding.
What approach is that? The one where the government institutes regulations that inhibit competition and ensure that the established companies make a nice profit and deliver piss poor customer service?
There are already laws about false advertising. Why do we need some special regulation for airlines that do false advertising? Why do people think that the solution to those who already break the law are more laws? Or to companies that break existing regulations that the regulators don't enforce is more regulations that the regulators will enforce selectively?
We need them so when you show up in my ER gorked out of your head or unconscious and unable to respond, we: 1, have some sort of freaking idea what preexisting issues you might have and may have caused your gorkedness, 2. so we don't repeat a test you just had in some other ER yesterday, which is where the potential cost savings comes into play. Problem as you refererred to is the security of this information. It will be stored insecurely and abused, you can bet your ass on that.
So, how many people would that be each year? According to the stats I can find indicate that there are approximately 400 ER visits for every 1000 people in the U.S.. Based on my experience, I have to believe that the overwhelming majority of those are coherent. Ultimately, I just can't see that the number of people who will be helped by this justifies the costs and risks.
As important as the abuse and fraud that this system will be subject to, is the dangers from the information in this system being corrupted. "I'm sorry, Mr Smith, we can't treat your condition because your EMR says that you have a serious heart condition (some other life threatening condition) and the treatment has unacceptable complications with that."
"But, I don't have a heart condition (other life threatening condition)."
"I'm sorry sir but it says right here that you do. Your EMR would not list if it wasn't so."
I just don't see the advantage of a government mandated system outweighing the problems by enough to justify the expense.
A cut in healthcare expenses puts just as much capital in consumer pockets as a tax cut. Arguably, unlike the tax cut, it puts the capital in the consumer pockets that are likely to need it.
Consumers then spend that money, into the productive economy but without screwing up a budget surplus.
That's great. Now when is somebody going to do something to reduce healthcare expenses?
Why are electronic medical records so sorely needed? So that hackers can access my medical records?
I haven't worked in healthcare IT. However, I do work in a related field that must follow the GxP guidelines (there are actually a couple of related guidelines here, the two I'm familiar with are Good Laboratory Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices). These are less stringent than the HIPPA guidelines. The thing is there is a lot of debate about what is necessary to correctly implement GxP regulations. I am quite sure the same is true of the HIPPA guidelines. Not only that but the new health care law contains mandates for a bunch of new regulations to be written, I am quite sure that a significant number of those new regulations will have requirements for the IT department in a health care organization and those regulations have not been written yet (and there is significant evidence that the relevant agency will nto have written them by the time they go into force according to the law itself).
I'm guessing users were trading child porn or the owner wasn't handling his taxes correctly.
I mostly agree with your post. However, there is one thing I want to add. My inclination is that there is a good reason for these websites to be shut down. However, I am not willing to take the government's word that they had a good reason. I want to know the reason. If I agree that it was a good reason, all's well. If not, well then it depends on how many other people also think it wasn't a good reason.
Basically, my point is that this event is not on its face evidence of the government doing something wrong. It is something to take note of and demand an explanation from the government. They don't need to provide the explanation tomorrow or next week, but by this time next month, we should know what happened and why. Maybe not the details, depending on what the reasons for this were, but at least an explanation of the reason for this action. Under certain circumstances the details and evidence supporting the reasons can remain under wraps pending court cases.
As others have said, if you yell at me during the interview, I'm not taking the job. If you thump the table during the interview, I'm not taking the job. I find hypothetical questions very hard to diagnose. I had an interview once where they asked me how to solve a problem that I had solved just the week before on the job I had at the time. It took me longer to remember how I diagnosed and resolved the problem than it had taken me to do it.
There was a book about assassinating Bush, there was a movie about assassinating Bush. Both of these received rave reviews in the NYT. Here is a link to some of the signs held up at protests http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html Have you seen anything similar on Fox (in particular the CBS show that had a picture of Bush with "Snipers Wanted" inserted).
I see by your comment about Cheney that you are a fan of Bill Maher who said that someone should kill Dick Cheney..
if anyone would have talked about Bush when he was in office the way Murdoch's "news" station talks about Obama, Faux News and the neocons would have called them "traitors" and screamed bloody murder.
Did they call for his assasination the way the left did of Bush?
The surprising part is that Obama announced he supports the plan.
I never cease to be amazed at the things Obama does that surprise people. Why are you surprised? This is a move that is very good for a limited number of very big companies. Democrats have always been in favor of government regulations that favor big companies (see the latest Fat Cat Enablement...I mean Finance Reform Act, put together by the people who brought you the housing market bubble ans subsequent crash: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd).
Your mistake is in not realizing that geeks have a significant impact on the attitudes of other users toward technology devices. There are a large number of geeks who think that the Iphone is a wonderful device and happily tell all of their friends that. There are also lots of geeks who tell their friends how wonderful Android phones are because they are open, "but not that one, it's not really open."
No what sells the Android based phone in the larger cell phone market is the geek recommendation.
As an aside, it is amusing how often my non-geek friends ask my opinion on non-computer technology items (digital cameras, cell phones) that they know more about than I do. Over the years I have become an expert at getting people to tell me what I need to know about technology items in order to tell them which one will best fill their uses for the device.
You need to work on reading comprehension. I said that if a phone running Android is locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get an Iphone. It being implied that I meant instead of getting that phone. br. From a marketing perspective, you compete only with the mind share leader in your market.
Because that doesn't work. Cheapskates are cheapskates, and nothing will change that.
Then why are they spending lots of money to prevent those cheapskates from pirating games that you just admitted those cheapskateswon't pay for anyway? If you are a company, the only people who matter are the ones that give you money. Basing a business strategy on making life miserable for those who try to use your product but won't ever, under any condition, pay for it is just wasting money.
Offering a game for "pay what you want" is not the correct answer because when you do that you signal that you don't care if people pay for it or not. Set as low of a price as you can afford to sell it for. Recognize that pirated versions are free advertising. Maybe even put a splash screen that comes up every time someone opens the game that says "this game can be downloaded from www.foobargames.com for $X".
You apparently are unaware that the Bush Administration spent a lot more money to fight AIDS in Africa then any President before or since. Oh what a shame, the UN kleptocrats didn't get their cut.