but it is the Federal Reserve that has enabled us to gather 58 trillion in debt so easily. It is disingenuous to claim the FR enabled us to gather that debt when it is the government itself that created the debt.
If the government directly controlled the money supply they would be able to create that money WITHOUT incurring debt for it. There would be no cost, not even a paper one. What do you think it would do to inflation in this country if any congress could require the treasury to "print the money" to cover any project they wanted to pursue? Certainly, we would have the debt, because there wouldn't be any money owed, but inflation would be rampant.
As a constitutionalist, you must know that only the government is allowed to "print money", and while they have in some sense delegated that power to the Federal Reserve it is completely absurd to think that they would allow competing currencies.
It doesn't have to be gold, it could indeed be any tangible that has intrinsic value. Silver has wide manufacuring appeal, foodstuffs have intrinsic value as does energy. There is no reason that a currency has to be tied to one of these...you could have several currencies for each of these. Legalise competing currencies in the US. It makes sense to trade things based on tangible value instead of paper. The dollar is worth just that...the paper it was printed on. The dollar is worth that which it can buy. That is all one can ask of a currency. Having the amount of currency available based on any commodity (or group of commodities) means that only those that control that commodity can create wealth. Having an unbacked currency allows those that control that currency to create wealth. I don't see that the former is better than the latter.
I wonder how much each bottle of water that FEMA eventually provided cost the government? I have no idea but I could easily imagine it being at least $20 per 16oz bottle. Even if it did (and I'm not arguing that the government isn't wasteful) it didn't cost the recipient of the water $20.
As I have said, I am quite sympathetic to many Libertarian views, however, I think the rhetoric of Libertarians that:
A. equates Fiscal Responsibility with being on the gold standard
B. elevates corporate freedom above personal freedom (by e.g. opposing zoning laws)
and
C. fails to recognize that the government performs legitimate functions beyond protecting the personal physical security of individuals
is much more detrimental than the good ideas are beneficial.
Actaully, I do understand about the Federal Reserve. My point is that Libertarians are inconsistent on this issue. They are in favor of privatization, but against the privatization that is the Federal Reserve.
To say that the income tax and Federal reserve have caused a 90 years of decline is almost ludicrous. It would be just as accurate to say that the lack of territory to expand into after the complete settlement of the continent has caused this alleged decline.
The Federal Reserve isn't the only bank that gets to create money out of thin air. ALL banks, in fact, any institution that lends money it doesn't have, create money out of thin air and this IS inflation. That problem isn't the Federal reserve, it is fractional reserve lending.
A "backed" currency isn't any better because if the currency is backed by e.g. gold then the only people that can create wealth are gold miners. That is a recipe for stagnation and depression. Besides that gold doesn't have any real value either. In a serious downturn the only real value is food so only a currency backed by grain would have a real value, and that would be subject to the vagaries of this years weather.
I am generally sympathetic to the Libertarian idea that responsibility should fall on the smallest level of government that can handle it. However, I am not in favor of the disparity that this already causes in the case of Education. If Education is privatized then market economics requires that some people will not be able to afford it. If Education is funded on the purely local level then poor and undereducated areas of the country will remain poor and undereducated. That perpetuation of status is precisely the problem that a broader educational system should try to address.
Amtrak is a partially private business, and if the government is paying for interstate highways it should also be paying for interstate railways. The benefits of mass transit do not currently translate to the bottom line of a balance sheet and because of that the cost of individual travel is artificially low.
FEMA, especially during the recent fiasco in NO, acted incompetently. Does that mean that the Federal Government has no role to play in mitigating the effects of large scale disasters? Since a for profit company's only purpose is to make money, I suspect that for profit company could have gotten bottled water to NO, but I also bet that you would complain about being charged $20 for a 16oz bottle.
As for NASA, your response displays precisely the problem with most Libertarians. You are in favor of privatization of everything except your own pet projects. Give NASA the money and freedom to explore space and you are in favor of them being a burden on the taxpayers. Portray NASA as a bureaucratic mess and you are against them. -- JimFive
Our money system is outright controlled by them through the Federal Reserve bank (which most people don't know is a PRIVATE bank!). And this private organization with public authority is EXACTLY what Libertarians argue in FAVOR of in other areas. You complain that the Federal Reserve is exactly what you would like to turn other government action (e.g. Education, NASA, Amtrak, FEMA) into.
Because it takes me several hours to clean out my email during which I'm not getting any actual work done, ... Having users waste time cleaning out their email is IT failure, plain and simple Several things.
Personal folders are your friend. Get it off of the mail server.
Email was not created to be a file system. If you need that attachment save it somewhere and get it off of the mail server.
Email was not created to be a filing cabinet. If you really need to look back 3 years for meeting minutes those should be in a document store somewhere in a fixed form that can be accessed by anyone who needs it, not in your email folders.
But the real issue for Exchange (at least in the past, I haven't administered Exchange in >5 years) is that it stores everything in these huge files that make it incredibily difficult to administer a reasonable backup and restore process.
I like this idea. Do you have any references where I could learn what I need to do this. Also, how much do I need to worry about the current. For example, I have a device that says 12VDC 200 mA If I built a multiuse brick out of a power supply, how would I ensure that the current won't fry my device.
--
JimFive
The 12th Amendment specifically states that the Vice President must be eligible to be President. Those other offices do not have that restriction. However, if the Speaker of the House was not eligible they would be skipped over in the line of succession based on (3 USC Sec 19e) according to your link.
--
JimFive
I agree that it doesn't seem very secure. Especially since drawing the same picture three times a day on a pad is probably going to leave an impression on the pad. Not to mention the technique of putting a piece of transparency on the pad to absorb the impression and then removing the plastic for use at leisure. (Why do you need a mouse/key/video logger?)
If I don't lock my door when I leave the house I'm not implicitly inviting the police into my house and surrendering my Fourth Amendment rights. However, if you leave your door open you are doing just that.
If I make a call to my mother on the POTS network they can't simply listen in (recent fascist precedents notwithstanding) just because our voices are unencrypted. If you're in the mall on a cell phone using that stupid walkie-talkie feature they can.
I realize that my scenarios are slightly less private than yours. I just wanted to indicate the fairly slight differences in the situations. At what point does the policeman have the obligation to be suspicious and enter your house? At what point is your phone call no longer private?
While I accept that in public my conversations could be overheard, I think the government should still be required to have a warrant to make a permanent record of my interactions. There is a difference between being overheard by some random stranger at a coffeeshop and being investigated by a government official. My actions at a televised sporting event are much less private than my actions at the local high school track meet.
To bring this back to email. Certainly, most people have an "expectation of privacy" in their personal emails. Whether that expectation is well-founded is debatable, but the expectation is still there. We think of email just like regular mail. The access that the ISPs or intermediate servers have is incidental. It is the same access that the postal worker has. We expect them to not read it and to just do their job and deliver it.
If the governments arguement is accepted then suddenly we have a need for end to end encryption of traffic through the ISPs server. Maybe an SSL tunnel to an anonymizing site that also hosts unmanaged web-based email accounts?
I tried this and noticed that I started the petals at the 11 o'clock position and went clockwise, and ended up drawing 7 petals, though the last one was a bit large and 8 might be more normal. My leaf is on the right of the stem.
You are assuming that the scalper sells every last ticket they buy. This is not neccessarily true; it they buy at $50 and sell at $300, it is entirely reasonable to err on the side of buying too much, since the profit from a single sold ticket cover the losses from 5 unsold ones.
Not exactly. That is why you can find last minute tickets selling for 1/2 price. After breaking even on the sales (In your example, after selling 1/6 of his stock) every additional sale is profit regardless of the price. If a scalper has broken even and has tickets left after the event then he is doing a poor job of scalping. Therefore, assuming a rational actor (Huge assumption), if the scalper has tickets left it is entirely reasonable to assume that there were too many tickets available for the event in the first place.
Even so, the scarcity of tickets is not created by the scalper. The scalper takes advantage of that scarcity, certainly, but he doesn't create it.
I will accept, however, that there could be a scenario in which it is better for the scalper to eat the cost of a certain percentage of his stock in order to keep prices high for the next event. That problem is caused by the lack of competition in the scalping business.
I belive that a social solution - shunning the sociopaths - is better than legal in this case. That's why I'm posting in this thread, trying to expose the scalpers as the parasitic scum as they are, rather than the honest businessmen they aren't.
I think it is a bit harsh to call scalpers and their clients sociopaths. As I said at the beginning of my previous post, that is asking people to be better than they have ever been. It won't happen. Any solution must take people and society as it is and move forward from there. Shunning only works if the majority of the target's society cares.
The best solution (again, assuming there is a problem) is an economic solution. Remove the benefit from the activity and it will go away. You can attempt to do that by control demand for the scalped product(villify or prosecute scalpers and customers) or by controlling the supply of the scalped product (raise the box-office price). Villification and prosecution haven't worked so well for any other activity, why would they work now?
First off, I find it interesting that you are making, essentially, a moral argument. e.g. "Scalping is bad because it is unfair." While your counterpart is making an practical argument. e.g. "They're making money, it's working for them."
The solution to the moral problem is to make (all) people better than they are, which has been tried unsuccessfully for most of history. The solution to the economic problem is to take the profit out of it.
Without the scalper the tickets wouldn't be sold out so soon, so I'd had better chances of getting them from the original source. ...
There is no "supply problem" here,
The "supply problem" exists. There is a limited number of tickets for an event than cannot be increased. The scalper may exacerbate that problem from the viewpoint of someone who got priced out of the market, but they don't create the problem.
You only have better chances from the original source if you cannot afford the market price. If you can and are willing to afford the market price, the scalpers guarantees that a ticket is available while the original seller's system is basically a lottery. If you cannot afford the market price then a lottery is the best you can do and your best bet is to try to win some from the local radio station.
What scalpers do is the equivalent of commodities trading, not stock trading. The scalper buys what amounts to a future at a given price with the idea that as the call date approaches he can sell that commodity for more than the price he paid. If the event is popular and the prices low compared to demand then the scalper makes money. If one particular scalper is particularly successful then he can corner the market for an event which would allow him to manipulate the price. If there are competing scalpers then the price should end up being market driven.
There are three ways to attempt to end the "problem" of scalping (assuming it is a problem).
1. Solve the Moral Problem: Pass and enforce draconian laws about it. This can only work if the enforcement and penalties are sufficient to discourage the attempt. This is more likely to raise the price to accomodate the risk.
2. Solve the Economic Problem: Market price the tickets so that the profit in scalping is less assured.
2. Solve Both: The sellers/venue can attempt to limit ticket sales to individuals and eliminate transfers. This would have to happen throughout the industry and would either have loopholes to allow legitimate transfers or would really annoy people with a legitimate need to transfer. It would probably just force the scalpers to find more inventive ways around the system.
No, obviously, you should only index the when it is used as a noun, not as an article. So the band "The The" should be indexed under "The, The" by moving the article to the end.
Since the information is on a physical object in the possession of the patient and the physician the emergency override might be something like, calling the physician, proving your identity and having the physician give out the pertinent information, I don't think the backdoor is that big or available for misuse.
The only reasonably secure way to have an Electronic Medical record is to have a standard format and an encrypted smart card that the patient owns, with a duplicate maintained at the patient's primary physician. Some sort of emergency override would have to be implemented to allow for unconsciousness of the patient, etc. The provider's and insurance companies would be required to delete all protected health information when no longer needed by their systems.
I think you'll find that HIPPA doesn't apply in this case, if, as the summary indicates, the information is being transfered at the request of the patient. Once the information is outside of the Provider/Payor/Patient relationship all bets are off. As long as Microsoft is dealing with the Patient and not the Provider, MS won't have to deal with HIPPA. If they are making deals with the Providers, however, then there must be a Trading Partner Agreement in place that enforces the HIPPA rules on MS.
I wish I had mod points but since I don't, I agree completely!
Would I want to want to buy one, probably. A tablet style PC in a 5x7 form factor would be fabulous. But I'm not going to spend more than a few hundred dollars on it.
It seems to me that all of the hardware makers have been going about it backwards, however. They are turning phones into computers. To me, a better product would be a computer that is able to be used as a phone. The difference is priority, I use the computer a lot more than I use the phone. I would accept a bit more cumbersome phone interface as long as the computer part was worthwhile, and I need to be able to use the computer while on the phone. Also, as most people seem to accept, the point of a tablet is note-taking, planner replacement, and portability. Those are the functions that are most important, followed by expandability/programmability. Give me those things and I'd spend a bit more.
The trouble is...if they stop you or you are investigated these days....EVEN if they are mistaken, they now seem to assume they have to take you and and charge you with "something" whether it sticks or not, and now YOU have to take time, and often a good deal of $$$ these days, to go defend yourself.
I wonder how much of that is an effort to protect themselves (the dept or city) against lawsuits for false arrest/harrassment. If they can charge you with something and get it into court they have a pretty solid defense against those lawsuits.
Before that IT would have been covered in the National Labor Relations Act (I believe, it might have been the Fair Labor Standards Act) as a Professional employee if the job met that description. As I recall, being too lazy to look it up, the professional exemption to overtime kicked in if the job duties (in effect) required a Bachelor's degree to perform. This was the same exemption used for Engineers and Doctors, etc. There was/is a different exemption for salesmen, and a different one for Management.
Many companies made a BS degree a requirement for a lot of jobs that didn't really need them in order to fulfill the exemption. That shouldn't work since the duties didn't require it, but since people were getting paid well enough not too many complained.
If copying down everything the professor says helps you learn
Note taking is not creating a transcript. Note taking is thinking critically about the material being presented and writing down enough of the important bits so that you can remember it.
How does note taking improve learning? I have never experienced this. This is probably an individual thing, but every time I took notes in university, I more or less missed the lecture. I also found that I had difficulty understanding what I wrote afterwards. So, in essence, I was wasting my class time writing down something that I would not be able to read later.
Note taking improves learning by forcing the listener to pay critical attention to the material being presented. If you are taking notes, how can you be missing the lecture? How can you be taking notes on something that you are missing? I suspect that you were attempting to transcribe the lecture, not take notes on it. If you can't read your own writing then learn to write more clearly (or use a writing implement with a finer tip).
Oddly, I was reprimanded several times in Freshman classes for not taking notes because I only wrote down those things that I (a) didn't already know, (b) believed to be important and (c) wouldn't be able to remember.
I will agree with an earlier poster that lectures may be outmoded by providing mp3s of the lecture in coordination with a slideshow that can be viewed prior to a discussion period. When I was at university we had Lecture Periods, discussion (recitation) periods and lab periods as appropriate for the class. Certainly, most of those Lecture period could have been replaced by a video clip of sufficient clarity which is probably much more practicable now than it was then.
And never mind that I can type essentially as fast as my profs can speak. My handwriting speed can't possibly keep up.
People keep saying stuff like this. It's note taking, not creating a transcript. Part of note taking is only writing the important bits. If you aren't keeping up you are probably not being discriminating enough about what is important. If your writing is really that much too slow then abbreviate or learn shorthand, heck use a tape recorder.
Slashdot Mirror
If the government directly controlled the money supply they would be able to create that money WITHOUT incurring debt for it. There would be no cost, not even a paper one. What do you think it would do to inflation in this country if any congress could require the treasury to "print the money" to cover any project they wanted to pursue? Certainly, we would have the debt, because there wouldn't be any money owed, but inflation would be rampant.
As a constitutionalist, you must know that only the government is allowed to "print money", and while they have in some sense delegated that power to the Federal Reserve it is completely absurd to think that they would allow competing currencies.
It doesn't have to be gold, it could indeed be any tangible that has intrinsic value. Silver has wide manufacuring appeal, foodstuffs have intrinsic value as does energy. There is no reason that a currency has to be tied to one of these...you could have several currencies for each of these. Legalise competing currencies in the US. It makes sense to trade things based on tangible value instead of paper. The dollar is worth just that...the paper it was printed on. The dollar is worth that which it can buy. That is all one can ask of a currency. Having the amount of currency available based on any commodity (or group of commodities) means that only those that control that commodity can create wealth. Having an unbacked currency allows those that control that currency to create wealth. I don't see that the former is better than the latter.
I wonder how much each bottle of water that FEMA eventually provided cost the government? I have no idea but I could easily imagine it being at least $20 per 16oz bottle. Even if it did (and I'm not arguing that the government isn't wasteful) it didn't cost the recipient of the water $20.
As I have said, I am quite sympathetic to many Libertarian views, however, I think the rhetoric of Libertarians that:
A. equates Fiscal Responsibility with being on the gold standard
B. elevates corporate freedom above personal freedom (by e.g. opposing zoning laws) and
C. fails to recognize that the government performs legitimate functions beyond protecting the personal physical security of individuals
is much more detrimental than the good ideas are beneficial.
--
JimFive
Actaully, I do understand about the Federal Reserve. My point is that Libertarians are inconsistent on this issue. They are in favor of privatization, but against the privatization that is the Federal Reserve.
To say that the income tax and Federal reserve have caused a 90 years of decline is almost ludicrous. It would be just as accurate to say that the lack of territory to expand into after the complete settlement of the continent has caused this alleged decline.
The Federal Reserve isn't the only bank that gets to create money out of thin air. ALL banks, in fact, any institution that lends money it doesn't have, create money out of thin air and this IS inflation. That problem isn't the Federal reserve, it is fractional reserve lending.
A "backed" currency isn't any better because if the currency is backed by e.g. gold then the only people that can create wealth are gold miners. That is a recipe for stagnation and depression. Besides that gold doesn't have any real value either. In a serious downturn the only real value is food so only a currency backed by grain would have a real value, and that would be subject to the vagaries of this years weather.
I am generally sympathetic to the Libertarian idea that responsibility should fall on the smallest level of government that can handle it. However, I am not in favor of the disparity that this already causes in the case of Education. If Education is privatized then market economics requires that some people will not be able to afford it. If Education is funded on the purely local level then poor and undereducated areas of the country will remain poor and undereducated. That perpetuation of status is precisely the problem that a broader educational system should try to address.
Amtrak is a partially private business, and if the government is paying for interstate highways it should also be paying for interstate railways. The benefits of mass transit do not currently translate to the bottom line of a balance sheet and because of that the cost of individual travel is artificially low.
FEMA, especially during the recent fiasco in NO, acted incompetently. Does that mean that the Federal Government has no role to play in mitigating the effects of large scale disasters? Since a for profit company's only purpose is to make money, I suspect that for profit company could have gotten bottled water to NO, but I also bet that you would complain about being charged $20 for a 16oz bottle.
As for NASA, your response displays precisely the problem with most Libertarians. You are in favor of privatization of everything except your own pet projects. Give NASA the money and freedom to explore space and you are in favor of them being a burden on the taxpayers. Portray NASA as a bureaucratic mess and you are against them.
--
JimFive
--
JimFive
But you forgot the bridge:
> Monday, applications choke
> Tuesday, Wednesday, RAID set's broke
> Thursday, let out the magic smoke
> but on Friday, I patch bugs
Saturday I wait...
Sunday I get called in late...
On Friday I never hesitate
> Monday, my xorg conf is toast
> Tuesday, Wednesday, CPU roasts
> Thursday, it won't even POST
> but on Friday, I patch bugs
--
JimFive
Riding on the coattails
...
Having users waste time cleaning out their email is IT failure, plain and simple Several things.
Personal folders are your friend. Get it off of the mail server.
Email was not created to be a file system. If you need that attachment save it somewhere and get it off of the mail server.
Email was not created to be a filing cabinet. If you really need to look back 3 years for meeting minutes those should be in a document store somewhere in a fixed form that can be accessed by anyone who needs it, not in your email folders.
But the real issue for Exchange (at least in the past, I haven't administered Exchange in >5 years) is that it stores everything in these huge files that make it incredibily difficult to administer a reasonable backup and restore process.
--
JimFive
I like this idea. Do you have any references where I could learn what I need to do this. Also, how much do I need to worry about the current. For example, I have a device that says 12VDC 200 mA If I built a multiuse brick out of a power supply, how would I ensure that the current won't fry my device. -- JimFive
The 12th Amendment specifically states that the Vice President must be eligible to be President. Those other offices do not have that restriction. However, if the Speaker of the House was not eligible they would be skipped over in the line of succession based on (3 USC Sec 19e) according to your link.
--
JimFive
I agree that it doesn't seem very secure. Especially since drawing the same picture three times a day on a pad is probably going to leave an impression on the pad. Not to mention the technique of putting a piece of transparency on the pad to absorb the impression and then removing the plastic for use at leisure. (Why do you need a mouse/key/video logger?)
--
JimFive
If I make a call to my mother on the POTS network they can't simply listen in (recent fascist precedents notwithstanding) just because our voices are unencrypted. If you're in the mall on a cell phone using that stupid walkie-talkie feature they can.
I realize that my scenarios are slightly less private than yours. I just wanted to indicate the fairly slight differences in the situations. At what point does the policeman have the obligation to be suspicious and enter your house? At what point is your phone call no longer private?
While I accept that in public my conversations could be overheard, I think the government should still be required to have a warrant to make a permanent record of my interactions. There is a difference between being overheard by some random stranger at a coffeeshop and being investigated by a government official. My actions at a televised sporting event are much less private than my actions at the local high school track meet.
To bring this back to email. Certainly, most people have an "expectation of privacy" in their personal emails. Whether that expectation is well-founded is debatable, but the expectation is still there. We think of email just like regular mail. The access that the ISPs or intermediate servers have is incidental. It is the same access that the postal worker has. We expect them to not read it and to just do their job and deliver it.
If the governments arguement is accepted then suddenly we have a need for end to end encryption of traffic through the ISPs server. Maybe an SSL tunnel to an anonymizing site that also hosts unmanaged web-based email accounts?
--
JimFive
I tried this and noticed that I started the petals at the 11 o'clock position and went clockwise, and ended up drawing 7 petals, though the last one was a bit large and 8 might be more normal. My leaf is on the right of the stem.
I am right handed.
--
JimFive
Even so, the scarcity of tickets is not created by the scalper. The scalper takes advantage of that scarcity, certainly, but he doesn't create it.
I will accept, however, that there could be a scenario in which it is better for the scalper to eat the cost of a certain percentage of his stock in order to keep prices high for the next event. That problem is caused by the lack of competition in the scalping business. I think it is a bit harsh to call scalpers and their clients sociopaths. As I said at the beginning of my previous post, that is asking people to be better than they have ever been. It won't happen. Any solution must take people and society as it is and move forward from there. Shunning only works if the majority of the target's society cares.
The best solution (again, assuming there is a problem) is an economic solution. Remove the benefit from the activity and it will go away. You can attempt to do that by control demand for the scalped product(villify or prosecute scalpers and customers) or by controlling the supply of the scalped product (raise the box-office price). Villification and prosecution haven't worked so well for any other activity, why would they work now?
--
JimFive
The solution to the moral problem is to make (all) people better than they are, which has been tried unsuccessfully for most of history.
The solution to the economic problem is to take the profit out of it.
The "supply problem" exists. There is a limited number of tickets for an event than cannot be increased. The scalper may exacerbate that problem from the viewpoint of someone who got priced out of the market, but they don't create the problem.
You only have better chances from the original source if you cannot afford the market price. If you can and are willing to afford the market price, the scalpers guarantees that a ticket is available while the original seller's system is basically a lottery. If you cannot afford the market price then a lottery is the best you can do and your best bet is to try to win some from the local radio station.
What scalpers do is the equivalent of commodities trading, not stock trading. The scalper buys what amounts to a future at a given price with the idea that as the call date approaches he can sell that commodity for more than the price he paid. If the event is popular and the prices low compared to demand then the scalper makes money. If one particular scalper is particularly successful then he can corner the market for an event which would allow him to manipulate the price. If there are competing scalpers then the price should end up being market driven.
There are three ways to attempt to end the "problem" of scalping (assuming it is a problem).
1. Solve the Moral Problem: Pass and enforce draconian laws about it. This can only work if the enforcement and penalties are sufficient to discourage the attempt. This is more likely to raise the price to accomodate the risk.
2. Solve the Economic Problem: Market price the tickets so that the profit in scalping is less assured.
2. Solve Both: The sellers/venue can attempt to limit ticket sales to individuals and eliminate transfers. This would have to happen throughout the industry and would either have loopholes to allow legitimate transfers or would really annoy people with a legitimate need to transfer. It would probably just force the scalpers to find more inventive ways around the system.
--
JimFive
Those sound like some pretty smart mice.
--
Jimfive
No, obviously, you should only index the when it is used as a noun, not as an article. So the band "The The" should be indexed under "The, The" by moving the article to the end.
Obviously
--
JimFive
Since the information is on a physical object in the possession of the patient and the physician the emergency override might be something like, calling the physician, proving your identity and having the physician give out the pertinent information, I don't think the backdoor is that big or available for misuse.
--
Jimfive
The only reasonably secure way to have an Electronic Medical record is to have a standard format and an encrypted smart card that the patient owns, with a duplicate maintained at the patient's primary physician. Some sort of emergency override would have to be implemented to allow for unconsciousness of the patient, etc. The provider's and insurance companies would be required to delete all protected health information when no longer needed by their systems.
Good luck trying to get this idea to fly.
--
JimFive
I think you'll find that HIPPA doesn't apply in this case, if, as the summary indicates, the information is being transfered at the request of the patient. Once the information is outside of the Provider/Payor/Patient relationship all bets are off. As long as Microsoft is dealing with the Patient and not the Provider, MS won't have to deal with HIPPA. If they are making deals with the Providers, however, then there must be a Trading Partner Agreement in place that enforces the HIPPA rules on MS.
--
JimFive
I wish I had mod points but since I don't, I agree completely!
Would I want to want to buy one, probably. A tablet style PC in a 5x7 form factor would be fabulous. But I'm not going to spend more than a few hundred dollars on it.
It seems to me that all of the hardware makers have been going about it backwards, however. They are turning phones into computers. To me, a better product would be a computer that is able to be used as a phone. The difference is priority, I use the computer a lot more than I use the phone. I would accept a bit more cumbersome phone interface as long as the computer part was worthwhile, and I need to be able to use the computer while on the phone. Also, as most people seem to accept, the point of a tablet is note-taking, planner replacement, and portability. Those are the functions that are most important, followed by expandability/programmability. Give me those things and I'd spend a bit more.
--
JimFive
Because the people that live in cities like to eat?
--
JimFive
--
JimFive
Before that IT would have been covered in the National Labor Relations Act (I believe, it might have been the Fair Labor Standards Act) as a Professional employee if the job met that description. As I recall, being too lazy to look it up, the professional exemption to overtime kicked in if the job duties (in effect) required a Bachelor's degree to perform. This was the same exemption used for Engineers and Doctors, etc. There was/is a different exemption for salesmen, and a different one for Management.
Many companies made a BS degree a requirement for a lot of jobs that didn't really need them in order to fulfill the exemption. That shouldn't work since the duties didn't require it, but since people were getting paid well enough not too many complained.
--
JimFive
Of course, If you have a 64K address space the first byte is byte 0x0000 and the last byte is byte 0xFFFF = 65535. Keep working on that CS degree.
--
JimFive
Note taking is not creating a transcript. Note taking is thinking critically about the material being presented and writing down enough of the important bits so that you can remember it.
Note taking improves learning by forcing the listener to pay critical attention to the material being presented. If you are taking notes, how can you be missing the lecture? How can you be taking notes on something that you are missing? I suspect that you were attempting to transcribe the lecture, not take notes on it. If you can't read your own writing then learn to write more clearly (or use a writing implement with a finer tip).
Oddly, I was reprimanded several times in Freshman classes for not taking notes because I only wrote down those things that I (a) didn't already know, (b) believed to be important and (c) wouldn't be able to remember.
I will agree with an earlier poster that lectures may be outmoded by providing mp3s of the lecture in coordination with a slideshow that can be viewed prior to a discussion period. When I was at university we had Lecture Periods, discussion (recitation) periods and lab periods as appropriate for the class. Certainly, most of those Lecture period could have been replaced by a video clip of sufficient clarity which is probably much more practicable now than it was then.
--JimFive
Do you mind?
--
JimFive
People keep saying stuff like this. It's note taking, not creating a transcript. Part of note taking is only writing the important bits. If you aren't keeping up you are probably not being discriminating enough about what is important. If your writing is really that much too slow then abbreviate or learn shorthand, heck use a tape recorder.
---
JimFive