"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
Not a reasonable part, since your right to own a gun isn't affected by said ownership being documented. You're better off talking about privacy when arguing against an owner database.
a top tier hospital in nyc should get a few more bucks for services than a community hospital in bismark nd
Why? The Top-tier hospital has higher volumes and can afford better equipment, not to mention larger donation possibilities. Because of patient volume, they can purchase supplies in larger volumes, leading to cost savings and can deliver the same tests far cheaper than the smaller hospital in Bismark, or even more importantly, rural/critical access hospitals that can't afford the equipment for the high-value or elective procedures.
You have it backward: the smaller independent locations should be getting higher reimbursement rates than the huge metropolitan health systems.
Anonymous isn't a set group of people who will learn from mistakes, because it's most likely not the same people. Also, since the list was disseminated to others, any individual can add names, claim it's the unedited original, and spread it under the umbrella of "Anonymous."
Absolutely, managers make the decisions. And the fact that many companies' managers have decided that cross-platform support is cost-prohibitive only supports my statement.
I didn't say programming was easy or hard. I said writing a complex application for more than one platform wasn't simple. You said it was, and that's the only thing I responded to.
You are also assuming too much: I am not a professional software developer, but I have years of programming experience on different platforms. I didn't say anything about my profession.
Try reading what is written instead of warping simple statements into a personal attack and responding to that. I wasn't trying to be insulting when I said you needed to learn more about programming to understand, it's the truth: people who have a basic -- or even intermediate -- understanding of a subject can often underestimate aspects of it that they have not experienced themselves. Again, not an insult, it's just reality.
You: I don't know much about it or how it's done, but X is easy to do. Me: X isn't all that easy, as anyone who is an expert knows -- which you aren't, as you said. You: Then you obviously suck at X and need to know Y. Me: You are talking out of your ass.
I think you need to learn more about programming, then. Writing a non-trivial application for multiple platforms is not as simple a task as you seem to think.
So if a company doesn't operate in a way I like, the best way to express that... is to invest in them? I don't think you thought that one through completely.
Nowhere did I say anything about malware, abuse, or severe annoyance: you are taking a simple hypothetical and using an unstated extreme possibility to suit an unyielding position.
If a website uses one or two small, innocuous ads that aren't animated, I'd see no problem with it. You seem to be taking the extreme stance that any advertising at all is a personal affront to you. If that's the case, you are being unreasonable and such an opinion shouldn't matter to most people.
Now, it may be difficult to find an ad host that doesn't push giant, screaming, in-your-face ads, but that wasn't the point.
Because newspapers have the resources to get companies to advertise on their pages, it is part of their business model. A small open source project website, for example, can't afford to go out and find people to advertise on their website. But they can get help with hosting costs by using a company whose focus -- and business model -- DOES include finding people to advertise with them.
Most normal website owners are not comparable to newspaper publishers in any meaningful way.
If a person discusses their own medical history with someone else, HIPAA does not apply. If they talk about it in public and someone overhears it and somehow uses that information, including a marketer, somehow, HIPAA has nothing to do with that.
Now, there may be an expectation of a certain amount of privacy when discussing something over email, but if that information is somehow obtained -- even by a breach of the email servers, and assuming neither server/individual is a hospital/doctor/insurer/etc or an employee of such -- HIPAA does not somehow magically apply. Just because it is medical information, it is not immediately protected by HIPAA.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on PHI, I didn't see anything related to medical information mentioned yet. But that's what business agreements are for: to share or pass the blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Difference? I can't see how those things are at all similar.
It's not my problem if a company is built upon a faulty profit model.
Facts have no place in a discussion about education!
"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
Not a reasonable part, since your right to own a gun isn't affected by said ownership being documented. You're better off talking about privacy when arguing against an owner database.
The term "firewall" has meanings beyond "network security device/software".
a top tier hospital in nyc should get a few more bucks for services than a community hospital in bismark nd
Why? The Top-tier hospital has higher volumes and can afford better equipment, not to mention larger donation possibilities. Because of patient volume, they can purchase supplies in larger volumes, leading to cost savings and can deliver the same tests far cheaper than the smaller hospital in Bismark, or even more importantly, rural/critical access hospitals that can't afford the equipment for the high-value or elective procedures.
You have it backward: the smaller independent locations should be getting higher reimbursement rates than the huge metropolitan health systems.
how many security breaches there were last year, nor the total sum of HIPAA fines for poor online security (Still $0 last I looked).
New York Presbyterian was fined $4.8 million last May, and that's just the first one I found: patients' medical information showed up on Google.
I can only think of one solar system I would consider "local", though opinions of astronomical distances can be relative.
I wonder if Anonymous thought
You can stop right there and be sure the answer is "no, they did not."
Anonymous isn't a set group of people who will learn from mistakes, because it's most likely not the same people. Also, since the list was disseminated to others, any individual can add names, claim it's the unedited original, and spread it under the umbrella of "Anonymous."
But they are getting oil out of this deal, and they love oil!
Show me the quote where I said that. I noted I did not say that, and you repeat it.
teh idea that coding is too hard to do on anything but one platform is just that sort of bullshit.
Absolutely, managers make the decisions. And the fact that many companies' managers have decided that cross-platform support is cost-prohibitive only supports my statement.
I didn't say programming was easy or hard. I said writing a complex application for more than one platform wasn't simple. You said it was, and that's the only thing I responded to.
You are also assuming too much: I am not a professional software developer, but I have years of programming experience on different platforms. I didn't say anything about my profession.
Try reading what is written instead of warping simple statements into a personal attack and responding to that. I wasn't trying to be insulting when I said you needed to learn more about programming to understand, it's the truth: people who have a basic -- or even intermediate -- understanding of a subject can often underestimate aspects of it that they have not experienced themselves. Again, not an insult, it's just reality.
You: I don't know much about it or how it's done, but X is easy to do.
Me: X isn't all that easy, as anyone who is an expert knows -- which you aren't, as you said.
You: Then you obviously suck at X and need to know Y.
Me: You are talking out of your ass.
I think you need to learn more about programming, then. Writing a non-trivial application for multiple platforms is not as simple a task as you seem to think.
"We're not at liberty to say"
AKA, "fuck your liberty."
So if a company doesn't operate in a way I like, the best way to express that... is to invest in them? I don't think you thought that one through completely.
Nowhere did I say anything about malware, abuse, or severe annoyance: you are taking a simple hypothetical and using an unstated extreme possibility to suit an unyielding position.
If a website uses one or two small, innocuous ads that aren't animated, I'd see no problem with it. You seem to be taking the extreme stance that any advertising at all is a personal affront to you. If that's the case, you are being unreasonable and such an opinion shouldn't matter to most people.
Now, it may be difficult to find an ad host that doesn't push giant, screaming, in-your-face ads, but that wasn't the point.
You're right: intravenous tuna use doesn't sound healthy at all! Salmon, however, is another matter entirely.
Because newspapers have the resources to get companies to advertise on their pages, it is part of their business model. A small open source project website, for example, can't afford to go out and find people to advertise on their website. But they can get help with hosting costs by using a company whose focus -- and business model -- DOES include finding people to advertise with them.
Most normal website owners are not comparable to newspaper publishers in any meaningful way.
Because they could recreate anything on a holodeck: why would anyone bother with a camera?
You're Tien Shinhan!
If a person discusses their own medical history with someone else, HIPAA does not apply. If they talk about it in public and someone overhears it and somehow uses that information, including a marketer, somehow, HIPAA has nothing to do with that.
Now, there may be an expectation of a certain amount of privacy when discussing something over email, but if that information is somehow obtained -- even by a breach of the email servers, and assuming neither server/individual is a hospital/doctor/insurer/etc or an employee of such -- HIPAA does not somehow magically apply. Just because it is medical information, it is not immediately protected by HIPAA.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on PHI, I didn't see anything related to medical information mentioned yet. But that's what business agreements are for: to share or pass the blame.