Wouldn't be easier just to F with the dev network for a week or so and leave the prod one alone. It just seems like you could selectively turn off some servers of get some fire wall rules to deal with the Dev Console issue.
The interesting this is this entirely all the cable companies fault. There are a lot of channels they are forced to carry in the basic tier. You want to carry the local ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX station then you're going to have to put a ton of other channels into the basic tier. It all started with ABC and the Disney Channel. They aren't going to eat those channels, the consumer is, and the cable company is going to cry itself all the way to the bank with the extra profits. But overall it was driven by the greed of the large media conglomerates.
Netflix has some clear advantages that it gets to have ala carte cost structure and highly targeted revenue. But they are at a tipping point where those same companies that forced cable to buy extra crap will force Netflix to buy extra crap.
Bonus Story: This stuff happens all the time. When Star Wars Episode I came out on DVD LucasFilm's mandated that no one could license screening of any of the original Trilogy without paying screening of Episode I. In particular when non-profits, schools and libraries were paying for screening rights.
Glad to see Amazon has a sense of humor about it. Might be a little too soon for all the people running businesses that went down because of the outage.
Spring is always about 3 steps ahead of Java because they don't have some huge committee to deal with. EJB3 would have never happened if Spring hadn't become (rightfully) popular. Which is how they because a $200+M year company before VM bought them. As it stands they have a dozen projects that fill the gaps in Java. You want a security framework that actually does something from day1 you get Spring-Security, you can to integrate non-relational data into JPA you get Spring-Data, want to manage batch processing you get Spring-Batch, etc, etc.
Some of these areas it's unlikely Java will implement because committee members sell commercial products that fill those gaps as well. There's a lot of hatting on Spring that I don't get. They basically Apache with bigger goals and a commercial support division.
The key to my post was JRuby. It's ruby that can run inside the java VM, can import most Java Libs for use with native Ruby Code and when run in a commercial app server takes advantage of execution caching and various J2EE services (i.e. JMS). From that stand point JRuby can have all the bloatware of Java and a commercial App Server if you wanted to. However, you can also do it without all the bloat on a smaller scale that you could develop quickly and deploy it inside your existing java infrastructure.
So, I wouldn't be throwing stones about insightful or accurate until you've done your homework.
I can guarantee it takes less time to read up on the J2EE JMS implementation than it takes to roll your own. It's the same reason why most enterprises run a commercial Application server like WebLogic or WebSphere over Tomcat and GlassFish. They want to be able to extend pre-packaged functionality that someone else has put through the paces.
The selling point to the enterprise is the JDK. If it was all about a better language that develops quicker they could have gone for Ruby years ago. In particular once sun brought JRuby in-house. The issue at hand is the Enterprise wants the bloatware in the J2EE SDK. Those classes and libraries represent a lot of work a developer doesn't have to figure out themselves.
I suspect that despite its early sales lead, it would still end up in third place overall if the cycle were allowed to run for 10 years as some had suggested.
That's a tough sell as it stands its:
Wii 84 Million (2006) Units sold 2010 17 Million Xbox360 50 Million (2005) Units Sold 2010 11 Million PS3 48 Million (2006) Units Sold 2010 13 Million
Assuming a 10 year schedule the 360 sales numbers will continue to climb and the Wii numbers will continue to fall, but at some point they'll all flat line around year 9-10 as rumors of new systems come out. Basically they will have to beat Nintendo by at least 8.5M each year for the next 4 years if they have any hope to overtake Nintendo.
That being said, I think Nintendo is going to continue with 3D and has no reason to release this early until 3D gets more market. Still, I don't think it'll go 10 years. There's a $10-15 per game royalty at stake. Last thing they need is for PC hardware to be on the rise again.
You'll save 3-6K in gas, parking and transport alone. Pick up another $800-$1500 in phone, cell and internet reimbursement. Get back 1-2 hours of your day that you used to spend commuting. Not a bad deal.
No state in the US has price controls between the practitioner and the insurance company. What central planning are you talking about? If you can't get insurance that's the private market in action.
Except the states that have mandated not-for-profit requirement have the lowest costs in terms of premiums and best outcomes. It's demonstrable that not-for-profit and co-ops cost less and have better outcomes. The reason why you're wrong that competition is smarter is two fold. 1) Math, 2) Obligation to the shareholder. United Health Group is a public company with the obligation to extract as much money as the market will bear and to deliver the least amount of services. This is reflects in the bottom line. In 2010 UHG took in $85.4B worth of premium, but only pays out $68.8B in medical services. That's about a 20% "overhead", Salary, bonus, dividends to share holders. Whereas the not-for-profit and co-op health insurance companies are running under 6% operating overhead.
Selling across state lines actually makes the problem worse, much worse. What would happen is small states like Delaware and the Dakotas would become magnets for health insurance companies because of the lax regulation. Just like credit card interest and ATM fees, health insurance would become an interstate commerce issue for which there exists very little operational regulation.
The only way the idea of competition works out is if you adapt a swiss style system. The gov't sets the prices of service (COLA Adjusted). Because the amount the Doc is going to bill is the same no matter what insurance company then the insurance companies are forced to compete on actual lower operating costs. Right now the free market can't work for health care because the market is a black box. The biggest failing of Obamacare was it didn't do price controls.
I will point out that it's a state issue. Many states already have enacted tort reform. Texas for instance has tort reform. Guess where the highest medical costs are in the entire country. Texas. There are a lot of reasons why health care costs a lot of money. Unlimited damages is not one of the reasons and it's demonstrable.
From an insurance perspective, in the individual market "high risk" is anyone not a healthy 20 something. Older people are by default riskier because the vast majority of health care costs are consumed in the first 6 and last 6 months of life. Be that as it may, given life spans of people, and the fact that medicare kicks in mid-60's the risk isn't nearly as huge are they make it out to be. You'll also find in states that require health insurance to be "not-for-profit" that the individual policies would never be nearly that high. I would also point out "Obamacare" doesn't even start to implement until 2012, and many of the changes are in 2014 and 2016. So what the OP is talking about is likely a state law, now federal.
Hahaha, no. Young 20 somethings are a net profit for insurance companies. They tend to be healthy and need far less care than the premium. In fact they typically use less health care than kids. You insurance goes up because you live in a state that allows for-profit health insurance. I live in a state where insurance is mandated to be not-for profit. Premiums kept with inflation for me. I pay some of the lowest premiums in the country and have some of the best medical outcomes. On the other hand the most expensive health insurance is in Texas. A state that HAS medical tort reform and is largely unregulated.
Did you actually watch the Episode? Clarkson says it runs out of power, and then they show the lads pushing the car into hanger as if it's completely inoperable. If the car actually stopped running Tesla doesn't have a cash. On the other hand if the car was fine and the lads pushing the car into the hanger was staged then I would think they have a case.
Slashdot Mirror
A handful of lawyers will get rich. The only thing you might get is some credit monitoring out of it.
Wouldn't be easier just to F with the dev network for a week or so and leave the prod one alone. It just seems like you could selectively turn off some servers of get some fire wall rules to deal with the Dev Console issue.
The interesting this is this entirely all the cable companies fault. There are a lot of channels they are forced to carry in the basic tier. You want to carry the local ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX station then you're going to have to put a ton of other channels into the basic tier. It all started with ABC and the Disney Channel. They aren't going to eat those channels, the consumer is, and the cable company is going to cry itself all the way to the bank with the extra profits. But overall it was driven by the greed of the large media conglomerates.
Netflix has some clear advantages that it gets to have ala carte cost structure and highly targeted revenue. But they are at a tipping point where those same companies that forced cable to buy extra crap will force Netflix to buy extra crap.
Bonus Story: This stuff happens all the time. When Star Wars Episode I came out on DVD LucasFilm's mandated that no one could license screening of any of the original Trilogy without paying screening of Episode I. In particular when non-profits, schools and libraries were paying for screening rights.
Maybe they'll refund the PS3 Live Subscription fees.
Glad to see Amazon has a sense of humor about it. Might be a little too soon for all the people running businesses that went down because of the outage.
Spring is always about 3 steps ahead of Java because they don't have some huge committee to deal with. EJB3 would have never happened if Spring hadn't become (rightfully) popular. Which is how they because a $200+M year company before VM bought them. As it stands they have a dozen projects that fill the gaps in Java. You want a security framework that actually does something from day1 you get Spring-Security, you can to integrate non-relational data into JPA you get Spring-Data, want to manage batch processing you get Spring-Batch, etc, etc.
Some of these areas it's unlikely Java will implement because committee members sell commercial products that fill those gaps as well. There's a lot of hatting on Spring that I don't get. They basically Apache with bigger goals and a commercial support division.
The key to my post was JRuby. It's ruby that can run inside the java VM, can import most Java Libs for use with native Ruby Code and when run in a commercial app server takes advantage of execution caching and various J2EE services (i.e. JMS). From that stand point JRuby can have all the bloatware of Java and a commercial App Server if you wanted to. However, you can also do it without all the bloat on a smaller scale that you could develop quickly and deploy it inside your existing java infrastructure.
So, I wouldn't be throwing stones about insightful or accurate until you've done your homework.
I can guarantee it takes less time to read up on the J2EE JMS implementation than it takes to roll your own. It's the same reason why most enterprises run a commercial Application server like WebLogic or WebSphere over Tomcat and GlassFish. They want to be able to extend pre-packaged functionality that someone else has put through the paces.
Mod up. It's a fair point.
The selling point to the enterprise is the JDK. If it was all about a better language that develops quicker they could have gone for Ruby years ago. In particular once sun brought JRuby in-house. The issue at hand is the Enterprise wants the bloatware in the J2EE SDK. Those classes and libraries represent a lot of work a developer doesn't have to figure out themselves.
If WikiLeaks had happened in China the Families of Manning and Assange would have already received the bill for the bullet. Just say'n.
I suspect that despite its early sales lead, it would still end up in third place overall if the cycle were allowed to run for 10 years as some had suggested.
That's a tough sell as it stands its:
Wii 84 Million (2006) Units sold 2010 17 Million
Xbox360 50 Million (2005) Units Sold 2010 11 Million
PS3 48 Million (2006) Units Sold 2010 13 Million
Assuming a 10 year schedule the 360 sales numbers will continue to climb and the Wii numbers will continue to fall, but at some point they'll all flat line around year 9-10 as rumors of new systems come out. Basically they will have to beat Nintendo by at least 8.5M each year for the next 4 years if they have any hope to overtake Nintendo.
That being said, I think Nintendo is going to continue with 3D and has no reason to release this early until 3D gets more market. Still, I don't think it'll go 10 years. There's a $10-15 per game royalty at stake. Last thing they need is for PC hardware to be on the rise again.
You'll save 3-6K in gas, parking and transport alone. Pick up another $800-$1500 in phone, cell and internet reimbursement. Get back 1-2 hours of your day that you used to spend commuting. Not a bad deal.
But when will they come out with a Cow engineered to put the Melamine in automatically?
No state in the US has price controls between the practitioner and the insurance company. What central planning are you talking about? If you can't get insurance that's the private market in action.
Except the states that have mandated not-for-profit requirement have the lowest costs in terms of premiums and best outcomes. It's demonstrable that not-for-profit and co-ops cost less and have better outcomes. The reason why you're wrong that competition is smarter is two fold. 1) Math, 2) Obligation to the shareholder. United Health Group is a public company with the obligation to extract as much money as the market will bear and to deliver the least amount of services. This is reflects in the bottom line. In 2010 UHG took in $85.4B worth of premium, but only pays out $68.8B in medical services. That's about a 20% "overhead", Salary, bonus, dividends to share holders. Whereas the not-for-profit and co-op health insurance companies are running under 6% operating overhead.
Selling across state lines actually makes the problem worse, much worse. What would happen is small states like Delaware and the Dakotas would become magnets for health insurance companies because of the lax regulation. Just like credit card interest and ATM fees, health insurance would become an interstate commerce issue for which there exists very little operational regulation.
The only way the idea of competition works out is if you adapt a swiss style system. The gov't sets the prices of service (COLA Adjusted). Because the amount the Doc is going to bill is the same no matter what insurance company then the insurance companies are forced to compete on actual lower operating costs. Right now the free market can't work for health care because the market is a black box. The biggest failing of Obamacare was it didn't do price controls.
Re: Malpractive/tort Reform
I will point out that it's a state issue. Many states already have enacted tort reform. Texas for instance has tort reform. Guess where the highest medical costs are in the entire country. Texas. There are a lot of reasons why health care costs a lot of money. Unlimited damages is not one of the reasons and it's demonstrable.
Reinsurance operates more or less like that. As do the co-ops and not-for-profits. But the large for profits? No. Not even close.
Bill McGuire was making $54M at UHG. Thylor at CIGNA $24M. That's not even counting the hundreds of senior executive making between $1-13M.
No you don't. That doesn't take effect until 2014, and the penalties for it are meaningless until 2016. So how has this actually affected you?
So, no, you can't name a way it's actually personally affected you or someone you know. Unless you're the solicitor general or something.
From an insurance perspective, in the individual market "high risk" is anyone not a healthy 20 something. Older people are by default riskier because the vast majority of health care costs are consumed in the first 6 and last 6 months of life. Be that as it may, given life spans of people, and the fact that medicare kicks in mid-60's the risk isn't nearly as huge are they make it out to be. You'll also find in states that require health insurance to be "not-for-profit" that the individual policies would never be nearly that high. I would also point out "Obamacare" doesn't even start to implement until 2012, and many of the changes are in 2014 and 2016. So what the OP is talking about is likely a state law, now federal.
Hahaha, no. Young 20 somethings are a net profit for insurance companies. They tend to be healthy and need far less care than the premium. In fact they typically use less health care than kids. You insurance goes up because you live in a state that allows for-profit health insurance. I live in a state where insurance is mandated to be not-for profit. Premiums kept with inflation for me. I pay some of the lowest premiums in the country and have some of the best medical outcomes. On the other hand the most expensive health insurance is in Texas. A state that HAS medical tort reform and is largely unregulated.
Name a way the so-called "Obamacare" has personally affected you or someone you know.
Did you actually watch the Episode? Clarkson says it runs out of power, and then they show the lads pushing the car into hanger as if it's completely inoperable. If the car actually stopped running Tesla doesn't have a cash. On the other hand if the car was fine and the lads pushing the car into the hanger was staged then I would think they have a case.
Quite true, people who know about 1/10 of what you know about the subject are going to decide what's notable and what's not.