$1.35B / 17,000 = ~$79,500 annual cost per employee.
Assuming those cost savings are purely employee related of course... salaries, benefits, training, etc. Easily can come out to $80k for a single employee.
The fault of GroupOn is an inability to set limits in the number of coupons issued. A 75% discount was probably still profit for her but that profit was erased because the quantity of coupons from GroupOn vastly exceeded her production capability so she had to hire more employees to meet the demand. That is expensive. If GroupOn allowed a limit to the number of coupons, say 2,500 then she many not have needed the extra employees and not suffered the losses from it.
HIPAA only covers medical providers, health insurance plans, and medical clearinghouses (whatever those are). It is "extended" to cover business associates with which covered entities engage for work assuming the business associate has adequate protections to safeguard the PHI and they won't misuse it. The business associate label just allows a covered entity to share the PHI without seeking the patient's permission.
A lawyer representing a hospital during a medical malpractice case would be considered a business associate. If a hospital wants to store backup tapes that contain PHI with Iron Mountain, then Iron Mountain is considered a business associate and must meet all the regulations of HIPAA.
A lawyer representing a client who is suing a hospital for medical malpractice is not representing a covered entity and consequently not required to follow HIPAA regulations.
If HIPAA was violated in this scenario then the hospital did so by releasing the records to the law firm but I highly doubt that the hospital released the records to the law firm without the patient's permission. The Bar Association or other entities may have something to say but a violation of HIPAA this is not.
A law firm cannot sue a covered entity for medical records. The law firm in question from the article is a personal injury firm. They, without a doubt, made a request to the hospital for the records. The hospital then contacted the firm's client seeking permission to release the PHI. The client gave permission to the hospital and they gave the records to the law firm.
It's either that or the client directly received the PHI from the hospital and then gave them to the law firm.
There are very few instances where a covered entity can give out PHI without a patient's permission. Mostly those are limited to compliance with other laws, like reporting potential child abuse.
There was no violations of HIPAA in this incident, just idiotic behavior by the law firm. Now maybe this should serve as a reason for why law firms that take on personal injury or other medical related cases should be forced to follow HIPAA.
So.... you're ignoring that a person can give permission for non-covered entities to have access to that PHI. The sort of permission that would have to be granted to a law firm when they are pursuing a personal injury case for a client? The exact sort of law firm which is the subject of the article.
I don't think you understand the purpose of HIPAA.
HIPAA is designed to dictate both how covered entities that can collect your PHI have to handle your PHI but mostly it's to cover the instances under which a covered entity can share your PHI with third parties without your permission with all other cases requiring your permission.
There is no way for a covered entity (medical provider) to sidestep HIPAA by giving it to some 3rd party without first obtaining your permission. If they could give it without permission then the entity receiving the PHI is going to be covered under HIPAA as well either as a covered entity or a business associate.
You aren't going to be able to sue a medical center and get all medical records for all patients. It's unlikely that you would get any records other than your own health records.
What happened here is a pretty clear chain of events as to how it happened.
Here's the facts. Many (exact number unknown) pieces of scrap paper contained medical information. All that information originated from Sawicki and Phelps. Ms. White had hired them after she was in a car accident.
The last fact heavily suggests that these attorneys are personal injury attorneys and possibly medical malpractice attorneys. They are going to need to have the medical records for their clients in order to build a case. This leads me to believe that all medical information disclosed by them were all clients of the law firm seeking restitution for injuries sustained.
It's really not even a loophole at all. It's a possible consequence of giving your medical information to a group not covered by HIPAA.
The only difference between this and giving your medical information to the guy that gets your Starbucks in the morning is that at least lawyers have the bar association and other organizations which may keep them in line regarding private information. That and a lawyer without clients because he keeps giving out their private info would be a lawyer without clients.
There is no maybe about it. If the law firm is representing a covered entity then they have to comply with HIPAA regulations. This has been the case since February 17, 2010.
You are also right on if the lawyer was not representing a covered entity. If they had acquired the information while representing a client bringing a lawsuit against a hospital then they aren't covered by HIPAA.
Lawyers who represent covered entities have had to be in compliance with HIPAA regulations since February 17, 2010. They are classified as a business associate of the covered entity and must take steps to protect the information.
Inconsistency would have prompted greater questions.
For example, the obvious question is how could someone misspell a word and then properly spell a word? The 'a' and 'o' keys aren't nearby so one could not blame it on a typo.
I've had a similar question that I haven't seen answered.
Is it possible our value for the speed of light is inaccurate? Unless I'm mistaken about the method used to determine it, it's based off how long it takes a photon to travel one meter. If I recall correctly the distance between the two sites is about 730,642 meters. If the time measured was around 0.0000821 nanoseconds faster then that would account for the superluminal neutrinos.
Have you thoroughly assessed whether providers would get more money with or without net neutrality? Either way I don't see it as a necessity for them to upgrade the networks with it either. With net neutrality, they don't upgrade and start charging a higher price for the same access you had yesterday. Most people won't care unless provider in the area provides a better deal and one we're not talking pennies about. Something that actually justifies the hassle of switching.
Without net neutrality then they segment the market and have you pay a premium to get on an uncongested pipe. Then once enough people move to the "new" pipe and it starts to get congested they segment off the excess bandwidth from the lower tier to create 3rd tier of pricing better, grandfather everyone at the bottom tier and make the premium tier the new basic tier.
You're applying cold war logic to a nation headed by religious fanatics many of whom believe they will be rewarded in death for killing non-believers and believers who don't believe the strict interpretation. That is something I'm not inclined towards believing. Most of the Cold War was done via proxy and there were very few, if any, times where world critical strategic resources were threatened by potential Russian or American actions.
A more likely scenario than Iran committing a first strike is that Iran would start attacking vessels in the Persian Gulf from the land choking off oil exports that way. That is an actual threat that exists right now. The US Navy would be hard pressed to stop all the attacks against tankers. Once the US Army or Marines threaten to invade Iran then brandish the nuke and threaten Ras Tanura saying that if the US invades they'll blow up the ports.
Once Iran has a nuke the ability of other nations to impede Iran being a little bitch about oil because exceedingly difficult since it is capable of royally fucking everyone in the ass. What can the rest of the world do? Maybe increase oil production or decrease oil demand until the oil coming from the Persian Gulf doesn't matter. That certainly reduces his bargaining chip but that will take time.
However that is just retaliation. The damage from the nuke has already been done and seeing as if Iran could get two nukes and drop them on the oil export terminals that Saudi Arabia owns in the Persian Gulf (well within the range of Iranian missiles) you would see about a 64% decline in the oil exports from Saudi Arabia. Repairs that could not begin until hostilities were taken care of. Even if they could redirect their pipelines to Yanbu on the Red Sea they would only have an export capacity of around 5 million barrels per day rather than the 14 million barrels per day they can handle now. They're lose at least 3.65 million barrels per days in exports so you're looking at a about a 42% reduction in Saudi oil exports with them running at 100% capacity.
That's a very, very shitty situation for the whole world. Say what you want about peak oil and how we should get off of oil. A sudden significant reduction in world wide oil supplies isn't going to be good.
Why are you focused in animated movies? Think about how this technology can be extended out.
South Park. They have a 1 week turnover per episode.
How about if they can scale this technology out to the gaming market? That article points this out. Rendering is the road block to obtaining better and more realistic environments you need progressively beefier GPU to render more complex environments. Maybe if this technology takes off you will be able to see a reduction in the power requirements of GPUs that is more significant than the increase in CPU power consumption. It could bring even better graphics to hand helds and mobiles if the power reduction is good enough.
Square-Enix is one company I could see rushing to embrace it, especially with the Final Fantasy series. They're releasing Final Fantasy XIII Versus on a single 360 disc because they're cutting out the pre-rendered sequences. If this sort of technology were available for the 360 then those sequences would be preserved.
I guess that's another advantage... if you don't need to pre-render any sequences then that should mean less space needed on the media.
But yes, given that South Park has a 1 week turnover time for each episode this appears to be a technology that they could take huge advantage of. That would give them a lot more time to polish their turds that they drop off on people's heads.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Peaceable 1 a : disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome b : quietly behaved 2 : free from strife or disorder
So yes. It does contain a qualifier of "not inconveniencing others".
This is how I read things. My biggest problems is when I see a shape of a word I misinterpret it as another word because the two words are similarly shaped.
Slashdot Mirror
$1.35B / 17,000 = ~$79,500 annual cost per employee.
Assuming those cost savings are purely employee related of course... salaries, benefits, training, etc. Easily can come out to $80k for a single employee.
No no... he means Boatmurdered where the dwarves were obsessed with cheese, talking with dwarves, and the killing of dwarves by pachyderms.
The fault of GroupOn is an inability to set limits in the number of coupons issued. A 75% discount was probably still profit for her but that profit was erased because the quantity of coupons from GroupOn vastly exceeded her production capability so she had to hire more employees to meet the demand. That is expensive. If GroupOn allowed a limit to the number of coupons, say 2,500 then she many not have needed the extra employees and not suffered the losses from it.
HIPAA only covers medical providers, health insurance plans, and medical clearinghouses (whatever those are). It is "extended" to cover business associates with which covered entities engage for work assuming the business associate has adequate protections to safeguard the PHI and they won't misuse it. The business associate label just allows a covered entity to share the PHI without seeking the patient's permission.
A lawyer representing a hospital during a medical malpractice case would be considered a business associate. If a hospital wants to store backup tapes that contain PHI with Iron Mountain, then Iron Mountain is considered a business associate and must meet all the regulations of HIPAA.
A lawyer representing a client who is suing a hospital for medical malpractice is not representing a covered entity and consequently not required to follow HIPAA regulations.
If HIPAA was violated in this scenario then the hospital did so by releasing the records to the law firm but I highly doubt that the hospital released the records to the law firm without the patient's permission. The Bar Association or other entities may have something to say but a violation of HIPAA this is not.
A law firm cannot sue a covered entity for medical records. The law firm in question from the article is a personal injury firm. They, without a doubt, made a request to the hospital for the records. The hospital then contacted the firm's client seeking permission to release the PHI. The client gave permission to the hospital and they gave the records to the law firm.
It's either that or the client directly received the PHI from the hospital and then gave them to the law firm.
There are very few instances where a covered entity can give out PHI without a patient's permission. Mostly those are limited to compliance with other laws, like reporting potential child abuse.
There was no violations of HIPAA in this incident, just idiotic behavior by the law firm. Now maybe this should serve as a reason for why law firms that take on personal injury or other medical related cases should be forced to follow HIPAA.
So.... you're ignoring that a person can give permission for non-covered entities to have access to that PHI. The sort of permission that would have to be granted to a law firm when they are pursuing a personal injury case for a client? The exact sort of law firm which is the subject of the article.
I don't think you understand the purpose of HIPAA.
HIPAA is designed to dictate both how covered entities that can collect your PHI have to handle your PHI but mostly it's to cover the instances under which a covered entity can share your PHI with third parties without your permission with all other cases requiring your permission.
There is no way for a covered entity (medical provider) to sidestep HIPAA by giving it to some 3rd party without first obtaining your permission. If they could give it without permission then the entity receiving the PHI is going to be covered under HIPAA as well either as a covered entity or a business associate.
You aren't going to be able to sue a medical center and get all medical records for all patients. It's unlikely that you would get any records other than your own health records.
What happened here is a pretty clear chain of events as to how it happened.
Here's the facts. Many (exact number unknown) pieces of scrap paper contained medical information. All that information originated from Sawicki and Phelps. Ms. White had hired them after she was in a car accident.
The last fact heavily suggests that these attorneys are personal injury attorneys and possibly medical malpractice attorneys. They are going to need to have the medical records for their clients in order to build a case. This leads me to believe that all medical information disclosed by them were all clients of the law firm seeking restitution for injuries sustained.
It's really not even a loophole at all. It's a possible consequence of giving your medical information to a group not covered by HIPAA.
The only difference between this and giving your medical information to the guy that gets your Starbucks in the morning is that at least lawyers have the bar association and other organizations which may keep them in line regarding private information. That and a lawyer without clients because he keeps giving out their private info would be a lawyer without clients.
There is no maybe about it. If the law firm is representing a covered entity then they have to comply with HIPAA regulations. This has been the case since February 17, 2010.
You are also right on if the lawyer was not representing a covered entity. If they had acquired the information while representing a client bringing a lawsuit against a hospital then they aren't covered by HIPAA.
Lawyers who represent covered entities have had to be in compliance with HIPAA regulations since February 17, 2010. They are classified as a business associate of the covered entity and must take steps to protect the information.
Certainly what these petitions are trying to get is a state where everyone gets Internet access gratis.
Inconsistency would have prompted greater questions.
For example, the obvious question is how could someone misspell a word and then properly spell a word? The 'a' and 'o' keys aren't nearby so one could not blame it on a typo.
I've had a similar question that I haven't seen answered.
Is it possible our value for the speed of light is inaccurate? Unless I'm mistaken about the method used to determine it, it's based off how long it takes a photon to travel one meter. If I recall correctly the distance between the two sites is about 730,642 meters. If the time measured was around 0.0000821 nanoseconds faster then that would account for the superluminal neutrinos.
dou dou linux?
Naming a flavor of linux after shit?
That's it. It's time to Occupy Slashdot.
No longer will we idly stand by and stand for the continuation of all the Bitcoin slashvertisements!
Have you thoroughly assessed whether providers would get more money with or without net neutrality? Either way I don't see it as a necessity for them to upgrade the networks with it either. With net neutrality, they don't upgrade and start charging a higher price for the same access you had yesterday. Most people won't care unless provider in the area provides a better deal and one we're not talking pennies about. Something that actually justifies the hassle of switching.
Without net neutrality then they segment the market and have you pay a premium to get on an uncongested pipe. Then once enough people move to the "new" pipe and it starts to get congested they segment off the excess bandwidth from the lower tier to create 3rd tier of pricing better, grandfather everyone at the bottom tier and make the premium tier the new basic tier.
You're fucked either way.
You're applying cold war logic to a nation headed by religious fanatics many of whom believe they will be rewarded in death for killing non-believers and believers who don't believe the strict interpretation. That is something I'm not inclined towards believing. Most of the Cold War was done via proxy and there were very few, if any, times where world critical strategic resources were threatened by potential Russian or American actions.
A more likely scenario than Iran committing a first strike is that Iran would start attacking vessels in the Persian Gulf from the land choking off oil exports that way. That is an actual threat that exists right now. The US Navy would be hard pressed to stop all the attacks against tankers. Once the US Army or Marines threaten to invade Iran then brandish the nuke and threaten Ras Tanura saying that if the US invades they'll blow up the ports.
Once Iran has a nuke the ability of other nations to impede Iran being a little bitch about oil because exceedingly difficult since it is capable of royally fucking everyone in the ass. What can the rest of the world do? Maybe increase oil production or decrease oil demand until the oil coming from the Persian Gulf doesn't matter. That certainly reduces his bargaining chip but that will take time.
Once you use it. Yes.
However that is just retaliation. The damage from the nuke has already been done and seeing as if Iran could get two nukes and drop them on the oil export terminals that Saudi Arabia owns in the Persian Gulf (well within the range of Iranian missiles) you would see about a 64% decline in the oil exports from Saudi Arabia. Repairs that could not begin until hostilities were taken care of. Even if they could redirect their pipelines to Yanbu on the Red Sea they would only have an export capacity of around 5 million barrels per day rather than the 14 million barrels per day they can handle now. They're lose at least 3.65 million barrels per days in exports so you're looking at a about a 42% reduction in Saudi oil exports with them running at 100% capacity.
That's a very, very shitty situation for the whole world. Say what you want about peak oil and how we should get off of oil. A sudden significant reduction in world wide oil supplies isn't going to be good.
Why are you focused in animated movies? Think about how this technology can be extended out.
South Park. They have a 1 week turnover per episode.
How about if they can scale this technology out to the gaming market? That article points this out. Rendering is the road block to obtaining better and more realistic environments you need progressively beefier GPU to render more complex environments. Maybe if this technology takes off you will be able to see a reduction in the power requirements of GPUs that is more significant than the increase in CPU power consumption. It could bring even better graphics to hand helds and mobiles if the power reduction is good enough.
Square-Enix is one company I could see rushing to embrace it, especially with the Final Fantasy series. They're releasing Final Fantasy XIII Versus on a single 360 disc because they're cutting out the pre-rendered sequences. If this sort of technology were available for the 360 then those sequences would be preserved.
I guess that's another advantage... if you don't need to pre-render any sequences then that should mean less space needed on the media.
And it's signed through 2016!
But yes, given that South Park has a 1 week turnover time for each episode this appears to be a technology that they could take huge advantage of. That would give them a lot more time to polish their turds that they drop off on people's heads.
Not likely. That still does nothing for their uncleanliness as demonstrated by the outbreaks of ring worm, scabies, and tuberculosis.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Peaceable
1 a : disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome
b : quietly behaved
2 : free from strife or disorder
So yes. It does contain a qualifier of "not inconveniencing others".
And what is their opinion on Mario wearing a frog suit?
This is how I read things. My biggest problems is when I see a shape of a word I misinterpret it as another word because the two words are similarly shaped.
That makes sense! The teenagers, while annoying, at least can get employed. The young cute ones, who are still annoying, are just leeches.