Not just medical insurance companies. But that will come when wearing of these devices are made mandatory, probably an argument along the lines of "well only terrorists *wouldn't* wear them"
You say that like the edict will come from the right wing, and that may be a popular belief. But the left is the party that voted to mandate health insurance, and people went along with it because, a) they believed the "it's for the good of everyone that everyone have insurance" line; and/or, b) they accepted it because it came from their side. Granted, the established left and right in the United States is basically the softest game of tug-o-war in history; however, it seems to me that the "Fitbit Mandate" will come shrouded as "it's for the good of everyone that everyone have a Fitbit" rather than "The Gestapo says you will wear a Fitbit."
People wouldn't willingly concede even more freedoms to wear these things, you say? Yeah... right.
Sadly/Generally, the average person will follow along with what their chosen Party says they should do.
I prefer Krusty the Clown's Chinese factory motivational sayings via loudspeaker: "Laziness is counter-revolutionary. Questions are decadent! Fast hands mean less whipping."
I can't imagine why this has suddenly become a thing.
It isn't sudden. Gyms have been on this train for years. New car salesman want you to "buy" a new car every three years. Make the monthly payment part of life, and people forget it is there -- it becomes the baseline. And it allows them to make more accurate revenue projections.
This is a terrible idea, and it's not something I'd trust even a little. This is all about locking you into Google, and making it easy for them to manage your home remotely.
I would put absolutely zero trust in this device.
People are dumb when it comes to technology. Maybe Google sees that there will be not only a need, but a requirement for a home network design/protocol/whatever that encapsulates the hardware we now get from our ISP of choice. We're entering the "internet access is a fundamental right" era. It's only logical to conclude that means highly regulated internet and, naturally, the need for a standard the government can leverage when they take over.
I'm not refuting that it can lead to Google being able to turn over your home network to the Feds; rather, that it isn't because someday they want to.
It's a very problematic ruling, raises a lot of issues, and in my opinion should be reversed...
I am interested in why it is problematic, and what issues it raises. In the interest of saving this article's comments from the hordes of "oh my god we're gonna die the NSA will be able to name our children due to this ruling!" can you elaborate? Thanks.
"Several people in the UK have been diagnosed with electrosensitivity and received help for the disability but any financial allowance usually refers to a different name for the condition or a related condition," it [the court] said in a statement.
I'll bet the judge decided she was so delusional as to be unfit to work, and gave her benefits based on that. The "different name for the condition" could be delusional thinking (or whatever the correct psychiatric term for that is - IANAP). Mental illness certainly can be debilitating.
Subject says it all. It really is time to start taking lawyers and other bottom feeders to task. Mentally ill people should be treated for their paranoia, not have it confirmed.
I'm just happy to see it happen somewhere other than the US. Turns out other countries have nuts and greedy lawyers, too.
Consider that most people I know who have an undergraduate degree in "computer science" are as close to a scientist as a blog is to journalism. Computer Science degrees can mean as little as "more computer credits than liberal arts credits." But maybe that is endemic to popular degree programs.
I don't understand your reaction to my comment. I'm not suggesting that training should be required; rather, that any responsible gun owner should fully understand how their gun operates and how to operate their gun. I mountain bike, and I know how my mountain bike works. I drive a car, and I know, for the most part, how a car works. I use a computer, and I know, for the most part, how a computer works. I'm a software developer, and even though the garbage collector will come along and clean up after me (eventually), I consider how my use of various objects and techniques will affect performance.
I believe people who own guns should train, either formally or at the range with friends. If one buys a gun and just carries it around, it isn't really that useful (and can be dangerous). One day at the range shooting plates in a timed drill is all it takes to realize how difficult it would be to handle a weapon in an active shooter situation.
The real question is, Would our troops accept the government telling them to mount an offensive against the populace? I was in the Air Force; my brother the Marines. As gung-ho and 'Merica shouting as some military folk are, the reality is that they aren't radically pro-government; instead, they are pro-liberty.
Fortunately, the radically pro-government types (Occupy *, et al), also tend to be radically against the military and violence by their own hands. Without an army, the best they can hope for is to vote in their party. But who will enforce the will of an overarching federal authority - should it ever come to that - if the military folks don't see eye-to-eye with that will?
Caveat - Admittedly hypothetical, and one of any number of ways such a thing could come about.
Go buy your own HDD (or SSD). Who cares how cheap your company is? They are all cheap, but the good devs spend their own money on tools / upgrades / etc.
Encrypted SSD drive. Public company dealing with PHI. I take care of having my favorite peripherals, but I don't mess with the computer hardware.
For comparison, I am a software developer on Core i7 Win 7 64 bit on a 3-year old Lenovo T520. I regularly use 6.5 GB or more of 8 GB of RAM with one instance of SSMS and three or 4 instances of VS2013 (plus Chrome, IE, Outlook, and often some Office programs). There must be a lot of system shit sucking RAM, too, because I have never counted more than 5 GB of my own programs. But still, I'd at least feel way better with 16 GB. (Also, the company bought laptops with 160 GB hard drives, so I regularly have to fight for every GBs (and even MBs) of space so I can compile projects.)
Because we don't spend enough time looking at our phones as it is. [Obviously, that doesn't apply to people need to quantify themselves in various ways due disease, etc. But JTFC, do you really need to track your steps at a music festival? Most of them were probably just you twirling in a circle while on e.]
I thought this was how the wheels of bureaucracy were greased in Central America.
Friends of mine headed south from Belize to continue a trip we were on together, and they experienced it along the rest of their trip through Central America. Get to a border: Grease a palm. Get stopped randomly by the "police:" Grease a palm. Since money is paper, I guess you can call that "paperwork." Only, it is far more efficient than the other kind.
The Penn State Wellness fiasco? Unless you think that what amounts to a yearly fine is not forced,, I'm pretty surprised that a professional in benefits administration field would not have heard of that. It was dropped due ot employee outrage (some were even daring to breathe the dreaded "U" word, but it was going to be forced until cooler minds intervened.
I posted a link above, but here it is again http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.c...
Any thoughts?
Strictly speaking the employees would not have been forced had they been willing to part with $100 per pay check. Actually, it sounds like what I was describing, but in a different order. But to be fair, I see your point that it basically amounts to forcing people because lower paid employees may not have been able to afford the dock in pay.
Please note, I am a software developer for a consultancy, not a plan administrator, so I don't read up on the latest news in industry publications. My concern is optimized queries, efficient code, semantic HTML, cocktails, beer, and good food. Not necessarily in that order.
The part I don't like is the privacy aspect. If you have serious health issues you may be healthy enough to work but not healthy enough to hit the default fitness requirements of the wellness program. The programs do offer tailored goals for such people, but that requires a worker to "out" themselves which puts their employment in a precarious state. It also requires involvement from their primary care, who no doubt has too much work to do already, making it more of a burden for the not quite disabled.
Most incentive programs I have seen offer the discount for participation -- just trying. Even some of the tobacco cessation programs only require that one be enrolled, not actually quit. But how far are we from those programs becoming mandatory to qualify for certain [things -- other benefits; company bonuses; etc.]? That I do not know; however, I do know that even though I can easily pass all the biometric screenings I still do not participate because I'd rather fork over a few dollars a month than let my employer into my personal health.
That's the concern. Optional benefits (on campus gym, free/reduced cost gym membership, paid personal trainers, reimbursement for exercise classes, paying for home equipment) are cool. Forcing people is not. And if an employer is tracking my health, that falls into category 2 not category 1.
I have not yet heard of an employer actually forcing people (and I would hear of things being in the benefits administration field). But, I have seen employers raise the price of health insurance, and then offer a "discount" for participation in healthy incentives.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just medical insurance companies. But that will come when wearing of these devices are made mandatory, probably an argument along the lines of "well only terrorists *wouldn't* wear them"
You say that like the edict will come from the right wing, and that may be a popular belief. But the left is the party that voted to mandate health insurance, and people went along with it because, a) they believed the "it's for the good of everyone that everyone have insurance" line; and/or, b) they accepted it because it came from their side. Granted, the established left and right in the United States is basically the softest game of tug-o-war in history; however, it seems to me that the "Fitbit Mandate" will come shrouded as "it's for the good of everyone that everyone have a Fitbit" rather than "The Gestapo says you will wear a Fitbit."
People wouldn't willingly concede even more freedoms to wear these things, you say? Yeah... right.
Sadly/Generally, the average person will follow along with what their chosen Party says they should do.
That was a South Park joke (replacing Chinese with Japanese, which itself is an American joke, i.e., we can't tell them apart).
"detecting" emotion! what a laugh and a lie, they are doing nothing of the sort. They are just guessing.
Right? Chinese people don't have souls; how can they study and understand emotions?
You need to drink some water and go take a nap.
You need to jam a great big black dick up your ass
I was skeptical at first, but I just tried your suggestion and it worked! Thanks!
I prefer Krusty the Clown's Chinese factory motivational sayings via loudspeaker: "Laziness is counter-revolutionary. Questions are decadent! Fast hands mean less whipping."
I can't imagine why this has suddenly become a thing.
It isn't sudden. Gyms have been on this train for years. New car salesman want you to "buy" a new car every three years. Make the monthly payment part of life, and people forget it is there -- it becomes the baseline. And it allows them to make more accurate revenue projections.
This is a terrible idea, and it's not something I'd trust even a little. This is all about locking you into Google, and making it easy for them to manage your home remotely.
I would put absolutely zero trust in this device.
People are dumb when it comes to technology. Maybe Google sees that there will be not only a need, but a requirement for a home network design/protocol/whatever that encapsulates the hardware we now get from our ISP of choice. We're entering the "internet access is a fundamental right" era. It's only logical to conclude that means highly regulated internet and, naturally, the need for a standard the government can leverage when they take over.
I'm not refuting that it can lead to Google being able to turn over your home network to the Feds; rather, that it isn't because someday they want to.
A hurricane with a gun can only be stopped by an assembly facility with a gun something something 'Merica!
It's a very problematic ruling, raises a lot of issues, and in my opinion should be reversed...
I am interested in why it is problematic, and what issues it raises. In the interest of saving this article's comments from the hordes of "oh my god we're gonna die the NSA will be able to name our children due to this ruling!" can you elaborate? Thanks.
From TFA:
"Several people in the UK have been diagnosed with electrosensitivity and received help for the disability but any financial allowance usually refers to a different name for the condition or a related condition," it [the court] said in a statement.
I'll bet the judge decided she was so delusional as to be unfit to work, and gave her benefits based on that. The "different name for the condition" could be delusional thinking (or whatever the correct psychiatric term for that is - IANAP). Mental illness certainly can be debilitating.
Now that's insightful.
Subject says it all. It really is time to start taking lawyers and other bottom feeders to task. Mentally ill people should be treated for their paranoia, not have it confirmed.
I'm just happy to see it happen somewhere other than the US. Turns out other countries have nuts and greedy lawyers, too.
Like computer science...
Consider that most people I know who have an undergraduate degree in "computer science" are as close to a scientist as a blog is to journalism. Computer Science degrees can mean as little as "more computer credits than liberal arts credits." But maybe that is endemic to popular degree programs.
I don't understand your reaction to my comment. I'm not suggesting that training should be required; rather, that any responsible gun owner should fully understand how their gun operates and how to operate their gun. I mountain bike, and I know how my mountain bike works. I drive a car, and I know, for the most part, how a car works. I use a computer, and I know, for the most part, how a computer works. I'm a software developer, and even though the garbage collector will come along and clean up after me (eventually), I consider how my use of various objects and techniques will affect performance.
I believe people who own guns should train, either formally or at the range with friends. If one buys a gun and just carries it around, it isn't really that useful (and can be dangerous). One day at the range shooting plates in a timed drill is all it takes to realize how difficult it would be to handle a weapon in an active shooter situation.
The real question is, Would our troops accept the government telling them to mount an offensive against the populace? I was in the Air Force; my brother the Marines. As gung-ho and 'Merica shouting as some military folk are, the reality is that they aren't radically pro-government; instead, they are pro-liberty.
Fortunately, the radically pro-government types (Occupy *, et al), also tend to be radically against the military and violence by their own hands. Without an army, the best they can hope for is to vote in their party. But who will enforce the will of an overarching federal authority - should it ever come to that - if the military folks don't see eye-to-eye with that will?
Caveat - Admittedly hypothetical, and one of any number of ways such a thing could come about.
Go buy your own HDD (or SSD). Who cares how cheap your company is? They are all cheap, but the good devs spend their own money on tools / upgrades / etc.
Encrypted SSD drive. Public company dealing with PHI. I take care of having my favorite peripherals, but I don't mess with the computer hardware.
For comparison, I am a software developer on Core i7 Win 7 64 bit on a 3-year old Lenovo T520. I regularly use 6.5 GB or more of 8 GB of RAM with one instance of SSMS and three or 4 instances of VS2013 (plus Chrome, IE, Outlook, and often some Office programs). There must be a lot of system shit sucking RAM, too, because I have never counted more than 5 GB of my own programs. But still, I'd at least feel way better with 16 GB. (Also, the company bought laptops with 160 GB hard drives, so I regularly have to fight for every GBs (and even MBs) of space so I can compile projects.)
Because we don't spend enough time looking at our phones as it is. [Obviously, that doesn't apply to people need to quantify themselves in various ways due disease, etc. But JTFC, do you really need to track your steps at a music festival? Most of them were probably just you twirling in a circle while on e.]
To be clear, I'm fine with bacteria, and I despise hand-sanitizer.
XKCD on hand sanitizer.
I thought this was how the wheels of bureaucracy were greased in Central America.
Friends of mine headed south from Belize to continue a trip we were on together, and they experienced it along the rest of their trip through Central America. Get to a border: Grease a palm. Get stopped randomly by the "police:" Grease a palm. Since money is paper, I guess you can call that "paperwork." Only, it is far more efficient than the other kind.
The Penn State Wellness fiasco? Unless you think that what amounts to a yearly fine is not forced,, I'm pretty surprised that a professional in benefits administration field would not have heard of that. It was dropped due ot employee outrage (some were even daring to breathe the dreaded "U" word, but it was going to be forced until cooler minds intervened. I posted a link above, but here it is again http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.c...
Any thoughts?
Strictly speaking the employees would not have been forced had they been willing to part with $100 per pay check. Actually, it sounds like what I was describing, but in a different order. But to be fair, I see your point that it basically amounts to forcing people because lower paid employees may not have been able to afford the dock in pay.
Please note, I am a software developer for a consultancy, not a plan administrator, so I don't read up on the latest news in industry publications. My concern is optimized queries, efficient code, semantic HTML, cocktails, beer, and good food. Not necessarily in that order.
The part I don't like is the privacy aspect. If you have serious health issues you may be healthy enough to work but not healthy enough to hit the default fitness requirements of the wellness program. The programs do offer tailored goals for such people, but that requires a worker to "out" themselves which puts their employment in a precarious state. It also requires involvement from their primary care, who no doubt has too much work to do already, making it more of a burden for the not quite disabled.
Most incentive programs I have seen offer the discount for participation -- just trying. Even some of the tobacco cessation programs only require that one be enrolled, not actually quit. But how far are we from those programs becoming mandatory to qualify for certain [things -- other benefits; company bonuses; etc.]? That I do not know; however, I do know that even though I can easily pass all the biometric screenings I still do not participate because I'd rather fork over a few dollars a month than let my employer into my personal health.
may I need that option where I work. I already have a fitbit, but the goals would be cake.
I think maybe you have the UNfitbit if the goals are cake.
That's the concern. Optional benefits (on campus gym, free/reduced cost gym membership, paid personal trainers, reimbursement for exercise classes, paying for home equipment) are cool. Forcing people is not. And if an employer is tracking my health, that falls into category 2 not category 1.
I have not yet heard of an employer actually forcing people (and I would hear of things being in the benefits administration field). But, I have seen employers raise the price of health insurance, and then offer a "discount" for participation in healthy incentives.