Also, no domain is safe. Everybody can now claim google.philly or google.hiphop and companies can do nothing about it(or start countless lawsuits). This is a bad idea and implementing this will cause the www to be more confusing than it is now.
So? Why would they care? This results in a lot more fees to them. MacDonalds will probably feel like they need to pay registration fees for macdonalds.* (every single TLD) They couldn't care less about the problems you listed.
You are assuming that it is an undifferentiated or commodity market an that all sellers are price takers. That is not the case here; the competitors differentiate in an attempt to maintain prices
I'm talking specifically about SMS, which was the topic of the parent post. The service is essentially identical between providers. Yes, there is a difference in coverage area, so I would be fine with the price being Verizon > ATT > T-Mobile/Sprint > MetroPCS (or whatever) That is not what we see, though. More importantly, everyone recently DOUBLED their per-SMS fee. There is no cost of service justification for the price increase, and no "supplier differentiation" that suddenly applied to all of them. It is clearly the act of an oligopoly.
What counts is what people are willing to pay, not what it costs to provide or produce it.
Only if you are dealing with a monopoly or an oligopoly. (Which is the case here). In a free market, competition between providers would force them to lower the price to "cost of providing plus a reasonable profit."
Its like if you make a credit card payment and someone videos you then a "known issue with the video camera" will allow people to see the data you entered.
No. It's as if you are sleeping with your best friend's wife and someone videos you then a "known issue with the video camera" will allow people to see the "data" you entered.
... some types of clause are generally reckoned to be unconscionable and "can't sue me if I kill you" would be a prime candidate for that sort of thing
That hasn't stopped Microsoft or most of the rest of the software industry from doing exactly that. Their EULAs basically all say that if defects in their software cause harm, they are only liable for the cost of refunding the purchase price. If their software defects kill someone, they are trying to be not liable. To my knowledge that type of clause hasn't ever been ruled unconscionalbe yet, but there isn't much case law on EULAs.
Software bugs can also create enormous legal risks; malpractice or wrongful death claims are never cheap, and bad code or human error does not get you off the hook
What, you mean I can't make every shmuck that comes in my hospital click on an EULA that says that they can't sue me even if I kill them?
The major software expense is the integration with all of the other crappy old proprietary systems that the typical hospital uses (billing, staffing, bed control/scheduling, inventory, labs, pharmacy, etc.) Billing is particularly a problem, which is something the Marines don't have to deal with since they are predominantly running a single-payer health care system.
There are two major reasons why a "liver dialysis" machine would be a major advance, even if you can only get it working for 30 days:
1) The liver regenerates. Unlike heart, brain, kidney, etc., if you whack out half the liver (to donate to someone else for example) it will eventually grow back. A lot of the tragic cases of liver failure are from a temporary insult (tylenol overdose, poisoning, etc.) If you can just keep them alive long enough, it will grow back. Currently these patients are treated with a liver transplant. This means they are doomed to a lifetime of immunosupression and complications just because they needed a liver for a month after the tylenol overdose
2) Some countries (Japan for example) do not recognize the concept of brain death, only "cardiac death." This means that liver transplants are impossible, because if you unplug the life support and wait for the heart to fully stop beating, the liver is usually too damaged to be useful. These countries desperately need "liver dialysis" because there is no alternative treatment.
Because installing pirated software is a security hazard. OK, so is installing DRM'd software (I'm looking at you Sony)... but some people feel the pirate risk is higher.
Comcast Digital Voice, like any PacketCable service, uses reserved capacity.
Thanks for the technical explanation of how they do it (this is slashdot after all). Be careful, though. You're explaining HOW Comcast screws people by favoring it's IP phone service over competitors. Some people are going to misread your post as saying it's OK for Comcast screws competitors. The technical details of the screwing shouldn't affect the morality of it.
Wow, you just advocated the power of the invisible hand (free-market infallibility) alongside the need to raise taxes to move said invisible hand.
The invisible hand of the free-market isn't infallible, it is just a highly efficient tool to guide human behavior in a certain way. I may or may not approve of the balance point that the free market creates, and have no problem altering that with laws and taxes where appropriate. The free market would dictate that the best (cheapest) way to take care of elderly patients with Alzheimers is to shoot them in the head. No one wants that.
you conflate the Teacher's Union with The Chamber of Commerce
The contrast was intentional. I'm trying to give an example from both the right and the left, to show that the problem is present regardless of political ideology.
...elect to censor your own use of the word "damn."
Sorry. I was just raised that way. The habit doesn't seem to hurt anyone so I haven't tried to break it.
The added transparency that results from labelling TV will aid consumer choice
Absolutely! Transparency is almost always a good thing. Nn increased electricity tax can't work unless consumers can tell which choices use more electricity.
Sales taxes are a form of regressive taxation because they take proportionally more from the poor.
No, no, no. You're making this too complicated. Electricity is electricity, the poor have no more right to waste it than the rich. If you are worried that familys on the dole won't be able to heat their house in the winter, than use some of the money gained from the electricity tax to increase the dole. Discouraging electricity use, and supporting people who can't/won't work, are two separate issues.
it's the magic of the invisible hand that issues like that are taken care of
Exactly! Do you want people to buy more efficient electrical appliances? Easy, just tax electricity more. The people who use the most will pay the most. The invisible hand also guarantees that changes will happen where they will do the most good.
Caveat: be careful when you "play God" economically. This approach works so well, it can also drive people to favor wood burning stoves over electrical ones, etc. You have to watch for unintended consequences and adjust the relative tax of these less desirable alternative energy sources as well.
Why don't policitians take this approach more? Easy. It's because they aren't really interested in saving electricity. They are interested in keeping legislation on the agenda that makes like of headlines (like this... front page of Slashdot!) and causes lots of wealthy lobbyists to donate money to them. This kind of thing is perfect. Lots of headlines, and some wealthy companies trying to pay you to block it or water it down. All while not actually changing anything that the Teacher's Union / Chamber of Commerce give a d&#n about.
why should a system meant to share medical records across a national medical network generate bills?
It shouldn't. The problem is, the fact that the program is open source doesn't help the other 99.9% of US hospitals that need to generate bills to stay alive. Unless the Feds (i.e. taxpayers) pay for the new system, the hospital needs a way to finance the purchase. Integration of the EMR with the billing system is often the only way for most hospitals to justify the expense. (You'll capture every procedure, even if they didn't fill out a charge slip. You can also fire all the people who collect the charge slips and key them into the current billing system...")
It would cost more to add a billing component to the VA code than it would to build a whole new system from scratch. The tragedy is that there is no viable open source system available. This is a classic example of something that should be open source, so that charity hospitals around the world can ultimately use it. It would also vastly simplify the task of integrating the EMRs of different hospitals, since in that scenario many would be using the same core system. Unfortunately, there is no "Open Office" for EMRs right now. We are in the early "AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy" era in EMR software. I'm worried we are going to go through a "Microsoft" phase before we get to a viable open source alternative. An open source VA system might have allowed us to skip the "Microsoft" stage, but the lack of an integrated billing system is a fatal flaw for the rest of us.
Apparently a decent beta can succeed where $300 million and Jerry Seinfeld failed.
What an incredibly novel idea for Microsoft. When all attempts at spin fail, and only when all attempts have failed, you can always just build a better product.
Two problems
1) It's written in MUMPS (obscure programming language)
2) It has nothing built into it to generate a bill for the patient, which makes it useless to almost every hospital in the U.S. except the V.A.
Slashdot Mirror
So? Why would they care? This results in a lot more fees to them. MacDonalds will probably feel like they need to pay registration fees for macdonalds.* (every single TLD) They couldn't care less about the problems you listed.
I'm talking specifically about SMS, which was the topic of the parent post. The service is essentially identical between providers. Yes, there is a difference in coverage area, so I would be fine with the price being Verizon > ATT > T-Mobile/Sprint > MetroPCS (or whatever) That is not what we see, though. More importantly, everyone recently DOUBLED their per-SMS fee. There is no cost of service justification for the price increase, and no "supplier differentiation" that suddenly applied to all of them. It is clearly the act of an oligopoly.
Only if you are dealing with a monopoly or an oligopoly. (Which is the case here). In a free market, competition between providers would force them to lower the price to "cost of providing plus a reasonable profit."
Its like if you make a credit card payment and someone videos you then a "known issue with the video camera" will allow people to see the data you entered.
No. It's as if you are sleeping with your best friend's wife and someone videos you then a "known issue with the video camera" will allow people to see the "data" you entered.
That hasn't stopped Microsoft or most of the rest of the software industry from doing exactly that. Their EULAs basically all say that if defects in their software cause harm, they are only liable for the cost of refunding the purchase price. If their software defects kill someone, they are trying to be not liable. To my knowledge that type of clause hasn't ever been ruled unconscionalbe yet, but there isn't much case law on EULAs.
What, you mean I can't make every shmuck that comes in my hospital click on an EULA that says that they can't sue me even if I kill them?
The major software expense is the integration with all of the other crappy old proprietary systems that the typical hospital uses (billing, staffing, bed control/scheduling, inventory, labs, pharmacy, etc.) Billing is particularly a problem, which is something the Marines don't have to deal with since they are predominantly running a single-payer health care system.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
It depends. How much money you have donated to their reelection campaigns recently?
There are two major reasons why a "liver dialysis" machine would be a major advance, even if you can only get it working for 30 days:
1) The liver regenerates. Unlike heart, brain, kidney, etc., if you whack out half the liver (to donate to someone else for example) it will eventually grow back. A lot of the tragic cases of liver failure are from a temporary insult (tylenol overdose, poisoning, etc.) If you can just keep them alive long enough, it will grow back. Currently these patients are treated with a liver transplant. This means they are doomed to a lifetime of immunosupression and complications just because they needed a liver for a month after the tylenol overdose
2) Some countries (Japan for example) do not recognize the concept of brain death, only "cardiac death." This means that liver transplants are impossible, because if you unplug the life support and wait for the heart to fully stop beating, the liver is usually too damaged to be useful. These countries desperately need "liver dialysis" because there is no alternative treatment.
Because installing pirated software is a security hazard. OK, so is installing DRM'd software (I'm looking at you Sony) ... but some people feel the pirate risk is higher.
Thanks for the technical explanation of how they do it (this is slashdot after all). Be careful, though. You're explaining HOW Comcast screws people by favoring it's IP phone service over competitors. Some people are going to misread your post as saying it's OK for Comcast screws competitors. The technical details of the screwing shouldn't affect the morality of it.
The invisible hand of the free-market isn't infallible, it is just a highly efficient tool to guide human behavior in a certain way. I may or may not approve of the balance point that the free market creates, and have no problem altering that with laws and taxes where appropriate. The free market would dictate that the best (cheapest) way to take care of elderly patients with Alzheimers is to shoot them in the head. No one wants that.
The contrast was intentional. I'm trying to give an example from both the right and the left, to show that the problem is present regardless of political ideology.
Sorry. I was just raised that way. The habit doesn't seem to hurt anyone so I haven't tried to break it.
Absolutely! Transparency is almost always a good thing. Nn increased electricity tax can't work unless consumers can tell which choices use more electricity.
No, no, no. You're making this too complicated. Electricity is electricity, the poor have no more right to waste it than the rich. If you are worried that familys on the dole won't be able to heat their house in the winter, than use some of the money gained from the electricity tax to increase the dole. Discouraging electricity use, and supporting people who can't/won't work, are two separate issues.
Exactly! Do you want people to buy more efficient electrical appliances? Easy, just tax electricity more. The people who use the most will pay the most. The invisible hand also guarantees that changes will happen where they will do the most good.
... front page of Slashdot!) and causes lots of wealthy lobbyists to donate money to them. This kind of thing is perfect. Lots of headlines, and some wealthy companies trying to pay you to block it or water it down. All while not actually changing anything that the Teacher's Union / Chamber of Commerce give a d&#n about.
Caveat: be careful when you "play God" economically. This approach works so well, it can also drive people to favor wood burning stoves over electrical ones, etc. You have to watch for unintended consequences and adjust the relative tax of these less desirable alternative energy sources as well.
Why don't policitians take this approach more? Easy. It's because they aren't really interested in saving electricity. They are interested in keeping legislation on the agenda that makes like of headlines (like this
It shouldn't. The problem is, the fact that the program is open source doesn't help the other 99.9% of US hospitals that need to generate bills to stay alive. Unless the Feds (i.e. taxpayers) pay for the new system, the hospital needs a way to finance the purchase. Integration of the EMR with the billing system is often the only way for most hospitals to justify the expense. (You'll capture every procedure, even if they didn't fill out a charge slip. You can also fire all the people who collect the charge slips and key them into the current billing system...")
It would cost more to add a billing component to the VA code than it would to build a whole new system from scratch. The tragedy is that there is no viable open source system available. This is a classic example of something that should be open source, so that charity hospitals around the world can ultimately use it. It would also vastly simplify the task of integrating the EMRs of different hospitals, since in that scenario many would be using the same core system. Unfortunately, there is no "Open Office" for EMRs right now. We are in the early "AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy" era in EMR software. I'm worried we are going to go through a "Microsoft" phase before we get to a viable open source alternative. An open source VA system might have allowed us to skip the "Microsoft" stage, but the lack of an integrated billing system is a fatal flaw for the rest of us.
What an incredibly novel idea for Microsoft. When all attempts at spin fail, and only when all attempts have failed, you can always just build a better product.
Two problems
1) It's written in MUMPS (obscure programming language)
2) It has nothing built into it to generate a bill for the patient, which makes it useless to almost every hospital in the U.S. except the V.A.