Here's a copy of the email that I sent after reading that post.
Subject: Lauren Turner's Healthcare Post
To Whom It May Concern:
I just want to say that I am appalled by the recent post by Lauren Turner regarding Michael Moore's movie SiCKO. First of all, Google's motto is "Don't be evil." However, encouraging what is tantamount to a corporate funded propaganda blitz is nothing if not evil. If you actually watched the movie, then you must recognize that the central message of Moore's movie is that the healthcare system should "help people" first and foremost. The current system does a lousy job of that, and it's core mission is clearly distorted by huge profit incentives. There are not two reasonable sides to that issue. Encouraging a marketing campaign that attempts to distract and obfuscate from that is pure evil and can only lead to more human suffering.
That argument only holds up if you believe that 800 is a reliable estimate. To put it simply, those are only the attacks they are aware of. You have to figure that more sophisticated attacks are harder to detect, and since the DHS is a high value target as mentioned previously, I wouldn't be surprised if the real number was closer to 8000.
Then by that logic, shouldn't 99% of the stories here be tagged as news? My point was that I don't see how this post is more deserving of the tag "news" than other posts.
Why was this tagged as news? Anything that is posted here is technically "news", but frankly updates on the comic book world shouldn't get an additional "news" tag. The only way that would make sense is if Slashdot was a site dedicated to irrational childhood fantasies... oh wait!
Seriously though, if Slashdot editors are going to post these sorts of stories (which I have no problem with), they should be more judicious when choosing tags. Otherwise they are meaningless.
Americans are told from the time they are very little that this is the best country in the world.
Maybe its just my inherent distrust for authority, but it sounds like a bit of an ad campaign. It does seem to be one of the best countries in the world to work and make money in, but as far as daily life goes, I find there is a lot to be desired.
My company decided the best way to save money was apparently to turn off all of the photocopy machines.
Now, it takes 15 min to make a copy. Meanwhile, one of the executives has his own full size refrigerator in his office. Go figure.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think you took that out of context. That article you linked to makes no mention of any dollar figure for that program, which I think is what you meant to imply.
I think that there are good scientific reasons why NASA would want to drill on Mars, and it makes sense to use a company that develops those technologies.
Disliking the Bush administration is one thing, but you shouldn't be so cynical assume that everything is a conspiracy.
There is a lot more that went into going to the moon than just propulsion. Thats the most obvious thing that you need to go to the moon, but what about all of the other things you would need, like a safe place to dock, and cheap spacesuits? Those things are just as important as getting off the ground if you want to survive the trip.
You left out shareholders excersising their voting rights. In effect the reason that executives earn so much money is because of the complacency of shareholders to vote at the annual meetings. If enough sharehoulders would excersise their rights they could dump greedy executives who don't perform.
The problem with that is that usually the largest owners of the companies are huge institutional investors such as mutual funds and executives themselves. Mutual funds are awash in scandal and disgrace now as well, yet people continue to invest in them. Its the same thing. Vote with your feet rather than your voice.
I work as a consultant and its not always such an easy question to answer. The dynamics are completely different when you are on a team of consultants. Often times the people making many of the decisions are not the ones at the ground level doing the implementation work. This can lead to bad decisions or unrealistic implementation goals. The junior members of the consultant team can often point out problems to their seniors and hope that they take the action to fix the issues or admonish the client, but this doesn't always happen for a mixture of bureaucratic and deadline pressure. If the manager or senior staff decides that it would be too difficult or pointless to reopen a discussion around an already decided issue, there is little I can do about it. If I go to the client I make my team look uncoordinated, confused and risk angering my manager.
Consultants are also expected to be high performance individuals, and so the expectation is that the job will be done quick. If the incentives in the contracts are written so that there is a huge time pressure, things get missed and corners will be cut. This is the nature of the business. As long as contracts and incentives continue to be structured this way, you can expect consultant firms to act in their own self-interest. Its economics in its lowest form.
So lets assume that somehow they can prove that the message was actually opened and viewed. How does this mean that it was actually *me* that read it?
Is there really anyway to consistenly prove that it was in fact me that read the message, and not my kid brother or some dude that hacked my account?
It seems like it would be too easy to sniff the password to an email account, send a summons to it and view it.
So the question is, how can they prove that the person who i was intended for is actually the one that opened it?
I see how common sense would say this is a dumb question, but legally this seems like it would pose a very interesting dilemna.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a copy of the email that I sent after reading that post.
Subject: Lauren Turner's Healthcare Post
To Whom It May Concern:
I just want to say that I am appalled by the recent post by Lauren Turner regarding Michael Moore's movie SiCKO. First of all, Google's motto is "Don't be evil." However, encouraging what is tantamount to a corporate funded propaganda blitz is nothing if not evil. If you actually watched the movie, then you must recognize that the central message of Moore's movie is that the healthcare system should "help people" first and foremost. The current system does a lousy job of that, and it's core mission is clearly distorted by huge profit incentives. There are not two reasonable sides to that issue. Encouraging a marketing campaign that attempts to distract and obfuscate from that is pure evil and can only lead to more human suffering.
That argument only holds up if you believe that 800 is a reliable estimate. To put it simply, those are only the attacks they are aware of. You have to figure that more sophisticated attacks are harder to detect, and since the DHS is a high value target as mentioned previously, I wouldn't be surprised if the real number was closer to 8000.
Then by that logic, shouldn't 99% of the stories here be tagged as news? My point was that I don't see how this post is more deserving of the tag "news" than other posts.
Why was this tagged as news? Anything that is posted here is technically "news", but frankly updates on the comic book world shouldn't get an additional "news" tag. The only way that would make sense is if Slashdot was a site dedicated to irrational childhood fantasies... oh wait! Seriously though, if Slashdot editors are going to post these sorts of stories (which I have no problem with), they should be more judicious when choosing tags. Otherwise they are meaningless.
Look into a new invention called a "dumpster". I hear that its a great way to make room!
Americans are told from the time they are very little that this is the best country in the world. Maybe its just my inherent distrust for authority, but it sounds like a bit of an ad campaign. It does seem to be one of the best countries in the world to work and make money in, but as far as daily life goes, I find there is a lot to be desired.
How are you measuring that?
Have you ever lived anywhere else?
My company decided the best way to save money was apparently to turn off all of the photocopy machines. Now, it takes 15 min to make a copy. Meanwhile, one of the executives has his own full size refrigerator in his office. Go figure.
UCLA fight song baby! Long live Scour!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think you took that out of context. That article you linked to makes no mention of any dollar figure for that program, which I think is what you meant to imply. I think that there are good scientific reasons why NASA would want to drill on Mars, and it makes sense to use a company that develops those technologies. Disliking the Bush administration is one thing, but you shouldn't be so cynical assume that everything is a conspiracy.
There is a lot more that went into going to the moon than just propulsion. Thats the most obvious thing that you need to go to the moon, but what about all of the other things you would need, like a safe place to dock, and cheap spacesuits? Those things are just as important as getting off the ground if you want to survive the trip.
You left out shareholders excersising their voting rights. In effect the reason that executives earn so much money is because of the complacency of shareholders to vote at the annual meetings. If enough sharehoulders would excersise their rights they could dump greedy executives who don't perform.
The problem with that is that usually the largest owners of the companies are huge institutional investors such as mutual funds and executives themselves. Mutual funds are awash in scandal and disgrace now as well, yet people continue to invest in them. Its the same thing. Vote with your feet rather than your voice.
I work as a consultant and its not always such an easy question to answer. The dynamics are completely different when you are on a team of consultants. Often times the people making many of the decisions are not the ones at the ground level doing the implementation work. This can lead to bad decisions or unrealistic implementation goals. The junior members of the consultant team can often point out problems to their seniors and hope that they take the action to fix the issues or admonish the client, but this doesn't always happen for a mixture of bureaucratic and deadline pressure. If the manager or senior staff decides that it would be too difficult or pointless to reopen a discussion around an already decided issue, there is little I can do about it. If I go to the client I make my team look uncoordinated, confused and risk angering my manager. Consultants are also expected to be high performance individuals, and so the expectation is that the job will be done quick. If the incentives in the contracts are written so that there is a huge time pressure, things get missed and corners will be cut. This is the nature of the business. As long as contracts and incentives continue to be structured this way, you can expect consultant firms to act in their own self-interest. Its economics in its lowest form.
So lets assume that somehow they can prove that the message was actually opened and viewed. How does this mean that it was actually *me* that read it? Is there really anyway to consistenly prove that it was in fact me that read the message, and not my kid brother or some dude that hacked my account? It seems like it would be too easy to sniff the password to an email account, send a summons to it and view it. So the question is, how can they prove that the person who i was intended for is actually the one that opened it? I see how common sense would say this is a dumb question, but legally this seems like it would pose a very interesting dilemna.
Metallica's latest efforts to eliminate Napster...