I switched to a noseless saddle last week for my bike commute to work. I was spending an hour a day sitting on the artery that runs up my schlong. Probably not smart.
With a normal bike saddle, you use your crotch more than you realize to keep the bike upright and traveling straight. You can ride with no hands on the handlebars even at low speeds. By pushing the nose of the seat right and left with your thighs you can apply a correction for the handlebar angle even if the handlebars are free to rotate. Before, I could whip out the cellphone, check email, do stock trades etc. on the way to work. None of that anymore- with this thing, both hands have to be on the handlebars. It feels more like running on top of a rolling ball. But sideways instability is less of a problem at high speeds because of the dynamic response from the wheels. It took a few days to get used to it. So far, no tragedies- better than how the clipless pedals went.
No OS is immune to Trojans, especially when they are intentionally installed by clueless users. I saw this article summary and thought a worm was going to arrive today on Windows Update.
Not that it would matter- I always choose "Custom Install" anyway because otherwise I'll end up with Windows Genuine Advantage which I think fits the definition of a Trojan.
U.S. Attorneys are usually all replaced at the beginning of an administration. They are not supposed to be replaced in the middle of a term in order to obstruct justice.
While they are political appointees they do not occupy political positions. Supreme Court judges are political appointees too. They can't simply be yanked off the court by the president if he or one of his friends loses a court decision.
To get on the Supreme Court, a nominee has to be approved by Congress. Ordinarily that applies to U.S. Attorney nominees as well. (Even though they serve "at the pleasure of the president".) Specter's little Patriot Act amendment put an end to that. So now the president can simply fire a prosecutor if he or one of his friends get prosecuted, replace him with whomever he likes, and nobody can say a thing.
Now we have people in the president's own party demanding that his prosecutors bring bogus charges against their political opponents, rushed in time for elections. (Historically prosecutors have usually waited until after elections to avoid tainting them.) We have people in the president's own party having the prosecutors investigating them fired. We have prosecutors being replaced by guys who compile lists of registered voters in minority districts for mass voter challenges. We have prosecutors being replaced for investigating real crimes instead of wasting their time harassing voters with imaginary "voter fraud" cases. We have a Department of Justice that launches more than six corruption investigations of local Democratic politicians for every single investigation of a Republican. If you think this is a "non-story" you're out of your mind.
I am older than you are and I would never waste time upgrading from a 3.6 to a 3.8 GHz P4. When you're older, affluent, and experienced, like me, you'll realize that there is more to life than this. If you can wait another week, the 4.0 GHz stuff will be out.
Cellphones will not completely supplant POTS land lines for some time. I never use my cellphone if a real phone is around. The call quality is better, the calls are cheaper, and as far as battery issues are concerned there is just no comparison. You don't even need a battery at all with POTS. What makes POTS a pain in the ass is the separate monthly bill to pay, since most people now have a cellphone bill anyway. Plus, there is Rotary Phone Disorder to contend with. People get attached to the technologies they're familiar with, if they think they work well enough, and they won't want to waste time learning how newfangled technology works. Old people especially seem to get stuck to the form of telephony they're used to. My own grandmother was still using a rotary phone just a few years ago until I found her one of those art deco touch tone phones with the buttons in the same positions as the old rotary dial finger holes.
What do you mean *sigh*? Even more deaths would probably have resulted, but you can't assume the probability of that would be 100%. Obviously somebody might have shot him, as frequently argued on the Internet. Alternatively, the loud noises could have affected his aim. Maybe his chain could have been shot off the door. I can imagine a number of mechanisms. My point was, if people were armed to that level all the time, any improved outcome on that one day would be outweighed by ordinary gun tragedies on all the ordinary days. Fewer people died at VT than die from guns on an average day in this country. It was fewer than half as many.
The suggestion that this event could have ended in tragedy if students had guns is not a special circumstance.
Sure, this event might have gone differently (better) if everyone had been packing heat. What you're not considering are the other events which then become possible, on days when there is not a mass murder going on. Because actually, this type of event is quite rare, and ordinary shootings are so common they're not even newsworthy.
Now if you could figure out how to have everybody armed just on the day the psychotic shows up, then this might be a good policy.
You opposed it, but you did nothing to sell your POV. Therefor your also to blame, just like I am to blame for exactly the same reason.
Me: 49% You: 51%
Speaking to you as the 49 might address the 51, I would say this. The problem wasn't us not "selling our POV" to you. It wasn't a PR problem of ours at all. The real problem was the breathlessly hysterical and transparently mendacious POV you ended up buying.
Your argument is specious. You cannot copyright a trademark owned by someone else.
I have a different problem. I was trying to seek copyright protection for MY two numbers. I had my lawyer do the standard due diligence routine for numbers- you know, the sum, product, quotient, difference, all that stuff. I don't want a third party coming in and laying claim to my numbers.
So anyway I'm talking to him today, and he starts off with, "well, the good news is, the product, modulo, difference, and quotient all worked out...", and I'm like, whaaa... wait a minute, the good news? What do you mean? And so he says, "well, when you add these two numbers, you end up with this other number that happens to be someone else's property." And I'm like, no way, that sucks! Who? "And," he adds, "if you OR them you get the same thing, and if you XOR them you get the same thing! So that could count as three infringing acts right there."
"But AND was OK?"
"AND is zero, so you're OK with AND."
"What about greatest common denominator?"
"I spoke to them; they were quite reasonable and willing to work something out."
"So it's just the sum/OR/XOR people then?"
"Yeah, basically just them."
Now you can't let yourself get pushed around by corporations like this. They want to control as many numbers as they can, the hell with the rest of us. If you aren't pushy about protecting your number these days you won't know when your number's up. They can bust a man for using his own two damn numbers if they can be converted into one of their numbers in any way. And once a corporation gets a hold of a number, it effectively seizes control of the number multiplied by two, by four, by eight, by sixteen... an infinite amount of numbers are disappearing into the hands of private corporations. We'll all be facing retirement and a number line with no free numbers left until you get to primes with thousands of digits. It isn't right. So I thought about it and called him back, and said, let's stand up to these bastards.
Anyway, to make a long story short, after a long round of mediation and arbitration I got to keep 09-09-01-02-0d-04-03-0b-08-01-06-05-03-06-08-00, but they got to keep 00-f0-10-00-90-70-e0-50-d0-40-50-c0-60-50-80-c0. Figures I got stuck with the one further away from zero.
AJAX is a stupid name developed for the ole' hype machine (mostly to sell conferences and books, methinks) but the basic web technologies behind it are NOT THAT BAD.
Oh please. They're not only that bad, they're worse than that. Some look at things as they are and ask why. Some dream of things that never were and ask, why not? A good software engineer sees both and asks what the hell! And a bad one just codes around things as they are, and asks nothing. He's too busy talking about how l33t he is on Slashdot.
Like a veal calf, you've gotten used to a horrible environment and now you think of it as natural. As in, "of course I need JavaScript to implement an inlined HTTP request." This is not to malign JavaScript, but seriously, why should you need JavaScript to make a simple HTTP request from a browser? Or, why don't you use JavaScript for both types? At least that would make sense! I read your post, and I'm just shaking my head at how needlessly convoluted all this stuff has turned out after we've had more than ten years to fix it. You Wikipedia link is the most painful, disturbing thing I've read this week (aside from an article about veal calves). What's really striking how proud people are of themselves when they manage to hack around this junk. The web is so screwed up that developing hacks around its flaws attracts the attention of investors. Managers have been bursting out of their offices for years demanding web pages that look and feel like the Windows applications they're used to, and no matter how many times you explain what a web page is, they don't get it. Why should they have to? They want something that behaves like an application. They're being handed a document. You or I may be clever enough to get a document to behave like an application, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to want to do. We're taking what used to be documents and turning them into programs to send to another program that knows it's a program but pretends to render it as an inside-out document that can't be rendered without embedded application code inside interpreted by a runtime system with a security model designed 12 years ago.
This morning I logged into my bank account to check my balance. Once I logged in, my bank gave me a "cookie". On subsequent requests I would tell the bank what the cookie contents were, and that's how they knew who I was. Cookies were invented in ten minutes a decade ago to circumvent HTTP statelessness, to support a "shopping cart" (a novel concept back then). Now we have cookie theft, cross-site cookies, cookie poisoning, and cookie tracking. With JavaScript we have cross site scripting and prototype attacks. There's no reason for things to be this messed up, now that we've had TEN YEARS to realize our mistakes. HTML makes a decent document framework, but it's a horrible one in which to deliver a client side application.Unfortunately we're stuck with HTTP and a huge install base of old browsers, designed for viewing documents, not really for deploying applications. Ajax was developed to short circuit a design principle of the system in which it runs. It turns HTTP statelessness on its head just like cookies did, but it is even more stateful. That's why people are so impressed with it. Something like Ajax isn't the problem- it's the symptom of a problem. When people are impressed by a hack, that's a big red flag. People coming on Slashdot and bragging about how they got it to work is a big red flag. It's all one big red flag, a piece of technology designed to circumvent something going on at a deeper older layer. We didn't design tools that really fit our current needs. Now that a hack has made it possible to further abuse our crappy decaying infrastructure by violating the assumptions underlying its entire obsoleted interaction model, everyone has to learn the hack. At the same time we can't abandon all this old stuff because of the old browsers out there that can't render the new stuff. How screwed up is that?
I'm no expert, but I've heard tell that security is a process, not a product.
You're arguing out of the dictionary. A product is a product of a process. If the product is insecure we call a spade a spade; we don't say that Windows for example is "neither secure nor insecure but a product of an insecure process". We can't prove that any product is secure, but we can easily prove that one is insecure. All you need is one vulnerability. And in the case of software, the product itself starts a process, which may be as secure or insecure as the larger development process that created it, so your argument is especially unfortunate even at the dictionary level.
After the first visit, all the Javascript, images, and static text should be cached and shouldn't have to be redownloaded.
Well, that's what I thought too. We're using DWR and we're not having any of these problems (although Ajax is still one big hack). Maybe they're doing too much setup or something. But I can't take my own experience as a guide, because I don't work at a Microsoft shop. Who knows what they're doing.
At least, I don't know if I've ever heard anyone seriously using it. Most of the times I've heard it mentioned was people making fun of others for using the term.
Microsoft tried to get on this bus with their Windows Live Mail but they had to roll back to Web 1.0 because of the design flaws inherent in the way this whole "Web 2.0" paradigm is supposed to work. The idea is basically this- you get rid of the desktop application, and use a browser to implement functionality. That involves downloading lots of JavaScript code. People on dialup accounts simply did not have enough bandwidth to download a JavaScript version of Outlook into their browser on an HTTP request. This DHTML/CSS/JavaScript crap they set up in the 90s is really creaking under the load of the infrastructure being built on top of it with these Web 2.0 applications. I wonder how long it will be before something like Flash totally takes over everything.
You can try to slit my neck with a knife I'd be watching porn in the afterlife You can make it so my disks all won't play I'll be making trouble like you always say You can try to push a content cartel As if you still had things you could honestly sell You can turn our culture music and art To little squares on cryptographic charts
There has to be an invisible tube It can't be seen by just any dude There has to be an invisible tube For sending mail to senatorial boobs
It blinks all day or it blinks all night Eigenstates and quantum tangled light It goes all way with an integer spin Turning into bits that the pulse brought in
There has to be an invisible tube It gives free bits to everyone There has to be an invisible tube With stuff that plays when the download's done
And you're only going to slow the pace by private key encryption of the human race You would bill me for a pretty sunset You haven't found a way to charge just yet
There has to be an invisible tube To show us all these people in the nude There has to be an invisible tube That can't be seen running to my cube
And I don't know why you are attacking me like I am supporting eugenics; all I am saying is that the *label* insurance doesn't apply to something if there is no risk component. In terms of pure insurance, people with a higher likelihood of carrying a gene with negative consequences really should pay higher premiums. If that's not what we as a society want, then lets talk about it as medical cost coverage instead of insurance, and in terms of cost sharing instead of cost abatement.
OK then I apologize. Anyway this differs from tornado insurance only because factors that were previously not knowable can now be measured with great expense. Generally that information will still remain unknown. The genotype mRNA chips are not cheap (last I heard) and no one has yet passed a law allowing insurance companies to apply higher rates to anyone who haven't furnished them with validated genotype information. So this distinction is on the level of Schrodinger's cat and we can still keep it there if we want.
Unlike living in Oklahoma there's nothing one can do about having bad genes so there is absolutely no incentivization to be gained here at all. Hence the argument for cost-sharing, which may not accurately be called "insurance" anymore on a technical level. Focus groups like the sound of "insurance" and "cost-sharing" makes them think of socialists and atheists. But this is something we generally want for our society anyway- unless there are enough eggheads out there to make having good genes a really smart choice again.
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
I know I shouldn't reply to sigs, but I didn't read that as a sig at first. I was going to agree that given his current situation, an invisible wormhole would present Bush with an attractive exit strategy indeed.
Ideally, one would be able to invisibly travel through the wormhole and emerge from it wearing a flight suit.
As someone who is relatively healthy, I'd really rather not call paying for people with genetic conditions 'insurance', as it isn't.
You are a fool. You have no idea how your gene expression will change as you get older, and until you've been genotyped you have no idea what chronic diseases are in store for you.
I'm fine with society at large stepping in and covering/mitigating their medical problems(because we are wealthy beyond imagination), but the idea that they can buy insurance against a condition after it is known is simply wrong. It's cost sharing with no risk component at all.
In other words, we should use our insurance system to incentivize people to have fewer genetic defects!
We can start by allowing insurance companies to surcharge black people for sickle-cell anemia. It isn't fair that white people should have to pay for a disease they don't even get. It's cost sharing with no risk component at all.
The blog says it's from one of 2 judges to issue a minority opinion out of 15 judges on the panel. Frankly I think a lot of people are going to scoff at RICO being relevant here because "respectable" corporations like Microsoft and Best Buy should not be accountable to a law meant for Italians.
Slashdot Mirror
>> the ISP owner left a voicemail on my cell phone with the new password and I was charged five bucks.
> A "real ISP" doesn't charge to reset your password.
He could have been referring to his cell phone service.
Now my hosting company won't email my password to my Hotmail account anymore!
I switched to a noseless saddle last week for my bike commute to work. I was spending an hour a day sitting on the artery that runs up my schlong. Probably not smart.
With a normal bike saddle, you use your crotch more than you realize to keep the bike upright and traveling straight. You can ride with no hands on the handlebars even at low speeds. By pushing the nose of the seat right and left with your thighs you can apply a correction for the handlebar angle even if the handlebars are free to rotate. Before, I could whip out the cellphone, check email, do stock trades etc. on the way to work. None of that anymore- with this thing, both hands have to be on the handlebars. It feels more like running on top of a rolling ball. But sideways instability is less of a problem at high speeds because of the dynamic response from the wheels. It took a few days to get used to it. So far, no tragedies- better than how the clipless pedals went.
There are 170212.766 Vista users for each Microsoft patent being violated by free software.
No OS is immune to Trojans, especially when they are intentionally installed by clueless users. I saw this article summary and thought a worm was going to arrive today on Windows Update.
Not that it would matter- I always choose "Custom Install" anyway because otherwise I'll end up with Windows Genuine Advantage which I think fits the definition of a Trojan.
U.S. Attorneys are usually all replaced at the beginning of an administration. They are not supposed to be replaced in the middle of a term in order to obstruct justice.
While they are political appointees they do not occupy political positions. Supreme Court judges are political appointees too. They can't simply be yanked off the court by the president if he or one of his friends loses a court decision.
To get on the Supreme Court, a nominee has to be approved by Congress. Ordinarily that applies to U.S. Attorney nominees as well. (Even though they serve "at the pleasure of the president".) Specter's little Patriot Act amendment put an end to that. So now the president can simply fire a prosecutor if he or one of his friends get prosecuted, replace him with whomever he likes, and nobody can say a thing.
Now we have people in the president's own party demanding that his prosecutors bring bogus charges against their political opponents, rushed in time for elections. (Historically prosecutors have usually waited until after elections to avoid tainting them.) We have people in the president's own party having the prosecutors investigating them fired. We have prosecutors being replaced by guys who compile lists of registered voters in minority districts for mass voter challenges. We have prosecutors being replaced for investigating real crimes instead of wasting their time harassing voters with imaginary "voter fraud" cases. We have a Department of Justice that launches more than six corruption investigations of local Democratic politicians for every single investigation of a Republican. If you think this is a "non-story" you're out of your mind.
I am older than you are and I would never waste time upgrading from a 3.6 to a 3.8 GHz P4. When you're older, affluent, and experienced, like me, you'll realize that there is more to life than this. If you can wait another week, the 4.0 GHz stuff will be out.
Cellphones will not completely supplant POTS land lines for some time. I never use my cellphone if a real phone is around. The call quality is better, the calls are cheaper, and as far as battery issues are concerned there is just no comparison. You don't even need a battery at all with POTS. What makes POTS a pain in the ass is the separate monthly bill to pay, since most people now have a cellphone bill anyway. Plus, there is Rotary Phone Disorder to contend with. People get attached to the technologies they're familiar with, if they think they work well enough, and they won't want to waste time learning how newfangled technology works. Old people especially seem to get stuck to the form of telephony they're used to. My own grandmother was still using a rotary phone just a few years ago until I found her one of those art deco touch tone phones with the buttons in the same positions as the old rotary dial finger holes.
Then I think I meant to reply to the GP; no need to take it personally.
What do you mean *sigh*? Even more deaths would probably have resulted, but you can't assume the probability of that would be 100%. Obviously somebody might have shot him, as frequently argued on the Internet. Alternatively, the loud noises could have affected his aim. Maybe his chain could have been shot off the door. I can imagine a number of mechanisms. My point was, if people were armed to that level all the time, any improved outcome on that one day would be outweighed by ordinary gun tragedies on all the ordinary days. Fewer people died at VT than die from guns on an average day in this country. It was fewer than half as many.
The suggestion that this event could have ended in tragedy if students had guns is not a special circumstance.
Sure, this event might have gone differently (better) if everyone had been packing heat. What you're not considering are the other events which then become possible, on days when there is not a mass murder going on. Because actually, this type of event is quite rare, and ordinary shootings are so common they're not even newsworthy.
Now if you could figure out how to have everybody armed just on the day the psychotic shows up, then this might be a good policy.
I don't think that they were advocating guns for 6th graders.
Nobody is suggesting giving guns to sixth graders. I was in ninth grade when they passed out the guns in my class.
You know, I don't think they said "all students", either.
You have to get all "A"s or be in the band.
You opposed it, but you did nothing to sell your POV. Therefor your also to blame, just like I am to blame for exactly the same reason.
Me: 49%
You: 51%
Speaking to you as the 49 might address the 51, I would say this. The problem wasn't us not "selling our POV" to you. It wasn't a PR problem of ours at all.
The real problem was the breathlessly hysterical and transparently mendacious POV you ended up buying.
Your argument is specious. You cannot copyright a trademark owned by someone else.
I have a different problem. I was trying to seek copyright protection for MY two numbers. I had my lawyer do the standard due diligence routine for numbers- you know, the sum, product, quotient, difference, all that stuff. I don't want a third party coming in and laying claim to my numbers.
So anyway I'm talking to him today, and he starts off with, "well, the good news is, the product, modulo, difference, and quotient all worked out...", and I'm like, whaaa... wait a minute, the good news? What do you mean? And so he says, "well, when you add these two numbers, you end up with this other number that happens to be someone else's property." And I'm like, no way, that sucks! Who? "And," he adds, "if you OR them you get the same thing, and if you XOR them you get the same thing! So that could count as three infringing acts right there."
"But AND was OK?"
"AND is zero, so you're OK with AND."
"What about greatest common denominator?"
"I spoke to them; they were quite reasonable and willing to work something out."
"So it's just the sum/OR/XOR people then?"
"Yeah, basically just them."
Now you can't let yourself get pushed around by corporations like this. They want to control as many numbers as they can, the hell with the rest of us. If you aren't pushy about protecting your number these days you won't know when your number's up. They can bust a man for using his own two damn numbers if they can be converted into one of their numbers in any way. And once a corporation gets a hold of a number, it effectively seizes control of the number multiplied by two, by four, by eight, by sixteen... an infinite amount of numbers are disappearing into the hands of private corporations. We'll all be facing retirement and a number line with no free numbers left until you get to primes with thousands of digits. It isn't right. So I thought about it and called him back, and said, let's stand up to these bastards.
Anyway, to make a long story short, after a long round of mediation and arbitration I got to keep 09-09-01-02-0d-04-03-0b-08-01-06-05-03-06-08-00, but they got to keep 00-f0-10-00-90-70-e0-50-d0-40-50-c0-60-50-80-c0. Figures I got stuck with the one further away from zero.
AJAX is a stupid name developed for the ole' hype machine (mostly to sell conferences and books, methinks) but the basic web technologies behind it are NOT THAT BAD.
Oh please. They're not only that bad, they're worse than that. Some look at things as they are and ask why. Some dream of things that never were and ask, why not? A good software engineer sees both and asks what the hell! And a bad one just codes around things as they are, and asks nothing. He's too busy talking about how l33t he is on Slashdot.
Like a veal calf, you've gotten used to a horrible environment and now you think of it as natural. As in, "of course I need JavaScript to implement an inlined HTTP request." This is not to malign JavaScript, but seriously, why should you need JavaScript to make a simple HTTP request from a browser? Or, why don't you use JavaScript for both types? At least that would make sense! I read your post, and I'm just shaking my head at how needlessly convoluted all this stuff has turned out after we've had more than ten years to fix it. You Wikipedia link is the most painful, disturbing thing I've read this week (aside from an article about veal calves). What's really striking how proud people are of themselves when they manage to hack around this junk. The web is so screwed up that developing hacks around its flaws attracts the attention of investors. Managers have been bursting out of their offices for years demanding web pages that look and feel like the Windows applications they're used to, and no matter how many times you explain what a web page is, they don't get it. Why should they have to? They want something that behaves like an application. They're being handed a document. You or I may be clever enough to get a document to behave like an application, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to want to do. We're taking what used to be documents and turning them into programs to send to another program that knows it's a program but pretends to render it as an inside-out document that can't be rendered without embedded application code inside interpreted by a runtime system with a security model designed 12 years ago.
This morning I logged into my bank account to check my balance. Once I logged in, my bank gave me a "cookie". On subsequent requests I would tell the bank what the cookie contents were, and that's how they knew who I was. Cookies were invented in ten minutes a decade ago to circumvent HTTP statelessness, to support a "shopping cart" (a novel concept back then). Now we have cookie theft, cross-site cookies, cookie poisoning, and cookie tracking. With JavaScript we have cross site scripting and prototype attacks. There's no reason for things to be this messed up, now that we've had TEN YEARS to realize our mistakes. HTML makes a decent document framework, but it's a horrible one in which to deliver a client side application.Unfortunately we're stuck with HTTP and a huge install base of old browsers, designed for viewing documents, not really for deploying applications. Ajax was developed to short circuit a design principle of the system in which it runs. It turns HTTP statelessness on its head just like cookies did, but it is even more stateful. That's why people are so impressed with it. Something like Ajax isn't the problem- it's the symptom of a problem. When people are impressed by a hack, that's a big red flag. People coming on Slashdot and bragging about how they got it to work is a big red flag. It's all one big red flag, a piece of technology designed to circumvent something going on at a deeper older layer. We didn't design tools that really fit our current needs. Now that a hack has made it possible to further abuse our crappy decaying infrastructure by violating the assumptions underlying its entire obsoleted interaction model, everyone has to learn the hack. At the same time we can't abandon all this old stuff because of the old browsers out there that can't render the new stuff. How screwed up is that?
HTTP
I'm no expert, but I've heard tell that security is a process, not a product.
You're arguing out of the dictionary. A product is a product of a process. If the product is insecure we call a spade a spade; we don't say that Windows for example is "neither secure nor insecure but a product of an insecure process". We can't prove that any product is secure, but we can easily prove that one is insecure. All you need is one vulnerability. And in the case of software, the product itself starts a process, which may be as secure or insecure as the larger development process that created it, so your argument is especially unfortunate even at the dictionary level.
After the first visit, all the Javascript, images, and static text should be cached and shouldn't have to be redownloaded.
Well, that's what I thought too. We're using DWR and we're not having any of these problems (although Ajax is still one big hack). Maybe they're doing too much setup or something. But I can't take my own experience as a guide, because I don't work at a Microsoft shop. Who knows what they're doing.
At least, I don't know if I've ever heard anyone seriously using it. Most of the times I've heard it mentioned was people making fun of others for using the term.
Microsoft tried to get on this bus with their Windows Live Mail but they had to roll back to Web 1.0 because of the design flaws inherent in the way this whole "Web 2.0" paradigm is supposed to work. The idea is basically this- you get rid of the desktop application, and use a browser to implement functionality. That involves downloading lots of JavaScript code. People on dialup accounts simply did not have enough bandwidth to download a JavaScript version of Outlook into their browser on an HTTP request. This DHTML/CSS/JavaScript crap they set up in the 90s is really creaking under the load of the infrastructure being built on top of it with these Web 2.0 applications. I wonder how long it will be before something like Flash totally takes over everything.
I share your attitude. Sometimes people where I work send snippets of code and whatnot over Outlook, and it gets corrupted with smiley faces.
You can try to slit my neck with a knife
I'd be watching porn in the afterlife
You can make it so my disks all won't play
I'll be making trouble like you always say
You can try to push a content cartel
As if you still had things you could honestly sell
You can turn our culture music and art
To little squares on cryptographic charts
There has to be an invisible tube
It can't be seen by just any dude
There has to be an invisible tube
For sending mail to senatorial boobs
It blinks all day or it blinks all night
Eigenstates and quantum tangled light
It goes all way with an integer spin
Turning into bits that the pulse brought in
There has to be an invisible tube
It gives free bits to everyone
There has to be an invisible tube
With stuff that plays when the download's done
And you're only going to slow the pace
by private key encryption of the human race
You would bill me for a pretty sunset
You haven't found a way to charge just yet
There has to be an invisible tube
To show us all these people in the nude
There has to be an invisible tube
That can't be seen running to my cube
And I don't know why you are attacking me like I am supporting eugenics; all I am saying is that the *label* insurance doesn't apply to something if there is no risk component. In terms of pure insurance, people with a higher likelihood of carrying a gene with negative consequences really should pay higher premiums. If that's not what we as a society want, then lets talk about it as medical cost coverage instead of insurance, and in terms of cost sharing instead of cost abatement.
OK then I apologize. Anyway this differs from tornado insurance only because factors that were previously not knowable can now be measured with great expense. Generally that information will still remain unknown. The genotype mRNA chips are not cheap (last I heard) and no one has yet passed a law allowing insurance companies to apply higher rates to anyone who haven't furnished them with validated genotype information. So this distinction is on the level of Schrodinger's cat and we can still keep it there if we want.
Unlike living in Oklahoma there's nothing one can do about having bad genes so there is absolutely no incentivization to be gained here at all. Hence the argument for cost-sharing, which may not accurately be called "insurance" anymore on a technical level. Focus groups like the sound of "insurance" and "cost-sharing" makes them think of socialists and atheists. But this is something we generally want for our society anyway- unless there are enough eggheads out there to make having good genes a really smart choice again.
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
I know I shouldn't reply to sigs, but I didn't read that as a sig at first. I was going to agree that given his current situation, an invisible wormhole would present Bush with an attractive exit strategy indeed.
Ideally, one would be able to invisibly travel through the wormhole and emerge from it wearing a flight suit.
As someone who is relatively healthy, I'd really rather not call paying for people with genetic conditions 'insurance', as it isn't.
You are a fool. You have no idea how your gene expression will change as you get older, and until you've been genotyped you have no idea what chronic diseases are in store for you.
I'm fine with society at large stepping in and covering/mitigating their medical problems(because we are wealthy beyond imagination), but the idea that they can buy insurance against a condition after it is known is simply wrong. It's cost sharing with no risk component at all.
In other words, we should use our insurance system to incentivize people to have fewer genetic defects!
We can start by allowing insurance companies to surcharge black people for sickle-cell anemia. It isn't fair that white people should have to pay for a disease they don't even get. It's cost sharing with no risk component at all.
You forgot Poland!
The blog says it's from one of 2 judges to issue a minority opinion out of 15 judges on the panel. Frankly I think a lot of people are going to scoff at RICO being relevant here because "respectable" corporations like Microsoft and Best Buy should not be accountable to a law meant for Italians.