if by business you mean the ACA, then I think most would have to admit it was very poorly done.
If you mean insurance itself... that worked for many years prior and continues to work for home insurance, car insurance, etc without much of a problem.
The issue comes largely from politicians writing rules for a very complicated issue that they don't understand and lack the proper respect to handle slowly and rationally.
Anything that takes more then 10 seconds to understand is either not addressed at all or half assed horribly.
its just the nature of how they do things and we have representatives precisely so this doesn't happen. It was known that the average citizen if given a chance would generally respond to issues of the moment... at least in our masses. And not look into anything with depth. So representatives were created to address that issue.
Sadly they're not doing their jobs. They respond to moment to moment political issues and never bother to find elegant solutions to complex issues.
Its a favorite of the cartels but it has obvious problems.
If you're going out there it means you can be monitored, seen, etc... it lacks privacy.
Also... hikers will steal your product unless you camp out there to protect it which just increases the inconvenience and risk.
The cartels get away with it because they have some poor guy sit out there to guard it... frequently an illegal immigrant that doesn't know anything. They just hand him a wad of cash, give him some camping supplies, and tell him to guard the crop.
I think you'll find that in any contract, there is a notion of specificity.
If you don't specify what "done" looks like in the contract then the contractor can argue that "his version of done" satisfies the terms of the contract.
Furthermore, they didn't hire Oracle on to do it. they rather did the integration in house using Oracle contractors to answer questions and do parts of the project.
It could be argued by Oracle that the the failure was in the integration and not in anything they provided.
As to the cost of Oracle products... no one says the company is cheap or inexpensive. And that isn't against the law.
Oracle is pricy. They're the no nonsense enterprise database company.
If you have to ask what that costs you can't afford it.
Many growers have been doing this for years. Its not a big deal. You dig out a big hole in the ground, line it with concrete, throw a roof on it, and then pile dirt on top of the roof. No infrared signature.
You can even put it under your house or another greenhouse that has vegetables and flowers. If anyone quizzes you about all the materials you say its for that.
There is an issue with the smell. Nothing you can really do about dogs besides creating a hermetically sealed compartment that has very serious airfilters. Which is sort of the Walter White solution.
Its a concern that is not Oracle's fault or responsibility.
You tell me you want a house built in two days... Fine... but if you expect there to not be serious problems and unforeseen issues as a result of rushing through the planning phase and then constantly changing the mission premeters throughout development... then you're being unreasonable.
Projects that are effective tend to have two things going for them.
1. A lengthy planning phase where everything is spelled out in detail.
2. A no nonsense implementation phase where the plan as developed in step one is fleshed out almost verbatim.
I expect judges to be adults. Not fussy children that are unworthy to wear the robes.
Our society is plagued with legions of children masquerading as adults. They are not adults just because they're 40 years old. Especially not when they go through their day whining and crying and throwing temper tantrums.
Part of being an adult is sublimating your base animal reactions and behaving in an age appropriate, dutiful, rational, and civilized manner.
In the case of all of them failing you have to look at the common denominator because ALL of them failed.
Newsflash... Oracle was not involved in all of the exchanges.
The central problem was that the rollout was rushed for political reasons.
If it were slowed down then the republicans might have had more success killing it before implementation. Even now it might well die. So the democrats rushed the rollout.
And this is the result.
That is not Oracle's fault. We all have experience with projects that are rushed through planning to the point where they are unworkable.
I was actually talking about literacy. The diversity argument was part of my larger argument.
For the sake of argument, lets say I just surrender this point because IT DOES NOT MATTER to my argument and if anything, your point makes mine stronger.
Again, lets say Brazil is more diverse... I don't think it is... but lets just say that anyway... that would correlate with my argument that diversity in the US has a negative impact on literacy because Brazil has a much lower literacy rate then the US.
So I surrender something that doesn't really matter to me and is tangential to my point and gain additional support for my primary argument.
Look, what homeless people need is to not be homeless.
And there are various ways of dealing with that.
1. Rehabilitate them if possible. A lot of them can't be but some can.
2. Get them off the streets and into institutions.
3. Consider alternative social arrangements we could create... communities apart from society that are more healthy for homeless people then our current one.
4. etc...
There is no cure for what causes homelessness but there are probably better ways to deal with it then just letting them shamble around towns begging for money.
Empathy is not really the issue here. We have a lot of empathy. We just don't want to spend money enabling bad choices.
Are they spending the money they get begging on booze, drugs, etc? Well then why would we give them money? Are there lots of free shelters that offer food, clothing, and medical aid? Yes.
Then where is the lack of empathy?
What we are rather is beaten down and apathetic about the situation because we don't think we can do anything. But that doesn't mean we don't feel. It means we've given up.
Its ache that hurts every day and we put up with it.
There are better ways to deal with it but it involves thinking outside the box.
Please provide a citation to justify asking for a citation.
These "citation needed" comments are about 50 percent specious.
"citation needed"
Right?
And really, there's no point offering a citation unless I know you're going to accept the citation. Since the instant response every time you actually go to the effort of offering a citation is to get someone saying "oh that isn't valid for some arbitrary reason"... Oh really? I'd like a citation to back up that judgment.
And here I've made more statements without offering a citation...
*slaps OP around with a rotten haddock*
Stop asking for citations when what you really want to do is say you disagree.
Then we can have a discussion about that. But when you say "citation needed" you're more often then not offering NOTHING to the discussion.
I don't want to stop companies from marketing things.
That falls under free speech.
First Amendment.
Right there with freedom of religion.
What I think is reasonable is to let the FDA issue an "FDA recommended/approved" tag/sticker/etc that no one is allowed to use without FDA approval.
If the drug company doesn't want to bother with the FDA then they don't get the sticker. And if patients don't care if the FDA approves they can buy the drug without it.
See? Choice.
You do not have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say.
If I want to hold up a bottle of snake oil and say it cures everything... what right do you have to say otherwise unless you can prove that you know I am lying.
What if "I" believe it does cure everything?
And yes, people can get hurt if they just believe anything. But that's reality. People get hurt all the time by not being skeptical. Look at all the market failures that take down millions of people because they didn't pay attention. Would you say that people should be forbidden from investing in the market?
Point being... you can't make the world safe for idiots. "Buyer Beware" is not optional. It is not avoidable. It is a requirement one way or the other.
We have judges in the first place and not robots because we need a human being to make intelligent and reasonable decisions.
Refusing to do so means that the judge has decided to behave like a robot which means the judge has no purpose at all. We could replace this judge with a bit of computer code interacted with by clicking check boxes in an online form.
I think what you need to do is specify what the FDA has approved a given drug for... and then let the drug company say whatever they want about it with the condition that it make clear what the FDA said it did.
If you want to use a stomach parasite to treat your obesity then that is your own business. The FDA doesn't recommend it but it is your body. Just an example of something the FDA is unlikely to approve
This is the thing. Its like the abortion debate. MY body.
I disagree... for one thing that charge probably couldn't be put on the bill without additional clarification. For another thing netflix doesn't know exactly if you have comcast or not. Its an internet login. You could be in a comcast system on day with your laptop and not in another.
So its hard to say whether someone is in that zone or not.
Simply don't pay the fee and if comcast users complain tell them that their ISP is intentionally slowing down the traffic.
by this logic we should make illegal all drugs that don't have a huge impact on the ailment in question.
Maybe we should ban all drugs that don't cure a disease outright... then they'll only come out with drugs that are cures!
You are using magical thinking. You are assuming that what the government legislates becomes reality.
This is as absurd as thinking that old English king could cause the tides to come in and go out at royal decree.
The pharma companies will produce lots of drugs. If you make many of them illegal to sell then you've simply limited your options. Nothing more or less.
I feel your pain buddy. You're not alone and trust me even if you did go the corporate route that can happen. HR is full of myopic robots.
My best advice is to lie to get in the door just so you can talk to the guy that will be hiring you. Worst case you'll not get the job. But you'll have gotten an interview.
I lie to HR constantly. Its for their own good... they're idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Most forest creatures are pretty much constantly stoned on one thing or another... often stomach parasites. All sorts of stuff.
Cows... drunk... constantly... they literally have a brewery in their stomachs.
if by business you mean the ACA, then I think most would have to admit it was very poorly done.
If you mean insurance itself... that worked for many years prior and continues to work for home insurance, car insurance, etc without much of a problem.
The issue comes largely from politicians writing rules for a very complicated issue that they don't understand and lack the proper respect to handle slowly and rationally.
Anything that takes more then 10 seconds to understand is either not addressed at all or half assed horribly.
its just the nature of how they do things and we have representatives precisely so this doesn't happen. It was known that the average citizen if given a chance would generally respond to issues of the moment... at least in our masses. And not look into anything with depth. So representatives were created to address that issue.
Sadly they're not doing their jobs. They respond to moment to moment political issues and never bother to find elegant solutions to complex issues.
Its a favorite of the cartels but it has obvious problems.
If you're going out there it means you can be monitored, seen, etc... it lacks privacy.
Also... hikers will steal your product unless you camp out there to protect it which just increases the inconvenience and risk.
The cartels get away with it because they have some poor guy sit out there to guard it... frequently an illegal immigrant that doesn't know anything. They just hand him a wad of cash, give him some camping supplies, and tell him to guard the crop.
Rangers run them off occasionally.
Obviously impractical... where as underground green houses have been a real thing for over 40 years.
I think you'll find that in any contract, there is a notion of specificity.
If you don't specify what "done" looks like in the contract then the contractor can argue that "his version of done" satisfies the terms of the contract.
Furthermore, they didn't hire Oracle on to do it. they rather did the integration in house using Oracle contractors to answer questions and do parts of the project.
It could be argued by Oracle that the the failure was in the integration and not in anything they provided.
As to the cost of Oracle products... no one says the company is cheap or inexpensive. And that isn't against the law.
Oracle is pricy. They're the no nonsense enterprise database company.
If you have to ask what that costs you can't afford it.
Many growers have been doing this for years. Its not a big deal. You dig out a big hole in the ground, line it with concrete, throw a roof on it, and then pile dirt on top of the roof. No infrared signature.
You can even put it under your house or another greenhouse that has vegetables and flowers. If anyone quizzes you about all the materials you say its for that.
There is an issue with the smell. Nothing you can really do about dogs besides creating a hermetically sealed compartment that has very serious airfilters. Which is sort of the Walter White solution.
Anyway, build underground... its easy and works.
Its a concern that is not Oracle's fault or responsibility.
You tell me you want a house built in two days... Fine... but if you expect there to not be serious problems and unforeseen issues as a result of rushing through the planning phase and then constantly changing the mission premeters throughout development... then you're being unreasonable.
Projects that are effective tend to have two things going for them.
1. A lengthy planning phase where everything is spelled out in detail.
2. A no nonsense implementation phase where the plan as developed in step one is fleshed out almost verbatim.
Anything else is a crapshoot.
I have lots of experience with Oracle and you had better believe that the state of Oregon did as well.
The state signed the contracts with Oracle and fucked up.
JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE OTHER EXCHANGE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
At this point you're dealing with very simple logic.
Solve for X and then agree with me.
I expect judges to be adults. Not fussy children that are unworthy to wear the robes.
Our society is plagued with legions of children masquerading as adults. They are not adults just because they're 40 years old. Especially not when they go through their day whining and crying and throwing temper tantrums.
Part of being an adult is sublimating your base animal reactions and behaving in an age appropriate, dutiful, rational, and civilized manner.
End. Period. Point.
All of them.
In the case of all of them failing you have to look at the common denominator because ALL of them failed.
Newsflash... Oracle was not involved in all of the exchanges.
The central problem was that the rollout was rushed for political reasons.
If it were slowed down then the republicans might have had more success killing it before implementation. Even now it might well die. So the democrats rushed the rollout.
And this is the result.
That is not Oracle's fault. We all have experience with projects that are rushed through planning to the point where they are unworkable.
That's all this is... nothing more or less.
I was actually talking about literacy. The diversity argument was part of my larger argument.
For the sake of argument, lets say I just surrender this point because IT DOES NOT MATTER to my argument and if anything, your point makes mine stronger.
Again, lets say Brazil is more diverse... I don't think it is... but lets just say that anyway... that would correlate with my argument that diversity in the US has a negative impact on literacy because Brazil has a much lower literacy rate then the US.
So I surrender something that doesn't really matter to me and is tangential to my point and gain additional support for my primary argument.
I'll take it.
You're a judge... you are supposed to be a ROCK of rationality.
Look, what homeless people need is to not be homeless.
And there are various ways of dealing with that.
1. Rehabilitate them if possible. A lot of them can't be but some can.
2. Get them off the streets and into institutions.
3. Consider alternative social arrangements we could create... communities apart from society that are more healthy for homeless people then our current one.
4. etc...
There is no cure for what causes homelessness but there are probably better ways to deal with it then just letting them shamble around towns begging for money.
Empathy is not really the issue here. We have a lot of empathy. We just don't want to spend money enabling bad choices.
Are they spending the money they get begging on booze, drugs, etc? Well then why would we give them money? Are there lots of free shelters that offer food, clothing, and medical aid? Yes.
Then where is the lack of empathy?
What we are rather is beaten down and apathetic about the situation because we don't think we can do anything. But that doesn't mean we don't feel. It means we've given up.
Its ache that hurts every day and we put up with it.
There are better ways to deal with it but it involves thinking outside the box.
If the government or the phone company has it, then it is not okay.
Please provide a citation to justify asking for a citation.
These "citation needed" comments are about 50 percent specious.
"citation needed"
Right?
And really, there's no point offering a citation unless I know you're going to accept the citation. Since the instant response every time you actually go to the effort of offering a citation is to get someone saying "oh that isn't valid for some arbitrary reason"... Oh really? I'd like a citation to back up that judgment.
And here I've made more statements without offering a citation...
*slaps OP around with a rotten haddock*
Stop asking for citations when what you really want to do is say you disagree.
Then we can have a discussion about that. But when you say "citation needed" you're more often then not offering NOTHING to the discussion.
And you're not understanding me.
I don't want to stop companies from marketing things.
That falls under free speech.
First Amendment.
Right there with freedom of religion.
What I think is reasonable is to let the FDA issue an "FDA recommended/approved" tag/sticker/etc that no one is allowed to use without FDA approval.
If the drug company doesn't want to bother with the FDA then they don't get the sticker. And if patients don't care if the FDA approves they can buy the drug without it.
See? Choice.
You do not have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say.
If I want to hold up a bottle of snake oil and say it cures everything... what right do you have to say otherwise unless you can prove that you know I am lying.
What if "I" believe it does cure everything?
And yes, people can get hurt if they just believe anything. But that's reality. People get hurt all the time by not being skeptical. Look at all the market failures that take down millions of people because they didn't pay attention. Would you say that people should be forbidden from investing in the market?
Point being... you can't make the world safe for idiots. "Buyer Beware" is not optional. It is not avoidable. It is a requirement one way or the other.
We have judges in the first place and not robots because we need a human being to make intelligent and reasonable decisions.
Refusing to do so means that the judge has decided to behave like a robot which means the judge has no purpose at all. We could replace this judge with a bit of computer code interacted with by clicking check boxes in an online form.
Your question was a rhetorical insult.
Ask an actual question or do not presume to discuss at all.
I disagree.
I think what you need to do is specify what the FDA has approved a given drug for... and then let the drug company say whatever they want about it with the condition that it make clear what the FDA said it did.
If you want to use a stomach parasite to treat your obesity then that is your own business. The FDA doesn't recommend it but it is your body. Just an example of something the FDA is unlikely to approve
This is the thing. Its like the abortion debate. MY body.
The point is to embarrass comcast to stop the practice. Your action would simply get people mad at netflix.
I know, which is why the government is giving oil companies free money to build refineries on federal land.
Oh wait no they aren't... they're doing that with solar providers.
If you actually think the petroleum industry is relatively subsidized at the same rate you're high.
You're missing the point... the boom happened when they were released.
I am not suggesting we stop investing in biomedical research... I am saying that we need to shunt more of these people into the private sector.
I disagree... for one thing that charge probably couldn't be put on the bill without additional clarification. For another thing netflix doesn't know exactly if you have comcast or not. Its an internet login. You could be in a comcast system on day with your laptop and not in another.
So its hard to say whether someone is in that zone or not.
Simply don't pay the fee and if comcast users complain tell them that their ISP is intentionally slowing down the traffic.
by this logic we should make illegal all drugs that don't have a huge impact on the ailment in question.
Maybe we should ban all drugs that don't cure a disease outright... then they'll only come out with drugs that are cures!
You are using magical thinking. You are assuming that what the government legislates becomes reality.
This is as absurd as thinking that old English king could cause the tides to come in and go out at royal decree.
The pharma companies will produce lots of drugs. If you make many of them illegal to sell then you've simply limited your options. Nothing more or less.
I feel your pain buddy. You're not alone and trust me even if you did go the corporate route that can happen. HR is full of myopic robots.
My best advice is to lie to get in the door just so you can talk to the guy that will be hiring you. Worst case you'll not get the job. But you'll have gotten an interview.
I lie to HR constantly. Its for their own good... they're idiots.