I don't think anyone is advocating for this terrible idea. I think he is pointing out that the idea is going to come up at some point. It would be better to be able to say it's impossible than to say we don't think insurance companies should do that.
While funny, I think you hit upon an important point here. CEO's want their CIO's to be people human or human focused and not technology focused. That can be a problem because many times IT and empathy don't go hand in hand http://www.convergentxs.com/the-tech-epidemic/
This may have more to do with someone's mindset. Technology seems to be correlated with a lack of empathy. http://www.convergentxs.com/the-tech-epidemic/ . Business is usually more concerned with people than technology.
This is not some crazy conspiracy. Normally as technology becomes cheaper, more efficient and more robust capability of that technology goes down. It's just a fact of life. Just look at the internet, we started with 56k dial up modems and then that was slowed down to 32k, then 16k, and as you all know most users now rely on the futuristic 8k modem. The same is true of hard drives, where we once enjoyed 30 terabytes drives those sizes have been going down ever since due to cheaper and more effective technology. I miss the days when I could store all 10 of those mp3 on my hard drive but you can't stand in the way of progress!
The most popular tactic for argument here seems to be, ignore something major someone says then respond to one line taken completely out of context. When the phrase Judaic law was used it was meant to refer to the Christian Old Testament, more specially the Torah, the first 5 books of the old testament (books shared with a few major religions). This, taken in context with the New Testament, has nothing to do with anything you've written. Not sure who you are speaking to here...Israelis?
That's a load of crap. Facts that disagree with my worldview are overrated. My lack of faith forbids them and the political party that I am affiliated with have promised to repeal every single one of them when they have the House, the Senate, and the White House.
FTFY.
Look at that, you've completely avoided his post and started talking about Catholics. Debate team victory!
The definition of radical
radical (rd-kl)
adj.
1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Down voting atheists.
This is so erroneously and subjectively misunderstood by your myopic perspective that it has very little relation to reality and more closely resembles the picture of the world you have created for yourself in your mind. Laws have no direct and effective way to be vacated by citizens while judges do. Citizens have direct control over the locally elected judges. If the judge in your local area is treating people unfairly then campaign against him, the responsibility is on you to change who is elected. If the law is written unfairly you have to change the state or federal legislator. As private citizens we have very little impact on a federal election, but a local election we have much more control over. If your local judge is acting irresponsibly you need to work to remove him. Do not put the responsibility on the federal government to keep your town in line.
If you can make it a profitable venture, companies can spring up in those areas and employ local citizens to dig up this stuff and ship it around. Obviously just feeding an entire country is a terrible plan because all the local farmers would have no sales and the local infrastructure supporting farming would dry up but this could be a real solution.
I have idea why you care. Are you legally required to interact with HP? Will you go to jail if you don't respond to one of their inquiries? Yes the CEO gets paid a lot, but I just don't understand what that has to do with you? If the CEO bleeds the company dry and the board lets him do so that's fine because eventually HP will go out of business. I'll never understand why people are so mad at these companies CEO's. I understand that you're upset they make a lot more money than you for doing a terrible job, but that happens all the time. Managers, Oil Tycoons, Sheiks, Dictators, CEOs, and just about everyone who currently makes more money than you. Are you mad at all of them or just the ones that the media tell you are bad? I just don't understand what and HP CEO's salary has to do with deregulation. If HP is making better products more efficiently then who cares how much the CEO is paid. Are you upset because they products could be a 1/100 of a penny cheaper and the CEO could lose his 15 million $ sign off bonus? This is something parroted by Jon Stewart frequently and it never makes any sense. It's just people complaining because someone else is making more money.
Social security was made as a short sighted reactionary move to combat the effects of the great depression in 1935. The country was on the brink of collapse and FDR managed to get the government to support the poorest, and hardest hit Americans. While taking care of the poor and needy is a noble goal, the effects of that decision have propagated down from generation to generation. The first generation who received this service this treated it as emergency relief during a time of crisis. It has since evolved into a permanent support system people plan to use. Having an emergency relief fund is a great plan. Teaching people that they do not need to try to save their money because they will be able to rely on payments from the government is a terrible plan. In economic terms, it incentivises NOT planning for retirement for the poorest of Americans. The poorest Americans are the ones who need to learn to be the MOST fiscally responsible. Pretending that it is impossible to save money at a minimum wage job is tantamount to telling the lowest income bracket that they can't save money and so shouldn't try. Having a low income job for an entire life means you should have fewer things and live in a smaller building. Only a true consumerist would believe that a bigger house or more things are necessary for life. Having fewer things, living in a smaller building with other people and saving money is still a viable option for people who are responsible with their money. Never the less, this is very difficult, and we do not reward it. In fact, the government punishes responsible lower income people by rewarding the least responsible. There are long term implications for these decisions that are much more convoluted than feeding poor people when they are hungry. We have placed the burden of fiscal responsibility and financial self discipline on the government, eroding the socioeconomic incentives that encourage us to save and be responsible. People who are starving do not need a monthly check, they need a good meal, a place to stay, and a hand up.
IANAL but generally speaking, i think when hollywood buys the rights to the movie they can pretty much do whatever horrible plot and story mangling they want. Unless you could get it written into the contract, the film option is just a right to the copyright you sell off and the artist doesn't really have control over the product.
Fairy Tales, blah blah. The first chapters of Genesis are simply oral histories of creation stories and conflict when reading from a scientific paradigm. They are prose and not factually accurate. They are metaphysically accurate: God created stuff, man was pretty much the best and eventually gained the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The book is written to last thousands of years and still maintain its authority. If you notice the bible is pretty short on facts and figures (when they exist they are mostly estimates) and more about purpose written with themes and motifs: service, sacrifice, love, and compassion. If you read it like a history book you've missed the point.
With Verizon, Timewarner, Comcast and really any other ISP you are dealing with an oligopoly at best and a monopoly at worst. Capitalism doesn't really work without competition.
It amazes me that this is even a discussion. Moral relativism has eroded all sense of right and wrong. Things that are clearly wrong but are personally beneficial are "looked at from a different perspective".
Sure according to your moral code of "do unto others things that they better never do to me" its completely moral. Ethical, no. Obviously taking a phone and not attempting to return it to its owner who may have videos, messages, and photos that they can never replicate is not ethical behavior. Lucky for you, as western societies continue their slow degrade towards complete egocentric living abandoning Christ focused values like service and sacrifice, the 50% that agree that your unethical behavior is moral will multiply eventually rewriting societal mores making it quasi-ethical.
Woah woah woah. Quiet down there snowgirl. You keep talking like that and people will realize that you have to change and adapt to fit into a working society. That everyone isn't really required to reward you for continuing to be the way you were born. That being born with certain predispositions doesn't provide a good reason for making everyone in the world accommodate you and that if you can adapt to society then it is your responsibility to do so. That being abnormal isn't just societies problem but is in fact one's own problem. Oh noez, your on a slippery slope here.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone is advocating for this terrible idea. I think he is pointing out that the idea is going to come up at some point. It would be better to be able to say it's impossible than to say we don't think insurance companies should do that.
While funny, I think you hit upon an important point here. CEO's want their CIO's to be people human or human focused and not technology focused. That can be a problem because many times IT and empathy don't go hand in hand http://www.convergentxs.com/the-tech-epidemic/
This may have more to do with someone's mindset. Technology seems to be correlated with a lack of empathy. http://www.convergentxs.com/the-tech-epidemic/ . Business is usually more concerned with people than technology.
A traveler from the future:
This is not some crazy conspiracy. Normally as technology becomes cheaper, more efficient and more robust capability of that technology goes down. It's just a fact of life. Just look at the internet, we started with 56k dial up modems and then that was slowed down to 32k, then 16k, and as you all know most users now rely on the futuristic 8k modem. The same is true of hard drives, where we once enjoyed 30 terabytes drives those sizes have been going down ever since due to cheaper and more effective technology. I miss the days when I could store all 10 of those mp3 on my hard drive but you can't stand in the way of progress!
The most popular tactic for argument here seems to be, ignore something major someone says then respond to one line taken completely out of context. When the phrase Judaic law was used it was meant to refer to the Christian Old Testament, more specially the Torah, the first 5 books of the old testament (books shared with a few major religions). This, taken in context with the New Testament, has nothing to do with anything you've written. Not sure who you are speaking to here...Israelis?
That's a load of crap. Facts that disagree with my worldview are overrated. My lack of faith forbids them and the political party that I am affiliated with have promised to repeal every single one of them when they have the House, the Senate, and the White House.
FTFY. Look at that, you've completely avoided his post and started talking about Catholics. Debate team victory!
The definition of radical radical (rd-kl) adj. 1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem. 2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education. 3. Down voting atheists.
This is so erroneously and subjectively misunderstood by your myopic perspective that it has very little relation to reality and more closely resembles the picture of the world you have created for yourself in your mind. Laws have no direct and effective way to be vacated by citizens while judges do. Citizens have direct control over the locally elected judges. If the judge in your local area is treating people unfairly then campaign against him, the responsibility is on you to change who is elected. If the law is written unfairly you have to change the state or federal legislator. As private citizens we have very little impact on a federal election, but a local election we have much more control over. If your local judge is acting irresponsibly you need to work to remove him. Do not put the responsibility on the federal government to keep your town in line.
If you can make it a profitable venture, companies can spring up in those areas and employ local citizens to dig up this stuff and ship it around. Obviously just feeding an entire country is a terrible plan because all the local farmers would have no sales and the local infrastructure supporting farming would dry up but this could be a real solution.
I have idea why you care. Are you legally required to interact with HP? Will you go to jail if you don't respond to one of their inquiries? Yes the CEO gets paid a lot, but I just don't understand what that has to do with you? If the CEO bleeds the company dry and the board lets him do so that's fine because eventually HP will go out of business. I'll never understand why people are so mad at these companies CEO's. I understand that you're upset they make a lot more money than you for doing a terrible job, but that happens all the time. Managers, Oil Tycoons, Sheiks, Dictators, CEOs, and just about everyone who currently makes more money than you. Are you mad at all of them or just the ones that the media tell you are bad? I just don't understand what and HP CEO's salary has to do with deregulation. If HP is making better products more efficiently then who cares how much the CEO is paid. Are you upset because they products could be a 1/100 of a penny cheaper and the CEO could lose his 15 million $ sign off bonus? This is something parroted by Jon Stewart frequently and it never makes any sense. It's just people complaining because someone else is making more money.
Social security was made as a short sighted reactionary move to combat the effects of the great depression in 1935. The country was on the brink of collapse and FDR managed to get the government to support the poorest, and hardest hit Americans. While taking care of the poor and needy is a noble goal, the effects of that decision have propagated down from generation to generation. The first generation who received this service this treated it as emergency relief during a time of crisis. It has since evolved into a permanent support system people plan to use. Having an emergency relief fund is a great plan. Teaching people that they do not need to try to save their money because they will be able to rely on payments from the government is a terrible plan. In economic terms, it incentivises NOT planning for retirement for the poorest of Americans. The poorest Americans are the ones who need to learn to be the MOST fiscally responsible. Pretending that it is impossible to save money at a minimum wage job is tantamount to telling the lowest income bracket that they can't save money and so shouldn't try. Having a low income job for an entire life means you should have fewer things and live in a smaller building. Only a true consumerist would believe that a bigger house or more things are necessary for life. Having fewer things, living in a smaller building with other people and saving money is still a viable option for people who are responsible with their money. Never the less, this is very difficult, and we do not reward it. In fact, the government punishes responsible lower income people by rewarding the least responsible. There are long term implications for these decisions that are much more convoluted than feeding poor people when they are hungry. We have placed the burden of fiscal responsibility and financial self discipline on the government, eroding the socioeconomic incentives that encourage us to save and be responsible. People who are starving do not need a monthly check, they need a good meal, a place to stay, and a hand up.
IANAL but generally speaking, i think when hollywood buys the rights to the movie they can pretty much do whatever horrible plot and story mangling they want. Unless you could get it written into the contract, the film option is just a right to the copyright you sell off and the artist doesn't really have control over the product.
Fairy Tales, blah blah. The first chapters of Genesis are simply oral histories of creation stories and conflict when reading from a scientific paradigm. They are prose and not factually accurate. They are metaphysically accurate: God created stuff, man was pretty much the best and eventually gained the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The book is written to last thousands of years and still maintain its authority. If you notice the bible is pretty short on facts and figures (when they exist they are mostly estimates) and more about purpose written with themes and motifs: service, sacrifice, love, and compassion. If you read it like a history book you've missed the point.
With Verizon, Timewarner, Comcast and really any other ISP you are dealing with an oligopoly at best and a monopoly at worst. Capitalism doesn't really work without competition.
It amazes me that this is even a discussion. Moral relativism has eroded all sense of right and wrong. Things that are clearly wrong but are personally beneficial are "looked at from a different perspective".
Sure according to your moral code of "do unto others things that they better never do to me" its completely moral. Ethical, no. Obviously taking a phone and not attempting to return it to its owner who may have videos, messages, and photos that they can never replicate is not ethical behavior. Lucky for you, as western societies continue their slow degrade towards complete egocentric living abandoning Christ focused values like service and sacrifice, the 50% that agree that your unethical behavior is moral will multiply eventually rewriting societal mores making it quasi-ethical.
Woah woah woah. Quiet down there snowgirl. You keep talking like that and people will realize that you have to change and adapt to fit into a working society. That everyone isn't really required to reward you for continuing to be the way you were born. That being born with certain predispositions doesn't provide a good reason for making everyone in the world accommodate you and that if you can adapt to society then it is your responsibility to do so. That being abnormal isn't just societies problem but is in fact one's own problem. Oh noez, your on a slippery slope here.