If someone is driving a brand new car right off the lot and the breaks fail, causing a fatal accident, does the CEO do hard time now? In that case, it's pretty clear that the defect is the responsibility of the manufacturer, but it would be far more likely that there would be a civil lawsuit. So when Volvo says they will be liable, they're talking about civil and not criminal liability.
I don't know how much Bill has to do with the day to day goings on at Microsoft now. Seems to me like his primary focus now is doing good in the third world. (And as much as I hated him as a businessman, he's an awesome philanthropist.)
The dwindling effectiveness of antibiotics is a public safety issue. No big company is going to want to take the hit and invest millions of dollars into developing new antibiotics when the return is likely to be a long way off and isn't guaranteed at all. For things like this, it makes sense to use tax money to fund research and then contract companies to develop medicines (or, god forbid, just build some government facilities to develop and produce them there).
Tension makes things more interesting, but if you set out to document something that's happening *right now* (as opposed to, say, some event in history that you already know was really tense), the *correct* way to document it is to document the truth. This is actually the responsible thing to do.
A few years ago, there was some indie game making contest reality show, and the people doing the show decided to *create drama* by asking one team if they felt that the other team was at a disadvantage because they had more women. As I recall, the developers wouldn't have it, and eventually a bunch of people walked off the set.
If you're documenting something, injecting tension where none exists is shitty journalism. If you're reviewing a documentary, demanding that the creator of the documentary inject tension where none exists is also shitty journalism.
Some people really love gigantic CoCs. It seems like big CoCs are the in thing right now, but personally, I find massive CoCs to be uncomfortable.
Dick jokes aside, while I'm in favor of having some community expectations of conduct, I'm not in favor of building a huge body of rules to cover every single situation. What you need are some simple rules ("conduct yourself with courtesy and professionalism", "don't be an asshole", etc) and a group of trustworthy moderators who enforce those rules fairly regardless of the political views of the person the rules are being applied to.
Even if your rules are well-intentioned, the trouble is that the larger and more specific the rule set, the more easily one clique or another will be able to manipulate those rules to their advantage. It's better, as a moderator, to be able to identify individuals who are toxic and remove them from the community than have a set of arbitrary and overly specific rules that you'll ultimately fail to enforce fairly. All too often, you'll end up deciding that you *want* to get rid of a particular community member due to them having an overall negative impact on the community, and then watching them like a hawk so that you can ban them for the tiniest violation of your rule set, all the while your regular (and less toxic) users are constantly committing tiny rules violations themselves.
To be honest, large rule sets *invite* toxicity, because a) people tend to see them as a challenge, and b) some people realize they're part of the in-crowd and can get away with flouting the rules while other people who *aren't* part of the in-crowd get banned for small infractions.
And this is to say nothing of CoCs which *aren't* well-intentioned. The GitHub projects CoC, for instance, explicitly carved out rights for people to bully others based on race, sex, orientation, etc, simply based on whether that person is part of the majority with respect to those particular attributes. I'm all for disallowing gendered and racial harassment, but I have to suspect the motives of people writing a CoC that gives certain people carte blanche to engage in that kind of harassment. Harassment is *ever a good thing*. You aren't losing anything by disallowing *all of it*.
No, I don't think it's odd, considering that the price of the pill was originally $13 each. If one person were pulling the strings at both companies, it would be absolutely idiotic to hike the price just so they can eventually *cut* the price to less than a 10th of the original cost.
There was a time, back in the SNES and PSX era, that Squaresoft could do no wrong. That time has passed. Their new games are a mess, and they've realized that the only way they're going to stay in business is to remake their old ones. That being said, they're fixing to fuck up FF7 the same way they've fucked up their more recent offerings.
I think part of the problem may be that Squeenix doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about the American market. As far as I can tell, they're trying to go for the action gamer market and sell a gazillion copies the way the big third person action franchises do, but by and large, those people aren't really the ones who are interested in JRPGs. And in the process of *trying* to appeal to that market, they alienate their core audience (most of which has walked away by this point).
Now, it's entirely possible that the JRPG core audience just isn't big enough to support the development of AAA titles, but I judging by their surprise at how well Bravely Default did in the states, I have a feeling they're vastly underestimating how many people would be interested in a more classic JRPG feel.
Xenosaga wasn't a remake, and it wasn't done by Squeenix. A true remake of the original (where they actually make a complete game, rather than running out of money 2/3 of the way through) would likely do a lot better.
I hate it when I use a web browser that doesn't have an ad blocker installed. I don't know how people put up with it. Browsing the web without ad blocking is a miserable experience.
This is absolutely true, and it's why I don't run ads on my site. No ad agencies that I'm aware of allow you to screen ads in advance, and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is, particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware. Also, accepting donations in return for not running ads has been more profitable than running ads ever was.
Having been working in the tech field as a developer for the last decade and a half, I can tell you that the parent comment is right on every point. If people are regularly insulting and demeaning where you work, then you work for a shit company.
The point I was trying to make is that as someone who is in favor of unions myself, we need to admit that unions do cause their share of problems. It's just you tend to get a worse set of problems without them.
You mean states that allow unions and companies the freedom to decide their own contracts without government intervention preventing them from doing so? Those states?
In all seriousness, I agree. I went to Molokai for my honeymoon and I tried spam fried rice with soy and tabasco sauce (which, by the way, goes together a lot better than you would think), and it was excellent.
That being said, I would not be at all interested in eating a block of cold spam.
I don't understand where you're coming from. As I understand it, Galileo was excommunicated because his findings about the solar system weren't in line with church doctrine at the time and he refused to recant them. Am I wrong?
I have the sneaking suspicion that this is going to backfire massively. They'll have bad data hither and yon as overworked medicos end up entering the wrong codes (hey, it's a broken femur, who cares which side?) as often as the right ones.
It'll fail in some places and be highly beneficial in others.
I'm guessing it's going to be the worst in heavily-trafficked primary care offices, where there will be a very large variety of issues (particularly those in poorer areas, which see more patients for less money and the staff is spread very thin). It'll be a lot better in hospital wards and specialist offices, where there's more staff and they people are (generally) working with a much narrower set of codes.
And as someone else noticed, the codes are intentionally designed to make no sense. Why is all the information in a binder and not a computer?
This is false. My wife works at a hospital that switched over to ICD10 months ago, and their EMR (electronic medical records) program asks them questions and looks the code up for them if it's one they don't already know.
My wife is a nurse practitioner at a hospital and they're already switched over to ICD10. She tells me things are going relatively smoothly.
Also, the way they enter codes they don't already know is that that the computer asks them questions until it narrows down on the correct code. She doesn't go through gigantic binders, nor are there other people at her hospital that do. The additional overhead from it is minimal.
Mind you, I'm not calling the parent a liar. I'm sure there are some places out there that handle these codes very inefficiently, but using computers to aid with the process is clearly the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was Volkswagon.
If someone is driving a brand new car right off the lot and the breaks fail, causing a fatal accident, does the CEO do hard time now? In that case, it's pretty clear that the defect is the responsibility of the manufacturer, but it would be far more likely that there would be a civil lawsuit. So when Volvo says they will be liable, they're talking about civil and not criminal liability.
Is Bill the one doing that?
I don't know how much Bill has to do with the day to day goings on at Microsoft now. Seems to me like his primary focus now is doing good in the third world. (And as much as I hated him as a businessman, he's an awesome philanthropist.)
...was Test Test. from the town of Testville, Testistan. Interestingly, his postal code was 90210.
The dwindling effectiveness of antibiotics is a public safety issue. No big company is going to want to take the hit and invest millions of dollars into developing new antibiotics when the return is likely to be a long way off and isn't guaranteed at all. For things like this, it makes sense to use tax money to fund research and then contract companies to develop medicines (or, god forbid, just build some government facilities to develop and produce them there).
Tension makes things more interesting, but if you set out to document something that's happening *right now* (as opposed to, say, some event in history that you already know was really tense), the *correct* way to document it is to document the truth. This is actually the responsible thing to do.
A few years ago, there was some indie game making contest reality show, and the people doing the show decided to *create drama* by asking one team if they felt that the other team was at a disadvantage because they had more women. As I recall, the developers wouldn't have it, and eventually a bunch of people walked off the set.
If you're documenting something, injecting tension where none exists is shitty journalism. If you're reviewing a documentary, demanding that the creator of the documentary inject tension where none exists is also shitty journalism.
Some people really love gigantic CoCs. It seems like big CoCs are the in thing right now, but personally, I find massive CoCs to be uncomfortable.
Dick jokes aside, while I'm in favor of having some community expectations of conduct, I'm not in favor of building a huge body of rules to cover every single situation. What you need are some simple rules ("conduct yourself with courtesy and professionalism", "don't be an asshole", etc) and a group of trustworthy moderators who enforce those rules fairly regardless of the political views of the person the rules are being applied to.
Even if your rules are well-intentioned, the trouble is that the larger and more specific the rule set, the more easily one clique or another will be able to manipulate those rules to their advantage. It's better, as a moderator, to be able to identify individuals who are toxic and remove them from the community than have a set of arbitrary and overly specific rules that you'll ultimately fail to enforce fairly. All too often, you'll end up deciding that you *want* to get rid of a particular community member due to them having an overall negative impact on the community, and then watching them like a hawk so that you can ban them for the tiniest violation of your rule set, all the while your regular (and less toxic) users are constantly committing tiny rules violations themselves.
To be honest, large rule sets *invite* toxicity, because a) people tend to see them as a challenge, and b) some people realize they're part of the in-crowd and can get away with flouting the rules while other people who *aren't* part of the in-crowd get banned for small infractions.
And this is to say nothing of CoCs which *aren't* well-intentioned. The GitHub projects CoC, for instance, explicitly carved out rights for people to bully others based on race, sex, orientation, etc, simply based on whether that person is part of the majority with respect to those particular attributes. I'm all for disallowing gendered and racial harassment, but I have to suspect the motives of people writing a CoC that gives certain people carte blanche to engage in that kind of harassment. Harassment is *ever a good thing*. You aren't losing anything by disallowing *all of it*.
No, I don't think it's odd, considering that the price of the pill was originally $13 each. If one person were pulling the strings at both companies, it would be absolutely idiotic to hike the price just so they can eventually *cut* the price to less than a 10th of the original cost.
There was a time, back in the SNES and PSX era, that Squaresoft could do no wrong. That time has passed. Their new games are a mess, and they've realized that the only way they're going to stay in business is to remake their old ones. That being said, they're fixing to fuck up FF7 the same way they've fucked up their more recent offerings.
I think part of the problem may be that Squeenix doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about the American market. As far as I can tell, they're trying to go for the action gamer market and sell a gazillion copies the way the big third person action franchises do, but by and large, those people aren't really the ones who are interested in JRPGs. And in the process of *trying* to appeal to that market, they alienate their core audience (most of which has walked away by this point).
Now, it's entirely possible that the JRPG core audience just isn't big enough to support the development of AAA titles, but I judging by their surprise at how well Bravely Default did in the states, I have a feeling they're vastly underestimating how many people would be interested in a more classic JRPG feel.
Xenosaga wasn't a remake, and it wasn't done by Squeenix. A true remake of the original (where they actually make a complete game, rather than running out of money 2/3 of the way through) would likely do a lot better.
I hate it when I use a web browser that doesn't have an ad blocker installed. I don't know how people put up with it. Browsing the web without ad blocking is a miserable experience.
This is absolutely true, and it's why I don't run ads on my site. No ad agencies that I'm aware of allow you to screen ads in advance, and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is, particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware. Also, accepting donations in return for not running ads has been more profitable than running ads ever was.
Having been working in the tech field as a developer for the last decade and a half, I can tell you that the parent comment is right on every point. If people are regularly insulting and demeaning where you work, then you work for a shit company.
The point I was trying to make is that as someone who is in favor of unions myself, we need to admit that unions do cause their share of problems. It's just you tend to get a worse set of problems without them.
You mean states that allow unions and companies the freedom to decide their own contracts without government intervention preventing them from doing so? Those states?
The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.
Found the Hawaiian. :)
In all seriousness, I agree. I went to Molokai for my honeymoon and I tried spam fried rice with soy and tabasco sauce (which, by the way, goes together a lot better than you would think), and it was excellent.
That being said, I would not be at all interested in eating a block of cold spam.
I don't understand where you're coming from. As I understand it, Galileo was excommunicated because his findings about the solar system weren't in line with church doctrine at the time and he refused to recant them. Am I wrong?
I have 7zip installed because it can extract RAR files and it isn't WinRAR.
It'll fail in some places and be highly beneficial in others.
I'm guessing it's going to be the worst in heavily-trafficked primary care offices, where there will be a very large variety of issues (particularly those in poorer areas, which see more patients for less money and the staff is spread very thin). It'll be a lot better in hospital wards and specialist offices, where there's more staff and they people are (generally) working with a much narrower set of codes.
This is false. My wife works at a hospital that switched over to ICD10 months ago, and their EMR (electronic medical records) program asks them questions and looks the code up for them if it's one they don't already know.
My wife is a nurse practitioner at a hospital and they're already switched over to ICD10. She tells me things are going relatively smoothly.
Also, the way they enter codes they don't already know is that that the computer asks them questions until it narrows down on the correct code. She doesn't go through gigantic binders, nor are there other people at her hospital that do. The additional overhead from it is minimal.
Mind you, I'm not calling the parent a liar. I'm sure there are some places out there that handle these codes very inefficiently, but using computers to aid with the process is clearly the way to go.
> No. Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science.
Galileo would like to have a word with you.
So basically it's just a ridiculous combination of codes and not an actual deliberate code that someone had to explicitly enter.