I think it is acceptable to use information from different sources to monitor recipients of services.
When people sign-up for a government provided service, there is likely to be a application filled out and an approval process. This approval process may include a credit check, a tax record check, a employment check, etc. I dont hear anyone complaining about privacy infringement during this process. That agency will likely want to monitor its recipient list periodically, rechecking those records and also checking against death certificates, marrage licences, vehicle regestration, property taxes, etc. Again I really dont see the problem, nor does anyone else!
So if a government service provider wants to request records from large non-government organizations in order to monitor the eligibility of those services, I'd say go for it!
The ability to provide or withhold a public service is not based solely on good-faith. The act of determining eligibility is not a form of law-enforcement. As long as it done without discrimination it is legal and in the best interest of the taxpayers who are funding the service.
On linkedin you can see real people.. not just random net accounts. These people list their current job on Linkedin. Someone could take their passwords, find out what company (or government agency) they work for, and download all their email. Sell this information to hedge fund managers and investment corporations or tabloids whatever. $$$ with no ???.
"And the environmentalists want environmentalists running the system, the banks want financial people running the system, large corporations want businessmen running they system, and so on and so on."
Thats kinda the point of promoting the insertion of science into politics. Many people blindingly follow whatever cult they subscribe to. -This goes for techies too as you can see that in flame wars and fan boys. Geeks are just as likely to argue based on moral or personal values. And they are often just as irrational.
There are some big obstacles to overcome in order for science to really make a dent into politics. The first of which is the populace. The majority of people are uneducated, and thanks to our traumatizing education system, unwilling to learn new things. And most people really hate being told they are wrong. Getting geeks elected will be very difficult.
Another issue is the science itself. This is especially true when there are 'studies' and 'models' involved. People know that models and studies can be warped to political goals. And that knowledge presents a certain level of distrust in all science. Scientific research needs to be LESS political and LESS motivated by profit. There are too many 'breakthrough' studies that cannot be repeated in scientific journals. And too much fake science in advertising. People think its all mumbo-jumbo.
I am often surprised by the intentional ignorance of people. Technology is ingrained in the US society. The actual details of how I can talk into a little box and have my voice transfered across the country to someone listening to another little box is like magic. People dont know 1% of how it actually works and even less of the math that goes into it, but they blindly trust it and accept it. But tell me that I shouldnt drive my Ford F150 because of greenhouse gasses or drink that vente caramel machiatto because its bad for my heart, and I will tell those skinny geeks where to stick it.
What do you think about a system of acheivements like in MMO's?
i thought this would be fun for our helpdesk, and it could be both individual and group based.
**Acheivement** : help desk has closed 10000 tickets!! **Acheivement** : newb teckie has closed his 10th ticket!
if you want to make it fun, then make it silly and random. if you want warm fuzzy teammwork, dont treat people like dirt. If you want to increase stats, promote an enabling environment. (try cutting out the useless work, listen to your employees)
"The same group of researchers conducted a similar study of the US health care system about 10 years ago, and the findings were quite the opposite of the 2012 Ontario-based study."
Using different studies that may have used different criteria and were 10 years apart is not a good way to compare health systems. Unless they were designed to compare the same metrics in the same period, this data should be taken with a grain of salt.
That said, i think it is good that this kind of comparative study is being discussed. Considering that a large part of our GDP is being spent on health care, either by insurance or taxes, we should definitely be looking at what works and what does not.
Unfortunately, in my opinion it is the national culture here in the US that drives the cost up. Examples: Primary physicians in the US are underpaid only in comparison to specialty physicians. They are paid more than primary care physicians in other countires and much more than the average citizen with equivalent education. Laws are structured to uphold patents and contracts that do not benefit the general populace. A substantial portion of the populace is happily inflicting diabetes, heart disease, and drug addiction (alcohol and tobacco, etc) upon themselves and anyone that tells them different are tree-hugging hippies. Doctors and executives are technophiles who will spend millions of dollars on the newest equipment.
Another vote for cryo-cell. We collected the cord blood from our first child and it has been in storage for 10 years. Cost is minimal compared to the possible benefits. Only $50 year for storage.
First off, think about how people use their phone as a camera.
1. The keep their phone in their pocket. 2. They whip it out holding it in the air and take the picture. 3. They post it on facebook.
OK now lets talk about a 43mp will look after this process. Or for that matter even a 5mp super-processed perfect picture.
1. Keeping the phone in a pocket or purse. The lens will invariably get covered in dust, fingerprints, and get scratched from cleaning with a t-shirt. This will take about 24 hours from the purchase of a phone to degrade the lens to a point where even a good 43mp imaging system will look like a carnival mirror.
2. They whip it out holding it in the air and take the picture. Hand-holding a camera invariably add some jitter to the image. You will have better luck in daylight but indoors or at night, its enough to degrade the image from slightly soft to psychedelic . Oh dont you wish the phone had a flash? Most dont because it drains the battery and adds bulk.
3. They post it on facebook. After you wait 10 minutes for your image to be uploaded over the wireless connection.. Guess what happens to your 43mp image or your super-sampled 5mp image? it gets resized to a puny half megapixel image.
The bonuses are not what is the problem, it is the bone-headed and short-sighted triggering requirements that cause the problem.
1 million dollar bonus = Increase profit by 10% in a fiscal year = layoffs = outsourcing = switching to inferior products = false advertising = product recalls next year = class action lawsuits = declining branding = 10 years slump in sales = bankrupcy = executive doesnt care cause he was already hired by another company and is now going to buy the first company's assets for a discounted rate
Lets have better requirements like "Increase the locally employed" or "increase transparency to investors" or "negotiate a better health plan" or "be honest for a year" or "dont suck"...
More people should cheat. It will promote change in the education system.
Education in the past half-century has been about: 1. taking random information someone else wrote and re-writing it. 2. memorizing shit for a few days long enough to pass a test. 3. following inane instructions
But we are at the point now that the body of human knowledge is so vast that general knowledge is not as important as focused in-depth knowledge. And we have such great tools for instant learning the need for memorization is depreciated even greater.
The strange thing is that even though we have gained so much knowlage, there are still vast numbers of ignorant people. it confounds me that people take for granted the intellegence that created their cell phone. Or put their trust into the technology that keeps a jumbo jet aloft. But when those same people say that the earth is getting warmer or that rocks are 4 billion years old, and suddenly they are subject to disbeleif as if they were arguing over how many dinosaurs could dance on the head of a pin.
There should be more of the following in education: Interpersonal relations (lets talk instead of gettin jerry springer on your ass) Self awareness (gee my glass seems full when im not watching bowflex ads) Community involvement (including economics and government) Creative solution development Deep and thorough understanding of a single subject
"making a small group of fans happy simply makes no economic sense compared to making games that sell"
Fans who want things changed often make ludacris suggestions and complain loudly about nit-picky things. But those suggestions stem from valid problems. Developers should concentrate the source of the problem rather than catering to whims.
"How do i fix this mechanic" should be replaced with "how do I make this game/character/event playable"
Also note that forum posters have no way to playtest an idea. So what sounds like a good idea could ultimately be exploitable in a way that breaks the game. That idea would then have to be nerfed and you would end up with a mechanic that is just as useless as what it was supposed to replace.
(Not that I hold a grudge about the way Blizzard was utterly clueless when it came to the Shaman class)
"What is also incredible is the fact that that media deliberately ignored studies that proved no connection at all between MMR and autism."
To a certain extent i understand why people tend to ignore contradictory studies. Especially if you take into account all the contray "studies" and "evidence" that get passed around for things like smoking, alcohol, climate change, etc.
When issues like this get politicized both sides just end up yelling louder without trying to make sense and the onlookers just go deaf.
"Obamas Bail out benifited mostly rich democrat bankers that made money by preying on Working class and the poor."
WTF!? How many times are we going to have to clarify this?
"Bailout is law President Bush signs historic $700 billion plan aimed at stemming credit crisis." http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309
"Obama: Stimulus lets Americans claim destiny President signs $787 billion program into law " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/
Um, your forgetting that Afghanistan and many similar countries where militant groups flourish are very poor.
They dont have enough money to build water and sewer systems. You cannot expect them to to have the same infrastructure of registration offices and weapons enforcement that the USA does.
If someone is shot in Afghanistan, there is no CSI team to match the bullet or take fingerprints. Lets go round up everyone who fits the description and you will end up with half the nation.
NATO had to adapt their military training for the Afghan army because there were no high-tech gadgets.
The militants in poor countries are often better armed and funded than the countries own police and army. Forget education and hospitals, most people would just be happy if the police had more guns than the local thugs.
Something else you have to consider is the fear factor itself. Anyone can wear a hood and extort money to buy or steal weapons. The fact that groups really have carried out hijacks and bombs and kidnappings adds validity to the fear. So even if you clear all the terrorists from an area, whats to stop cousin Hassan from trading his goat for an AK-47 and calling himself Taliban?
Campaign promises may be popular but at best are short-sighted and at worst outright lies. No one would vote for a candidate that campaigns on the premise of making those hard long-term decisions.
"Humans in general and managers in particular are famously bad at correctly estimating the factors of low-probability/high-impact risks. Not always in the same direction - we vastly overestimate the risk of some stuff, and vastly underestimate others. "
This is also true of politicians and I see many political issues that seem vastly over-hyped or under-valued.
Or because the average user is running around the Internet looking for instant gratification and simply won't learn about security. You might as well try to teach a clown with a condom on his nose.
The average user should not need the skills of a hacker to surf the net. That expectation is unrealistic and downright unfair. You cannot expect the average person to be able to protect themselves from all the intelligent, creative, and motivated hackers.
Also consider what a pain it is to filter with all the 3rd-party tools that web designers have to use on a site. Just look at your cookies and all the external sites a web page connects to. You could allow all, or block all, or decide on each one, or use some addon that decides for you. None of these options are a perfect solution.
Another example.. 'Windows has detected a virus. Would you like to download and install the repair tool? Yes / No '..How on earth would the average user know if this pop-up was real or fake?
You simply cannot blame people if they are ignorant of internet security. And it it not just hackers they need to protect themselves from. Corporations just want to squeeze every cent they can from content. So they sell ad space, your browsing history, your contact information, your sex quiz results, etc.
But this is the world we live in. Users want content and don't want to pay. Content owners want to be paid for providing a service, so they have to use an ancillary market.
Slashdot Mirror
"Keeping the source closed might mean they have some secret tricks"
-More likely its just plain ugly and they are ashamed of it.
I think it is acceptable to use information from different sources to monitor recipients of services.
When people sign-up for a government provided service, there is likely to be a application filled out and an approval process.
This approval process may include a credit check, a tax record check, a employment check, etc. I dont hear anyone complaining about privacy infringement during this process. That agency will likely want to monitor its recipient list periodically, rechecking those records and also checking against death certificates, marrage licences, vehicle regestration, property taxes, etc. Again I really dont see the problem, nor does anyone else!
So if a government service provider wants to request records from large non-government organizations in order to monitor the eligibility of those services, I'd say go for it!
The ability to provide or withhold a public service is not based solely on good-faith. The act of determining eligibility is not a form of law-enforcement. As long as it done without discrimination it is legal and in the best interest of the taxpayers who are funding the service.
On linkedin you can see real people.. not just random net accounts. These people list their current job on Linkedin.
Someone could take their passwords, find out what company (or government agency) they work for, and download all their email.
Sell this information to hedge fund managers and investment corporations or tabloids whatever.
$$$ with no ???.
Couldnt a black hole just consume all the stars in its galaxie to end up a loaner?
"And the environmentalists want environmentalists running the system, the banks want financial people running the system, large corporations want businessmen running they system, and so on and so on."
Thats kinda the point of promoting the insertion of science into politics. Many people blindingly follow whatever cult they subscribe to. -This goes for techies too as you can see that in flame wars and fan boys. Geeks are just as likely to argue based on moral or personal values. And they are often just as irrational.
There are some big obstacles to overcome in order for science to really make a dent into politics. The first of which is the populace. The majority of people are uneducated, and thanks to our traumatizing education system, unwilling to learn new things. And most people really hate being told they are wrong. Getting geeks elected will be very difficult.
Another issue is the science itself. This is especially true when there are 'studies' and 'models' involved. People know that models and studies can be warped to political goals. And that knowledge presents a certain level of distrust in all science. Scientific research needs to be LESS political and LESS motivated by profit. There are too many 'breakthrough' studies that cannot be repeated in scientific journals. And too much fake science in advertising. People think its all mumbo-jumbo.
I am often surprised by the intentional ignorance of people. Technology is ingrained in the US society. The actual details of how I can talk into a little box and have my voice transfered across the country to someone listening to another little box is like magic. People dont know 1% of how it actually works and even less of the math that goes into it, but they blindly trust it and accept it. But tell me that I shouldnt drive my Ford F150 because of greenhouse gasses or drink that vente caramel machiatto because its bad for my heart, and I will tell those skinny geeks where to stick it.
Question: what happens to the unspent campaign contributions?
What do you think about a system of acheivements like in MMO's?
i thought this would be fun for our helpdesk, and it could be both individual and group based.
**Acheivement** : help desk has closed 10000 tickets!!
**Acheivement** : newb teckie has closed his 10th ticket!
if you want to make it fun, then make it silly and random.
if you want warm fuzzy teammwork, dont treat people like dirt.
If you want to increase stats, promote an enabling environment. (try cutting out the useless work, listen to your employees)
"The same group of researchers conducted a similar study of the US health care system about 10 years ago, and the findings were quite the opposite of the 2012 Ontario-based study."
Using different studies that may have used different criteria and were 10 years apart is not a good way to compare health systems. Unless they were designed to compare the same metrics in the same period, this data should be taken with a grain of salt.
That said, i think it is good that this kind of comparative study is being discussed. Considering that a large part of our GDP is being spent on health care, either by insurance or taxes, we should definitely be looking at what works and what does not.
Unfortunately, in my opinion it is the national culture here in the US that drives the cost up. Examples:
Primary physicians in the US are underpaid only in comparison to specialty physicians. They are paid more than primary care physicians in other countires and much more than the average citizen with equivalent education.
Laws are structured to uphold patents and contracts that do not benefit the general populace.
A substantial portion of the populace is happily inflicting diabetes, heart disease, and drug addiction (alcohol and tobacco, etc) upon themselves and anyone that tells them different are tree-hugging hippies.
Doctors and executives are technophiles who will spend millions of dollars on the newest equipment.
Another vote for cryo-cell. We collected the cord blood from our first child and it has been in storage for 10 years.
Cost is minimal compared to the possible benefits. Only $50 year for storage.
Hey powering a trip to Mars is easy!
All you need is methane derived by the inconceivable amounty of bullsh*! produced by Elon Musk.
10-15 years... Really!?
First off, think about how people use their phone as a camera.
1. The keep their phone in their pocket.
2. They whip it out holding it in the air and take the picture.
3. They post it on facebook.
OK now lets talk about a 43mp will look after this process. Or for that matter even a 5mp super-processed perfect picture.
1. Keeping the phone in a pocket or purse.
The lens will invariably get covered in dust, fingerprints, and get scratched from cleaning with a t-shirt. This will take about 24 hours from the purchase of a phone to degrade the lens to a point where even a good 43mp imaging system will look like a carnival mirror.
2. They whip it out holding it in the air and take the picture.
Hand-holding a camera invariably add some jitter to the image. You will have better luck in daylight but indoors or at night, its enough to degrade the image from slightly soft to psychedelic . Oh dont you wish the phone had a flash? Most dont because it drains the battery and adds bulk.
3. They post it on facebook.
After you wait 10 minutes for your image to be uploaded over the wireless connection.. Guess what happens to your 43mp image or your super-sampled 5mp image? it gets resized to a puny half megapixel image.
Enjoy!
The bonuses are not what is the problem, it is the bone-headed and short-sighted triggering requirements that cause the problem.
1 million dollar bonus = Increase profit by 10% in a fiscal year = layoffs = outsourcing = switching to inferior products = false advertising = product recalls next year = class action lawsuits = declining branding = 10 years slump in sales = bankrupcy = executive doesnt care cause he was already hired by another company and is now going to buy the first company's assets for a discounted rate
Lets have better requirements like "Increase the locally employed" or "increase transparency to investors" or "negotiate a better health plan" or "be honest for a year" or "dont suck" ...
More people should cheat. It will promote change in the education system.
Education in the past half-century has been about:
1. taking random information someone else wrote and re-writing it.
2. memorizing shit for a few days long enough to pass a test.
3. following inane instructions
But we are at the point now that the body of human knowledge is so vast that general knowledge is not as important as focused in-depth knowledge. And we have such great tools for instant learning the need for memorization is depreciated even greater.
The strange thing is that even though we have gained so much knowlage, there are still vast numbers of ignorant people.
it confounds me that people take for granted the intellegence that created their cell phone. Or put their trust into the technology that keeps a jumbo jet aloft. But when those same people say that the earth is getting warmer or that rocks are 4 billion years old, and suddenly they are subject to disbeleif as if they were arguing over how many dinosaurs could dance on the head of a pin.
There should be more of the following in education:
Interpersonal relations (lets talk instead of gettin jerry springer on your ass)
Self awareness (gee my glass seems full when im not watching bowflex ads)
Community involvement (including economics and government)
Creative solution development
Deep and thorough understanding of a single subject
"making a small group of fans happy simply makes no economic sense compared to making games that sell" Fans who want things changed often make ludacris suggestions and complain loudly about nit-picky things. But those suggestions stem from valid problems. Developers should concentrate the source of the problem rather than catering to whims. "How do i fix this mechanic" should be replaced with "how do I make this game/character/event playable"
Also note that forum posters have no way to playtest an idea. So what sounds like a good idea could ultimately be exploitable in a way that breaks the game. That idea would then have to be nerfed and you would end up with a mechanic that is just as useless as what it was supposed to replace. (Not that I hold a grudge about the way Blizzard was utterly clueless when it came to the Shaman class)
"What is also incredible is the fact that that media deliberately ignored studies that proved no connection at all between MMR and autism."
To a certain extent i understand why people tend to ignore contradictory studies. Especially if you take into account all the contray "studies" and "evidence" that get passed around for things like smoking, alcohol, climate change, etc.
When issues like this get politicized both sides just end up yelling louder without trying to make sense and the onlookers just go deaf.
heres the direct link to the FDA page on Thimerosol:
"Obamas Bail out benifited mostly rich democrat bankers that made money by preying on Working class and the poor."
WTF!? How many times are we going to have to clarify this?
"Bailout is law
President Bush signs historic $700 billion plan aimed at stemming credit crisis."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309
"Obama: Stimulus lets Americans claim destiny
President signs $787 billion program into law "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/
Um, your forgetting that Afghanistan and many similar countries where militant groups flourish are very poor.
They dont have enough money to build water and sewer systems. You cannot expect them to to have the same infrastructure of registration offices and weapons enforcement that the USA does.
If someone is shot in Afghanistan, there is no CSI team to match the bullet or take fingerprints. Lets go round up everyone who fits the description and you will end up with half the nation.
NATO had to adapt their military training for the Afghan army because there were no high-tech gadgets.
The militants in poor countries are often better armed and funded than the countries own police and army. Forget education and hospitals, most people would just be happy if the police had more guns than the local thugs.
Something else you have to consider is the fear factor itself. Anyone can wear a hood and extort money to buy or steal weapons. The fact that groups really have carried out hijacks and bombs and kidnappings adds validity to the fear. So even if you clear all the terrorists from an area, whats to stop cousin Hassan from trading his goat for an AK-47 and calling himself Taliban?
Funny, I see the same pattern in politicians.
Campaign promises may be popular but at best are short-sighted and at worst outright lies. No one would vote for a candidate that campaigns on the premise of making those hard long-term decisions.
"Humans in general and managers in particular are famously bad at correctly estimating the factors of low-probability/high-impact risks. Not always in the same direction - we vastly overestimate the risk of some stuff, and vastly underestimate others. "
This is also true of politicians and I see many political issues that seem vastly over-hyped or under-valued.
Or because the average user is running around the Internet looking for instant gratification and simply won't learn about security. You might as well try to teach a clown with a condom on his nose.
The average user should not need the skills of a hacker to surf the net.
That expectation is unrealistic and downright unfair.
You cannot expect the average person to be able to protect themselves from all the intelligent, creative, and motivated hackers.
Also consider what a pain it is to filter with all the 3rd-party tools that web designers have to use on a site. Just look at your cookies and all the external sites a web page connects to. You could allow all, or block all, or decide on each one, or use some addon that decides for you. None of these options are a perfect solution.
Another example.. 'Windows has detected a virus. Would you like to download and install the repair tool? Yes / No ' ..How on earth would the average user know if this pop-up was real or fake?
You simply cannot blame people if they are ignorant of internet security. And it it not just hackers they need to protect themselves from. Corporations just want to squeeze every cent they can from content. So they sell ad space, your browsing history, your contact information, your sex quiz results, etc.
But this is the world we live in. Users want content and don't want to pay. Content owners want to be paid for providing a service, so they have to use an ancillary market.
I'd heard that Visual C# killed Rakudo Star.
/facepalm
Speaking of dial-up..
Remeber how modems were getting better and better?
Then they all stopped at 56k.
Wasnt there a law or regulation passed at one time limiting the speed of modems to 56k?
What if that had never gone into effect. Would modem engeneers have been able to keep up with cable internet providers?
Funny, I always loose to my girlfriend in chess because she /does/ show me her pieces.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the fucking oil.
I could certainly use some fucking oil to get lubed up.