It's ironic that Slashdotters, who railed at managers who didn't appreciate their hard work fixing the "Y2K disaster that wasn't", are on the other side here.
It's better to prevent a catastrophe than to fix one. And because a catastrophe didn't occur may mean the preventive measures were effective.
From the numbers and trends before availability of the vaccines, this was looking to be a major health issue. *Healthy* *young* people were dying and H1N1 was active during normally dormant periods.
Record levels of vaccination, especially of school children, and the fortunate displacement of seasonal flu very likely helped make this a health policy success.
Despite this full on assault (or defense), people are still dying of H1N1....I haven't seen whooping cough and rubella around for a while, maybe I'll have my child skip that vaccination too...ahem
I agree with the DHS comment too...but that's offtopic
Collective punishment is meted out all the time by some of the most honorable people we know: the American People.
We put economic sanctions on Iraq because their leader had a big ego, hurting millions because 1 guy is an idiot. Similar things in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.
We use drones to target terrorists, killing innocent people as 'collateral damage'.
We even do this to ourselves. Some guy from the UK tries to set off a bomb in his shoe on an airplane, so every air passenger now has to remove their shoes for scanning. 8 years later, how much time, energy, and money has been wasted on this sham security measure?
Now that some guy hides a bomb in his underwear, we all have to get our underwear scanned. So what happens when some guy puts a stick of dynamite up his ass?
So although I don't necessarily believe in blacklisting Nigeria, as an economic sanction, it's not a totally unreasonable approach.
It doesn't even approach the economic damage that the stupid American masses incur on ourselves through sham airport security measures of all kinds (how much does just the TSA cost us?).
Because Sony has serious money and may have less of an argument that any requested accommodations are beyond their resources. Also, Sony is less likely to go bankrupt from the suit than a smaller developer/producer so will not receive sympathy.
Why not all the video game manufacturers?
That's next. They need to create a precedent first.
It's just a matter of time before the lawyer tries to turn this into a class action so the monetary awards increase.
If the bullets were designed to defeat police body armor.. the intended purpose of the bullets would be clear. Unless they were purchased by the police, with the intention of using it against other armored citizens.
You put the counter-argument right in your response:
What if they were purchased by NON-police intending to use them against other armored citizens.
Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.
You almost made sense... You are either guilty or not-guilty *of the charges*.
Being charged with something "over the level of the crime" does not make them guilty. They are technically "not guilty" of the charges. They are guilty of something else and should be acquitted of the charges at hand.
So another way of saying it is:'They are still guilty, just they deserve a CHARGE that fits the crime better"
It's a classic fallacy: someone else should do this so that I don't have to worry about that.
In this case, you're saying the driver is responsible for not steamrolling people, therefore they shouldn't be forced to warn pedestrians of their presence.
But it's not an either/or situation. It can be the driver's responsibility, but given that there exists irresponsible drivers, it's probably a good idea to give pedestrians additional cues so that they can avoid risky situations.
It reminds of the students in college towns who step out in front of moving traffic because the law says drivers must stop for pedestrians. Sure, it's the responsibility of the drivers to see that you're in the crosswalk and stop. But there are a lot of distracted drivers out there. Playing chicken with them just doesn't seem worth the thrill.
The only (non-pedantic) difference is the customer (doctor/lawyer) can make the service provider sign an agreement that forces them to follow appropriate privacy laws (HIPAA) or take steps to ensure privacy. This agreement can then provide legal recourse if something goes wrong.
Generally, Google will not sign a strict privacy agreement with your medium sized business. Technical issues aside, they have a lot more money to go after and an infinite number of lawyers willing to sue them for part/all of the spoils.
If they wanna do it, they gotta get a lawyer--a lawyer who knows HIPAA. HIPAA compliance is a pain--and noncompliance can be very expensive.
Lawyer costs may even outweigh the Google savings
Really?
As far as I know, NO ONE HAS SUCCESFULLY SUED FOR HIPAA VIOLATIONS. (Of course, I do hope someone Googles me wrong)
When you go to the doctor, you sign a waiver that pretty much waives all your privacy rights. Doctors and other medical providers/institutions have to protect your information. Sure. But they are allowed to send your information to third parties to help "manage your health" or "process billing" or "collect payments" or all sorts of things.
These third parties ARE NOT REQUIRED to follow HIPAA, as they are considered non-covered entities. This means once your info goes to billing for processing, your privacy is based on contracts with your provider and social embarrassment.
Even if you didn't waive your rights, how exactly do you prove that (1) your information was negligently released (2) it was your health care provider who did it and (3) you were damaged in some way.
That's a lot of hoops to go through to prove your case, and probably not worth hiring a lawyer (or rather, not worth a lawyer's time to take your case on commission).
I always laugh when I hear about the dreaded HIPAA requirements. And think of origami tigers.
Remember that email is unencrypted and is sent through random routers across the internet. Someone sniffing at an intermediate router can intercept your communications. So you should not send sensitive material via email.
Some argue that it's unlikely someone can get all of your email, citing the needle/haystack argument. This is true, but the router risk is highest at your facility and the recipient's facility, where it would be much easier to sort.
The greatest risk, though, is whoever is running the recipient's mail system, be it google, yahoo, microsoft, or some minimum wage IT guy.
And don't forget, if you're an AT&T customer on the west coast, the NSA has a room sniffing/storing EVERY PACKET going through AT&T's data center. So it's pretty much guaranteed that at least they see your emails.
So logically speaking, if you don't encrypt your email and use email for communication, then Google Apps is fine for similar information storage.
I agree with all the above points, but I think there is an advantage for Costco that is often overlooked:
Higher pay means Costco can recruit and hire better employees in the first place. They've already been selected for their quality. So once they're on the job, all the above points are true (higher pay means higher motivation). But they already had a head start.
I mean still fascinating to look at but think thats about it.
I guess that answers my question
I'd say you answered your own question. Why is it fascinating? Anything that's fascinating to look at is prime breeding ground for people who enjoy taking very close looks at fascinating things.
Some people find tracking cause and effects in history fascinating.
In the technology business, the guy with the money buys up the talent to kill his competition.
It's the same in any business. This is good for employees ("Workers" if you're anti-socialist).
Google headed down that path. Yahoo! said "what up with do no evil beothes?".
So, folks made a pact of sorts not to do it.
Good for Yahoo, bad for Yahoo employees. It's also bad for Yahoo because they can't hire away Google expertise to help them catch up to Google.
In general, it's all bad because it keeps the status quo instead of allowing active competition for people and the free exchange of ideas to move from one company to another.
The free exchange of ideas is what would level the playing field and help other companies catch up to the leader.
This agreement negatively affects employees because they are not made aware of opportunities for 20% pay raises or other benefits from a large group of major companies. This artificially keeps wages and benefits low for people in the colluding companies.
The very common scenario would be: someone is quite happy working at Google developing AJAX and is not actively looking to switch jobs but does have their resume on job boards. Yahoo wants to find an AJAX expert and is willing to pay 50% more for the expertise to catch up with Google quickly.
Yahoo is unable to contact this expert.
This pretty clearly hurts the employee.
Yes, the employee could troll the job boards, but why do you want to force the employee to do the work when head hunters are paid to find them? I bet you're a Republican.
This agreement negatively affects employees because they are not made aware of opportunities for 20% pay raises or other benefits from a large group of major companies. This artificially keeps wages and benefits low for people in the colluding companies.
The very common scenario would be: someone is quite happy working at Google developing AJAX and is not actively looking to switch jobs but does have their resume on job boards. Yahoo wants to find an AJAX expert and is willing to pay 50% more for the expertise to catch up with Google quickly.
Yahoo is unable to contact this expert.
This pretty clearly hurts the employee.
Yes, the employee could troll the job boards, but why do you want to force the employee to do the work when head hunters are paid to find them? I bet you're a Republican.
Slashdot Mirror
Google should also check where all their laptops were manufactured. And make sure each BIOS is clean.
It's ironic that Slashdotters, who railed at managers who didn't appreciate their hard work fixing the "Y2K disaster that wasn't", are on the other side here.
It's better to prevent a catastrophe than to fix one. And because a catastrophe didn't occur may mean the preventive measures were effective.
From the numbers and trends before availability of the vaccines, this was looking to be a major health issue. *Healthy* *young* people were dying and H1N1 was active during normally dormant periods.
Record levels of vaccination, especially of school children, and the fortunate displacement of seasonal flu very likely helped make this a health policy success.
Despite this full on assault (or defense), people are still dying of H1N1. ...I haven't seen whooping cough and rubella around for a while, maybe I'll have my child skip that vaccination too...ahem
I agree with the DHS comment too...but that's offtopic
Collective punishment is meted out all the time by some of the most honorable people we know: the American People.
We put economic sanctions on Iraq because their leader had a big ego, hurting millions because 1 guy is an idiot. Similar things in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.
We use drones to target terrorists, killing innocent people as 'collateral damage'.
We even do this to ourselves. Some guy from the UK tries to set off a bomb in his shoe on an airplane, so every air passenger now has to remove their shoes for scanning. 8 years later, how much time, energy, and money has been wasted on this sham security measure?
Now that some guy hides a bomb in his underwear, we all have to get our underwear scanned. So what happens when some guy puts a stick of dynamite up his ass?
So although I don't necessarily believe in blacklisting Nigeria, as an economic sanction, it's not a totally unreasonable approach.
It doesn't even approach the economic damage that the stupid American masses incur on ourselves through sham airport security measures of all kinds (how much does just the TSA cost us?).
And we just keep taking it.
Rhetorical? I'll bite...
Because Sony has serious money and may have less of an argument that any requested accommodations are beyond their resources. Also, Sony is less likely to go bankrupt from the suit than a smaller developer/producer so will not receive sympathy.
Why not all the video game manufacturers?
That's next. They need to create a precedent first.
It's just a matter of time before the lawyer tries to turn this into a class action so the monetary awards increase.
If the bullets were designed to defeat police body armor.. the intended purpose of the bullets would be clear. Unless they were purchased by the police, with the intention of using it against other armored citizens.
You put the counter-argument right in your response:
What if they were purchased by NON-police intending to use them against other armored citizens.
Not so clear now.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.
You almost made sense... You are either guilty or not-guilty *of the charges*.
Being charged with something "over the level of the crime" does not make them guilty. They are technically "not guilty" of the charges. They are guilty of something else and should be acquitted of the charges at hand.
So another way of saying it is:'They are still guilty, just they deserve a CHARGE that fits the crime better"
I get the feeling I'm being pedantic.
Capitalism? Copyright is a form of government regulation on what would otherwise be a free market. It would be more capitalist to abolish copyright.
What's not capitalist about it? It's treating ideas and expression as a form of capital. It would be very un-capitalist not to exploit that for gain.
He's saying Copyright is not a feature of Free Markets. He's just confusing Capitalism with Free Markets, and they don't require each other.
Now, vi vs. emacs is a legitimate jihad. ((vi is better))
Sure, that's because you haven't figured out elisp. It should be
(setq vi better)
or
(setq is-vi-better (better vi emacs))
It's a classic fallacy: someone else should do this so that I don't have to worry about that.
In this case, you're saying the driver is responsible for not steamrolling people, therefore they shouldn't be forced to warn pedestrians of their presence.
But it's not an either/or situation. It can be the driver's responsibility, but given that there exists irresponsible drivers, it's probably a good idea to give pedestrians additional cues so that they can avoid risky situations.
It reminds of the students in college towns who step out in front of moving traffic because the law says drivers must stop for pedestrians. Sure, it's the responsibility of the drivers to see that you're in the crosswalk and stop. But there are a lot of distracted drivers out there. Playing chicken with them just doesn't seem worth the thrill.
The same person could have dropped the entire project onto their iPod and carried it out the door, but did not.
Or so you think.
If this upsets you, then stop just whining on slashdot. No one here can do a damn thing about it.
Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and contact everyone who represents you and get something done.
There is NO BETTER TIME THAN NOW to get changes to the way medicine is monetized in America.
The only (non-pedantic) difference is the customer (doctor/lawyer) can make the service provider sign an agreement that forces them to follow appropriate privacy laws (HIPAA) or take steps to ensure privacy. This agreement can then provide legal recourse if something goes wrong.
Generally, Google will not sign a strict privacy agreement with your medium sized business. Technical issues aside, they have a lot more money to go after and an infinite number of lawyers willing to sue them for part/all of the spoils.
If they wanna do it, they gotta get a lawyer--a lawyer who knows HIPAA. HIPAA compliance is a pain--and noncompliance can be very expensive.
Lawyer costs may even outweigh the Google savings
Really?
As far as I know, NO ONE HAS SUCCESFULLY SUED FOR HIPAA VIOLATIONS. (Of course, I do hope someone Googles me wrong)
When you go to the doctor, you sign a waiver that pretty much waives all your privacy rights. Doctors and other medical providers/institutions have to protect your information. Sure. But they are allowed to send your information to third parties to help "manage your health" or "process billing" or "collect payments" or all sorts of things.
These third parties ARE NOT REQUIRED to follow HIPAA, as they are considered non-covered entities. This means once your info goes to billing for processing, your privacy is based on contracts with your provider and social embarrassment.
Even if you didn't waive your rights, how exactly do you prove that (1) your information was negligently released (2) it was your health care provider who did it and (3) you were damaged in some way.
That's a lot of hoops to go through to prove your case, and probably not worth hiring a lawyer (or rather, not worth a lawyer's time to take your case on commission).
I always laugh when I hear about the dreaded HIPAA requirements. And think of origami tigers.
To expand a little:
Remember that email is unencrypted and is sent through random routers across the internet. Someone sniffing at an intermediate router can intercept your communications. So you should not send sensitive material via email.
Some argue that it's unlikely someone can get all of your email, citing the needle/haystack argument. This is true, but the router risk is highest at your facility and the recipient's facility, where it would be much easier to sort.
The greatest risk, though, is whoever is running the recipient's mail system, be it google, yahoo, microsoft, or some minimum wage IT guy.
And don't forget, if you're an AT&T customer on the west coast, the NSA has a room sniffing/storing EVERY PACKET going through AT&T's data center. So it's pretty much guaranteed that at least they see your emails.
So logically speaking, if you don't encrypt your email and use email for communication, then Google Apps is fine for similar information storage.
Where's the +5 Ironic?
I agree with all the above points, but I think there is an advantage for Costco that is often overlooked:
Higher pay means Costco can recruit and hire better employees in the first place. They've already been selected for their quality. So once they're on the job, all the above points are true (higher pay means higher motivation). But they already had a head start.
I mean still fascinating to look at but think thats about it.
I guess that answers my question
I'd say you answered your own question. Why is it fascinating? Anything that's fascinating to look at is prime breeding ground for people who enjoy taking very close looks at fascinating things.
Some people find tracking cause and effects in history fascinating.
I find Carmen Kass fascinating.
I'm sure I've read it somewhere, but I have forgotten:
Is downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission illegal? Or is it just the distribution without permission that is illegal?
Or both?
I don't recall any instances where they went after someone who just downloaded songs.
You can abstract it some more, and say that the ability to affect the written rules with money (power, sex) are also part of "The Rules".
It's all the same game.
Computer science principles in action: Time vs Work trade-off.
Totally worth $96,000 of tuition and 4 years of finding myself.
that that court is biased too.
So someone needs to investigate on them.
Sometimes, when everyone is biased against you, they just might be right.
In the technology business, the guy with the money buys up the talent to kill his competition.
It's the same in any business. This is good for employees ("Workers" if you're anti-socialist).
Google headed down that path. Yahoo! said "what up with do no evil beothes?". So, folks made a pact of sorts not to do it.
Good for Yahoo, bad for Yahoo employees. It's also bad for Yahoo because they can't hire away Google expertise to help them catch up to Google.
In general, it's all bad because it keeps the status quo instead of allowing active competition for people and the free exchange of ideas to move from one company to another.
The free exchange of ideas is what would level the playing field and help other companies catch up to the leader.
This agreement negatively affects employees because they are not made aware of opportunities for 20% pay raises or other benefits from a large group of major companies. This artificially keeps wages and benefits low for people in the colluding companies.
The very common scenario would be: someone is quite happy working at Google developing AJAX and is not actively looking to switch jobs but does have their resume on job boards. Yahoo wants to find an AJAX expert and is willing to pay 50% more for the expertise to catch up with Google quickly.
Yahoo is unable to contact this expert.
This pretty clearly hurts the employee.
Yes, the employee could troll the job boards, but why do you want to force the employee to do the work when head hunters are paid to find them? I bet you're a Republican.
This agreement negatively affects employees because they are not made aware of opportunities for 20% pay raises or other benefits from a large group of major companies. This artificially keeps wages and benefits low for people in the colluding companies.
The very common scenario would be: someone is quite happy working at Google developing AJAX and is not actively looking to switch jobs but does have their resume on job boards. Yahoo wants to find an AJAX expert and is willing to pay 50% more for the expertise to catch up with Google quickly.
Yahoo is unable to contact this expert.
This pretty clearly hurts the employee.
Yes, the employee could troll the job boards, but why do you want to force the employee to do the work when head hunters are paid to find them? I bet you're a Republican.
The actual quote is: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." Source is either Yogi Berra or Chuck Reid.
How do you know it's a misquote if you don't even know who said it?