Your post is incorrect. It was very long ago, but it truly was that high before. And that would make sense, wouldn't it? That fossil carbon didn't get planted there at Creation by God. It was fixed by plants from the atmosphere, and in the calcified bones of sea animals.
The helpful staff and their urgency to sell those stupid warranties are the main things that keep me away from Best Buy unless I really have to have something today. The last time was when I was looking for the Tranformer TF101 on launch day. I knew if I didn't find it I was going to have to wait a long time. The sales guy wanted to chat me up on the tablets - and flat lied to me about the capabilities of the HP Touchpad, trying to push that product. Anyway they did have the Acer Iconia tab, and I nearly bought that instead - but being lied to really ticked me off and I drove 40 miles to Fry's instead and found the Transformer in stock.
I've personally been turned away. Many years ago I had an impacted molar, and it was deeply infected to the point that my face looked like I had a huge gumball in it. This is a life-threatening condition. I went to the emergency room, and got treated: they gave me a handful of antibiotics and told me to find a dentist when the swelling went down. But there was no dentist who would see me without insurance, and of course it got re-infected over and again because these things just don't get better on their own. Over the next few years I was turned away hundreds of times by doctors and dentists. A few years later I finally found a free clinic that would treat me - but I had to camp out in their office and refuse to leave until they got it done. As you might imagine it was an intensely painful and dangerous episode in my life, and left me debilitated and barely able to function the entire time. The pain was so bad I tried to pull it out myself - a distinctly dangerous proposition but one I failed at. Once that tooth was pulled, things picked right up. I got bills for that emergency room visit for seven years ($15600 for a handful of Erythromycin, I believe), but this was during my "impoverished" period and I never paid it.
I'm doing much better now. But I will never again take the American healtcare situation lightly. And I will never let someone say that "in America if you're poor you can get treated for free" and let it go by - because I've been there, and it ain't so.
I'm rather hoping we'll find a way to fix this broken system than we have to scrap it for something new, but I'm with you on the sentiment. Unfortunately here the cure is often worse than the disease.
Second reply, sorry. That first reply isn't going to get 'er done. Your post presents certain ethical questions that are at the crux of lawyers and the law. No matter how depraved he is, under our system even Josh Powell deserves representation even unto parental visitation. Even if the children recall that he put their mother into the trunk and returned without her. And if that fair protection of his parental rights results in him hatcheting their skulls and immolating them, that's just due process of law.
You're a lawyer now, but you were a human once. Try.
That's an interesting question. The answer is: It's none of your fracking business. You signed away these rights to get your loyalty card discount and who they sell your data to is their own concern, not yours. At this point it's just a metric boatload of data. Whether or not you religiously buy a half-rack of pounders every Friday night is a bit of a brick with a value sold to the highest bidder. If you cared about what they did with it, you should have halted at "do you want a loyalty card?"
If I were an amoral man and I sold Girl Scout Cookies, I could think of no better legal environment than that ordinary citizens were compelled by law to buy my cookies.
Jon, I've got a great deal of respect for your/. persona. You seem always reasonable even when I don't agree with you, and you've swayed me often. But here I think you've missed the general thrust. We're on a very subtle topic. The issue isn't "Insurance good/bad" or something that gross. It's about whether the pursuit of use of intelligence to understand the risks of a particular customer of insurance is a good thing, and the limits of that pursuit. That's a cloudy issue you seldom weigh in on, but I'm interested in your input if you will engage the question.
"After" is a really stretchy word. It might mean "immediately after briefly" and it might not. Its duration is uncertain too. For all we know he's counsel to Senator Leahy still and that would not break the statement. What "After" says is that he didn't counsel the Senator before he graduated law school - which normally would be a given, since being at counsel to a Senator would normally presume passing the Bar.
I'm Symbolset and words (symbols) are my stock in trade. Words mean things. They also sometimes don't mean things you think they do, and that's not the words' fault but yours. The difference between the hard definition and the presumption or common understanding is the Devil's workspace and it's a busy place with a lot of people working it these days. I think you're among them, Mr. AC.
When this lawyer who is attacking Google last had a counsel relationship with Senator Leahy is a valid question. We know the relationship exists, but not how recent it is. So Let's ask it.
Insurance is a business and the more they can cut outlays to premiums the more profits they make. I'd rather they more closely aligned risks with claims than they just denied fair claims, which saves mone on the other side. In case I didn't make this clear: I'm OK with insurance companies making money off me, even if they turn a profit because I have low risk. I'm paying over a thousand dollars a month for medical insurance, and using about $500 worth a year for my family - with no pre-existing conditions or reoccurring need for medical care. And to me it's money well spent because in America today you can't get treated if you don't have insurance. Almost everybody gets sick now and then, kids break their arms or legs or whatnot, and to take them to the emergency room without insurance would cost me my house.
Ten of my coworkers and I could pool our contributions together and BUY a doctor and all his gear - and he'd work six days a year, but that's a whole other issue. We're talking about insurance now.
You can't deny that the closer to fact they gauge the risk, the more they diminish the "uncertainty" that motivates the buyer of their product. Defending against the slings and arrows of uncertain fortune is their value-add.
My point was that the more uncertainties they remove the less value they add. It's diminishing returns. When they've removed all uncertainy, we may as well pay cash, or if we haven't got the cash - use a Las Vegas bookie who gives better odds.
You have no idea. I'm an IT pro. With your loyalty card data I can tell how many kids you have and how well you feed them, whether you're sometimes or often broke, how often you take a shit. I might be able to tell not only your religion, but your adherence to its dietary restrictions. I can gauge your propensity for alcoholism or diabetes. All of this specifically linked to you as an individual. And you've given me permission to sell that data.
If you can't draw a straight line from this one thing to this other similar thing, you're an idiot. It's the same venue, the same domain, the same space. The question is whether he's driving the Senator, or whether the Senator is driving him. My bet is the former.
Insurance is a bet against the house. It's always a losing proposition net, or insurance wouldn't be a business. The house always wins. They engage people called actuaries, who are quite skilled in evaluating risk.
Insurance can still be a great deal. I can't afford to replace my car or house this month, so I pay these people a fraction of these things' worth to insure that if something bad happens I can still do the needful thing. To average my risk across the similarly situated costs money, and it's well earned - and the profit too.
But the more narrowly the insurance company focuses on the exact risk I have, the closer they get to offering no value, because I might as well carry the risk myself.
Regrettably, no. People sell their privacy astonishingly cheap. It amazes me when I go to the store and they expect me to carry a "loyalty card" for a minor discount. But apparently some of you do it, or they would not ask.
Interesting. Marc Rotenberg, President and Executive Director of EPIC served as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee to PIPA sponsor Patrick Leahy. The very same unconstitutional PIPA that Google just protested against and helped get shut down with your help and mine.
I don't know about you, but a lawyer at counsel who could advise the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he could get away with sponsoring a bill that violates not one, but at least two of our human rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to suit a tiny minority commercial interest might be a wee bit biased.
Odd coincidence, that he's leading the group now suing Google over something or other. How did they expect us to not know that? Do they not have the Google? Are they living in the 1980's still?
In case you don't remember who Senator Leahy is and how he's working against your free speech and due process rights, here's an article with interesting links. Being as how you're reading this though, it's unlikely you don't know this.
And here's former Senator and chairman of the Democratic National Committee Chris Dodd saying if the politicians took the graft they oughtta pass this bill (PIPA and SOPA): link.
I'm actually surprised it took them this long. Operational security is important, and bad guys listening on scanners has been a fiction theme for what, 25 years? It's been well proven to happen in practice too.
And no, for the commenter above, time delay doesn't work. Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream. Besides, providing it requires public moneys put to a use outside the police department budget.
I'm as suspicious of some members of the police as the next guy, and feel they generally need good supervision. But transmitting their radio signals in the clear is a simple detriment to the public safety mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is incorrect. It was very long ago, but it truly was that high before. And that would make sense, wouldn't it? That fossil carbon didn't get planted there at Creation by God. It was fixed by plants from the atmosphere, and in the calcified bones of sea animals.
The helpful staff and their urgency to sell those stupid warranties are the main things that keep me away from Best Buy unless I really have to have something today. The last time was when I was looking for the Tranformer TF101 on launch day. I knew if I didn't find it I was going to have to wait a long time. The sales guy wanted to chat me up on the tablets - and flat lied to me about the capabilities of the HP Touchpad, trying to push that product. Anyway they did have the Acer Iconia tab, and I nearly bought that instead - but being lied to really ticked me off and I drove 40 miles to Fry's instead and found the Transformer in stock.
Maybe you'll find this funny: Even the CEO can't figure out how Radio Shack is still in business.
I've personally been turned away. Many years ago I had an impacted molar, and it was deeply infected to the point that my face looked like I had a huge gumball in it. This is a life-threatening condition. I went to the emergency room, and got treated: they gave me a handful of antibiotics and told me to find a dentist when the swelling went down. But there was no dentist who would see me without insurance, and of course it got re-infected over and again because these things just don't get better on their own. Over the next few years I was turned away hundreds of times by doctors and dentists. A few years later I finally found a free clinic that would treat me - but I had to camp out in their office and refuse to leave until they got it done. As you might imagine it was an intensely painful and dangerous episode in my life, and left me debilitated and barely able to function the entire time. The pain was so bad I tried to pull it out myself - a distinctly dangerous proposition but one I failed at. Once that tooth was pulled, things picked right up. I got bills for that emergency room visit for seven years ($15600 for a handful of Erythromycin, I believe), but this was during my "impoverished" period and I never paid it.
I'm doing much better now. But I will never again take the American healtcare situation lightly. And I will never let someone say that "in America if you're poor you can get treated for free" and let it go by - because I've been there, and it ain't so.
It's all in the click-through. If you read it you were the only one. And that's what they're counting on
I'm rather hoping we'll find a way to fix this broken system than we have to scrap it for something new, but I'm with you on the sentiment. Unfortunately here the cure is often worse than the disease.
Second reply, sorry. That first reply isn't going to get 'er done. Your post presents certain ethical questions that are at the crux of lawyers and the law. No matter how depraved he is, under our system even Josh Powell deserves representation even unto parental visitation. Even if the children recall that he put their mother into the trunk and returned without her. And if that fair protection of his parental rights results in him hatcheting their skulls and immolating them, that's just due process of law.
You're a lawyer now, but you were a human once. Try.
That's an interesting question. The answer is: It's none of your fracking business. You signed away these rights to get your loyalty card discount and who they sell your data to is their own concern, not yours. At this point it's just a metric boatload of data. Whether or not you religiously buy a half-rack of pounders every Friday night is a bit of a brick with a value sold to the highest bidder. If you cared about what they did with it, you should have halted at "do you want a loyalty card?"
If I were an amoral man and I sold Girl Scout Cookies, I could think of no better legal environment than that ordinary citizens were compelled by law to buy my cookies.
Jon, I've got a great deal of respect for your /. persona. You seem always reasonable even when I don't agree with you, and you've swayed me often. But here I think you've missed the general thrust. We're on a very subtle topic. The issue isn't "Insurance good/bad" or something that gross. It's about whether the pursuit of use of intelligence to understand the risks of a particular customer of insurance is a good thing, and the limits of that pursuit. That's a cloudy issue you seldom weigh in on, but I'm interested in your input if you will engage the question.
Your loyalty card data will be supporting facts when we take your kids away. As will your admitted public drunkenness.
"After" is a really stretchy word. It might mean "immediately after briefly" and it might not. Its duration is uncertain too. For all we know he's counsel to Senator Leahy still and that would not break the statement. What "After" says is that he didn't counsel the Senator before he graduated law school - which normally would be a given, since being at counsel to a Senator would normally presume passing the Bar.
I'm Symbolset and words (symbols) are my stock in trade. Words mean things. They also sometimes don't mean things you think they do, and that's not the words' fault but yours. The difference between the hard definition and the presumption or common understanding is the Devil's workspace and it's a busy place with a lot of people working it these days. I think you're among them, Mr. AC.
When this lawyer who is attacking Google last had a counsel relationship with Senator Leahy is a valid question. We know the relationship exists, but not how recent it is. So Let's ask it.
Who knew? I think that's amazing.
Insurance is a business and the more they can cut outlays to premiums the more profits they make. I'd rather they more closely aligned risks with claims than they just denied fair claims, which saves mone on the other side. In case I didn't make this clear: I'm OK with insurance companies making money off me, even if they turn a profit because I have low risk. I'm paying over a thousand dollars a month for medical insurance, and using about $500 worth a year for my family - with no pre-existing conditions or reoccurring need for medical care. And to me it's money well spent because in America today you can't get treated if you don't have insurance. Almost everybody gets sick now and then, kids break their arms or legs or whatnot, and to take them to the emergency room without insurance would cost me my house.
Ten of my coworkers and I could pool our contributions together and BUY a doctor and all his gear - and he'd work six days a year, but that's a whole other issue. We're talking about insurance now.
You can't deny that the closer to fact they gauge the risk, the more they diminish the "uncertainty" that motivates the buyer of their product. Defending against the slings and arrows of uncertain fortune is their value-add.
My point was that the more uncertainties they remove the less value they add. It's diminishing returns. When they've removed all uncertainy, we may as well pay cash, or if we haven't got the cash - use a Las Vegas bookie who gives better odds.
You have no idea. I'm an IT pro. With your loyalty card data I can tell how many kids you have and how well you feed them, whether you're sometimes or often broke, how often you take a shit. I might be able to tell not only your religion, but your adherence to its dietary restrictions. I can gauge your propensity for alcoholism or diabetes. All of this specifically linked to you as an individual. And you've given me permission to sell that data.
If you can't draw a straight line from this one thing to this other similar thing, you're an idiot. It's the same venue, the same domain, the same space. The question is whether he's driving the Senator, or whether the Senator is driving him. My bet is the former.
Insurance is a bet against the house. It's always a losing proposition net, or insurance wouldn't be a business. The house always wins. They engage people called actuaries, who are quite skilled in evaluating risk.
Insurance can still be a great deal. I can't afford to replace my car or house this month, so I pay these people a fraction of these things' worth to insure that if something bad happens I can still do the needful thing. To average my risk across the similarly situated costs money, and it's well earned - and the profit too.
But the more narrowly the insurance company focuses on the exact risk I have, the closer they get to offering no value, because I might as well carry the risk myself.
Regrettably, no. People sell their privacy astonishingly cheap. It amazes me when I go to the store and they expect me to carry a "loyalty card" for a minor discount. But apparently some of you do it, or they would not ask.
This is how privacy dies.
Interesting. Marc Rotenberg, President and Executive Director of EPIC served as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee to PIPA sponsor Patrick Leahy. The very same unconstitutional PIPA that Google just protested against and helped get shut down with your help and mine.
I don't know about you, but a lawyer at counsel who could advise the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he could get away with sponsoring a bill that violates not one, but at least two of our human rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to suit a tiny minority commercial interest might be a wee bit biased.
Odd coincidence, that he's leading the group now suing Google over something or other. How did they expect us to not know that? Do they not have the Google? Are they living in the 1980's still?
In case you don't remember who Senator Leahy is and how he's working against your free speech and due process rights, here's an article with interesting links. Being as how you're reading this though, it's unlikely you don't know this.
And here's former Senator and chairman of the Democratic National Committee Chris Dodd saying if the politicians took the graft they oughtta pass this bill (PIPA and SOPA): link.
I'm actually surprised it took them this long. Operational security is important, and bad guys listening on scanners has been a fiction theme for what, 25 years? It's been well proven to happen in practice too.
And no, for the commenter above, time delay doesn't work. Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream. Besides, providing it requires public moneys put to a use outside the police department budget.
I'm as suspicious of some members of the police as the next guy, and feel they generally need good supervision. But transmitting their radio signals in the clear is a simple detriment to the public safety mission.
Huge verbose stretch.
I do go on, don't I? But I try to entertain, and I get away with it often enough.
I'm tempted to twist a line from "Finding Nemo" here: Just keep waiting, just keep waiting...
I've got a lot of wants too on my list. But until they let me back into the labs where we invent this shit I gotta take what's on the retail counter.
I would know. In this case "snag" means to acquire through purchase or through gift - to achieve ownership without theft.
If somebody comes out with an Android tablet that will blend and not void the warranty, I'm buying it. I have small kids.