The people building health information sharing networks have taken this into consideration and have designed "translators" for all the health record formats.
I'm peripherally attached to the team working on the first state-wide health information network (in Maryland), so I can tell you a lot of these problems have already been solved long ago
IIRC, these plans are published and noted in company reports and press releases.
But of course, these things aren't that important, and a lot of information is priced in by nature, and the analysts who closely follow the company are going to be the only people who really care about it. So it's not really important, but it is available
The fundamental problem is that the SEC made trading on insider information illegal, they didn't make "not trading" on insider information illegal, and that should never be made illegal.
Verizon reps have told me numerous times that they want to phase out DSL in favor of FIOS whenever possible, because the costs to maintain a fiber connection are less than DSL.
It's not really surprising that they want to push a service that provides a lot more revenue, and has a lower cost overall. Even if it takes pulling customers kicking and screaming
And this would work if Ticketmaster didn't abuse their monopoly on venues, promoters, and their tie in with Clear Channel.
Ticketmaster signs exclusivity agreements with venues and promoters, and gets venues to only work with ticketmaster promoters, and promoters to only work with ticketmaster venues. So a venue can't use multiple vendors, as no promoters would work with them, as working with them would get them blackballed from all the other ticketmaster venues. Vicious cycle
Not to generalize (but to generalize...), nerds tend to be from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They're usually intellectual workers, been to college and university, and so... how much experience do they actually have with the brutality of the world as it is for most people?
The same can be said of many liberals, especially the college-liberals and north east liberals.
Most people who are actually poor are simply trying to stay alive. They don't particularly care about politics, or have the education (thanks to the government that they mistakenly trusted) to comprehend a lot of complex issues.
Three Suffolk primary care trusts have ruled patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 will not get operations like hip and knee replacements.
A person of average weight would have an BMI of between 18.5 and 24.9....
Under new guidelines surgery will not be performed unless "the patient has a body mass index below 30 and conservative means have failed to alleviate the patient's pain and disability".
I actually bought the current model of the Phaser, the 8560, and have been really impressed.
It cost me 750 off of Newegg, and it's the ultimate non-proprietary printer. It fully supports PCL5e, Postscript 3, Zeroconf (Bonjour), and as far as the ink, they are blocks which makes compatible ink very easy and cheap to do (about 8 bucks per color per block for compatible ink), and the only moving parts are the actual roller, so there's also no issues with mechanicals not working with 3rd party or refilled toner.
I am getting a fantastic cost per page, and I realistically expect this printer to last 10+ years, making it very cheap. I also have gotten an iPod Nano in exchange for a volume printing job, so even better!
Of course it has nothing to do with the question, but the solid ink is great!
The best part about fairtrade is that supermarkets and other outlets for goods have learned that fairtrade and organic products are good at procuring price-insensitive consumers from whom they can extract awesome profits.
For example, Safeway may be able to buy a pound of fairtrade coffee for 5% more, but theyll charge a way higher premium, and the average consumer justifies the premium in their mind, whereas the profit goes straight to the supermarket
The problem with that approach appears when you start to look at game theory.
If said corporation commands an above market wage, companies could find people willing to break what is essentially a cartel agreement, thus removing the power. It only works if the corporation holds ALL the potential retail labor. Unfortunately, it can't, because retail is not a skilled profession. The retailers could then just recruit at high schools to find kids willing to work without the benefit of said corporation
If the energy differential in making the two cars is greater than the net energy usage over the life of the car, then it would mean that a Hummer is better for the environment than a Prius.
It's not like you have the bad guys standing in a crowd of people shouting: 'Ha ha! You can't shoot me because I'm using human shields!'.
Actually, that's a quite often used tactic, and a fundamental tactic of guerilla warfare (being able to look like a civilian at will means you get to determine when and where you will fight battles). This can be used against the children who throw rocks at American humvees trying to goad Americans into shooting them. Also, it can help against incidents where teerorists flocked to a Mosque and then callled up a thousand women and children to flock to the Mosque to prevent Israel from bombing the place (this happpened in Palestine, not Iraq, but is still very applicable)
They could probably easily tackle this with some of the provisions of the patriot act. That would be infinitely more productive than the current practices of data mining in efforts to catch sub-par terrorists
So basically, America and Australia didn't sign Kyoto because they would be affected disproportionately, India and China signed because they wouldn't be affected (but their competitors would, and this would also slow energy demand from their competitors).
It looks like for the most part, countries only signed where it was convenient and easy to do (SHOCKING!!! GOVERNMENTS ACTING IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST????), and now even a lot of European countries are missing quota.
So in reality, it looks like no one was really serious about climate change, just looking out for themselves. It kind of puts the United States actions in perspective. Why should we shoulder the massive financial burden of "saving the world" while India and China destroy our manufacturing sector since they will be a haven for corporations who want to manufacture without stringent regulations for CO2 emissions.
Like I said in my previous post, the only way global warming will be addressed is if there is some sort of global government. And that is why global warming will never be addressed. It's sad to say, but there is no way to convince most countries to do anything (unless the UN decided to impose economic/military actions on polluters, and even then, military action would require the United States to dfront all the money/personnnel for the military force)
Why the hell would we ratify Kyoto? It basically gives India and China a free pass (giving a competitive advantage to countries who are very serious competitors to us), and only slows the increase of CO2 (as opposed to keeping levels the same, or reducing it).
Clinton was right in refusing to sign Kyoto. It was basically a bill that punishes the first world for pollution, while the worst offenders get a free pass.
Everyone sane realizes that global warming is happening, but the problem is the solution seems to be to cripple the first world, without also holding the poorer countries (who are the ones eating our manufacturing sector lunch due to lax work/environmental laws) to any sort of standard. That is why I am convinced that global warming will not be really addressed without some sort of global govt (which will never happen). No matter what the first world does, there will always be some country offering a free pass on environmental/work laws, and corporations that need to pollute/abuse workers will flock there. And the more countries that try to stop that, the more powerful the financial incentive for a country to break tghe "cartel" of countries bound by environmental law. And if you are expecting the UN to do anything about it....well, im sure you can count on a strongly worded letter.
No matter what you do, society will always seem to end up like this. Some people are inherently better at acquiring wealth than others, some people are smarter than others, some people are stronger and have talents others don't have.
These differences usually aggregate over the course of time, to the point where you get rich/poor. Even if you evened everyone out....it wouldn't stay that way for long. And if you force on making everyone equal, as the article mentions, you make everyone equally poor, since measures to make everyone equal by law usually end up cutting output signifigantly, meaning that instead of an inequal distribution of a large pie, you get equal distribution of a small pie (in Soviet Russia, crop production when Stalin came to power was 5% of pre-revolution levels). Also, with the current "knowledge economy" the gains in productivity are essentially "found money", since there is no way to "force" a knowledge worker to produce at full output, or to do much of anything.
So it really boils down to allowing inequality, but providing class mobility (as the article mentioned). In the US, we have attempted that, but a lot of the measures backfire, such as subsidized student loans at low interest rates (free money essentially created price insensitivity and is largely responsible for the rapid rise in college costs ironically enough). And additionally, it is all relative. If everyone gets a college education, SOMEONE has to scrub toilets and work at McDonalds. So giving out college educations doesn't really help.
It's a very complex issue, and im sure the socialists will square off with the libertarians quite well over this issue
I have heard that sinking the waste to the bottom of the atlantic right at the fault lines (where it will be sucked into the earth) was a good idea. Why don't we do that?
But then again, I forgot that while environmentalists scream at us to pay attention to science when it comes to global warming, when it comes to anything nuclear, most of the same environmentalists have been known to completely ignore science and act completely irrational (although slashdot readers tend to think rationally about nuclear)
Slashdot Mirror
Many countries don't consider gold to be a monetary instrument, and you would not have to declare it as currency. The US is one of these countries.
The people building health information sharing networks have taken this into consideration and have designed "translators" for all the health record formats.
I'm peripherally attached to the team working on the first state-wide health information network (in Maryland), so I can tell you a lot of these problems have already been solved long ago
IIRC, these plans are published and noted in company reports and press releases. But of course, these things aren't that important, and a lot of information is priced in by nature, and the analysts who closely follow the company are going to be the only people who really care about it. So it's not really important, but it is available
The fundamental problem is that the SEC made trading on insider information illegal, they didn't make "not trading" on insider information illegal, and that should never be made illegal.
Verizon reps have told me numerous times that they want to phase out DSL in favor of FIOS whenever possible, because the costs to maintain a fiber connection are less than DSL. It's not really surprising that they want to push a service that provides a lot more revenue, and has a lower cost overall. Even if it takes pulling customers kicking and screaming
Make it so
And this would work if Ticketmaster didn't abuse their monopoly on venues, promoters, and their tie in with Clear Channel.
Ticketmaster signs exclusivity agreements with venues and promoters, and gets venues to only work with ticketmaster promoters, and promoters to only work with ticketmaster venues. So a venue can't use multiple vendors, as no promoters would work with them, as working with them would get them blackballed from all the other ticketmaster venues. Vicious cycle
Bomb the Music Industry!
Heroes was done with available light HDV footage. BBC stuff, from what I have seen is much more carefully lit.
It's been a bad trend recently in the US
Not to generalize (but to generalize...), nerds tend to be from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They're usually intellectual workers, been to college and university, and so... how much experience do they actually have with the brutality of the world as it is for most people?
The same can be said of many liberals, especially the college-liberals and north east liberals.
Most people who are actually poor are simply trying to stay alive. They don't particularly care about politics, or have the education (thanks to the government that they mistakenly trusted) to comprehend a lot of complex issues.
If they require a passport to do some of those things like fly or enter public buildings, that will signifigantly impact poor people.
My passport cost me 97 dollars last time I got one, and not everyone has that kind of money lying around
Fucking agreed. Going back to Windows with its shitty font renderings is horrible on my eyes. The aliasing and ligatures are all wrong!
Yeah, fuck hybrids AND gasoline cars!
This sucker is nuclear!
NHS doctors are already allowed to deny treatment for injuries they find to be self-inflicted.
k /4462310.stm
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffol
Three Suffolk primary care trusts have ruled patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 will not get operations like hip and knee replacements.
A person of average weight would have an BMI of between 18.5 and 24.9.
Under new guidelines surgery will not be performed unless "the patient has a body mass index below 30 and conservative means have failed to alleviate the patient's pain and disability".
I actually bought the current model of the Phaser, the 8560, and have been really impressed. It cost me 750 off of Newegg, and it's the ultimate non-proprietary printer. It fully supports PCL5e, Postscript 3, Zeroconf (Bonjour), and as far as the ink, they are blocks which makes compatible ink very easy and cheap to do (about 8 bucks per color per block for compatible ink), and the only moving parts are the actual roller, so there's also no issues with mechanicals not working with 3rd party or refilled toner. I am getting a fantastic cost per page, and I realistically expect this printer to last 10+ years, making it very cheap. I also have gotten an iPod Nano in exchange for a volume printing job, so even better! Of course it has nothing to do with the question, but the solid ink is great!
The best part about fairtrade is that supermarkets and other outlets for goods have learned that fairtrade and organic products are good at procuring price-insensitive consumers from whom they can extract awesome profits. For example, Safeway may be able to buy a pound of fairtrade coffee for 5% more, but theyll charge a way higher premium, and the average consumer justifies the premium in their mind, whereas the profit goes straight to the supermarket
The problem with that approach appears when you start to look at game theory. If said corporation commands an above market wage, companies could find people willing to break what is essentially a cartel agreement, thus removing the power. It only works if the corporation holds ALL the potential retail labor. Unfortunately, it can't, because retail is not a skilled profession. The retailers could then just recruit at high schools to find kids willing to work without the benefit of said corporation
If the energy differential in making the two cars is greater than the net energy usage over the life of the car, then it would mean that a Hummer is better for the environment than a Prius.
It's not like you have the bad guys standing in a crowd of people shouting: 'Ha ha! You can't shoot me because I'm using human shields!'.
Actually, that's a quite often used tactic, and a fundamental tactic of guerilla warfare (being able to look like a civilian at will means you get to determine when and where you will fight battles). This can be used against the children who throw rocks at American humvees trying to goad Americans into shooting them. Also, it can help against incidents where teerorists flocked to a Mosque and then callled up a thousand women and children to flock to the Mosque to prevent Israel from bombing the place (this happpened in Palestine, not Iraq, but is still very applicable)They could probably easily tackle this with some of the provisions of the patriot act. That would be infinitely more productive than the current practices of data mining in efforts to catch sub-par terrorists
So basically, America and Australia didn't sign Kyoto because they would be affected disproportionately, India and China signed because they wouldn't be affected (but their competitors would, and this would also slow energy demand from their competitors).
It looks like for the most part, countries only signed where it was convenient and easy to do (SHOCKING!!! GOVERNMENTS ACTING IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST????), and now even a lot of European countries are missing quota.
So in reality, it looks like no one was really serious about climate change, just looking out for themselves. It kind of puts the United States actions in perspective. Why should we shoulder the massive financial burden of "saving the world" while India and China destroy our manufacturing sector since they will be a haven for corporations who want to manufacture without stringent regulations for CO2 emissions.
Like I said in my previous post, the only way global warming will be addressed is if there is some sort of global government. And that is why global warming will never be addressed. It's sad to say, but there is no way to convince most countries to do anything (unless the UN decided to impose economic/military actions on polluters, and even then, military action would require the United States to dfront all the money/personnnel for the military force)
Except when it comes to things like economics!
Why the hell would we ratify Kyoto? It basically gives India and China a free pass (giving a competitive advantage to countries who are very serious competitors to us), and only slows the increase of CO2 (as opposed to keeping levels the same, or reducing it).
Clinton was right in refusing to sign Kyoto. It was basically a bill that punishes the first world for pollution, while the worst offenders get a free pass.
Everyone sane realizes that global warming is happening, but the problem is the solution seems to be to cripple the first world, without also holding the poorer countries (who are the ones eating our manufacturing sector lunch due to lax work/environmental laws) to any sort of standard. That is why I am convinced that global warming will not be really addressed without some sort of global govt (which will never happen). No matter what the first world does, there will always be some country offering a free pass on environmental/work laws, and corporations that need to pollute/abuse workers will flock there. And the more countries that try to stop that, the more powerful the financial incentive for a country to break tghe "cartel" of countries bound by environmental law. And if you are expecting the UN to do anything about it....well, im sure you can count on a strongly worded letter.
No matter what you do, society will always seem to end up like this. Some people are inherently better at acquiring wealth than others, some people are smarter than others, some people are stronger and have talents others don't have.
These differences usually aggregate over the course of time, to the point where you get rich/poor. Even if you evened everyone out....it wouldn't stay that way for long. And if you force on making everyone equal, as the article mentions, you make everyone equally poor, since measures to make everyone equal by law usually end up cutting output signifigantly, meaning that instead of an inequal distribution of a large pie, you get equal distribution of a small pie (in Soviet Russia, crop production when Stalin came to power was 5% of pre-revolution levels). Also, with the current "knowledge economy" the gains in productivity are essentially "found money", since there is no way to "force" a knowledge worker to produce at full output, or to do much of anything.
So it really boils down to allowing inequality, but providing class mobility (as the article mentioned). In the US, we have attempted that, but a lot of the measures backfire, such as subsidized student loans at low interest rates (free money essentially created price insensitivity and is largely responsible for the rapid rise in college costs ironically enough). And additionally, it is all relative. If everyone gets a college education, SOMEONE has to scrub toilets and work at McDonalds. So giving out college educations doesn't really help.
It's a very complex issue, and im sure the socialists will square off with the libertarians quite well over this issue
I have heard that sinking the waste to the bottom of the atlantic right at the fault lines (where it will be sucked into the earth) was a good idea. Why don't we do that?
But then again, I forgot that while environmentalists scream at us to pay attention to science when it comes to global warming, when it comes to anything nuclear, most of the same environmentalists have been known to completely ignore science and act completely irrational (although slashdot readers tend to think rationally about nuclear)