That was semi-sarcasm. No. I don't take my lawyer with me. Then again, I haven't had to go to the doctor in years.
However, I will say this. It took a call from my lawyer explaining medical records law to get my doctor to fix the transcription errors that were caught by the insurance company I applied to for coverage. Some of the stuff was just bizarre, and there were quite a few errors. Going back a couple of years to other doctors and checking things made me realize how prevalent the problem is.
The doctor didn't want to bother with it. Most don't. Of course, you're the exception, right?
Let's not even get into you idiots charging people to see/verify their own records. Let's not get into how you idiots are the first to call a lawyer when someone questions the accuracy of records. Let's not get into the fraud of professional courtesy. Let's not get into all crap you accept from the drug company sales reps. Let's not get into your "inability" to provide upfront estimates on costs for simple visits or procedures before I come to the office so I can compare rates. Physician... heal thyself. Stop blaming the "system".
I once mentioned a certain problem (side effect of a drug) to a doctor. 7 years ago or so. I was not being treated for it, but he wrote in in his notes. Lo and behold, a month later, I start getting ads in my mail from drug companies for this problem. Not something common. I told the doctor and he was in shock. He agreed that the transcription company must have sold the info. He refused to follow up on it, as did I. In retrospect, I could have caused a stink, but I'm not at all convinced I would have gotten any satisfaction.
I strongly suggest taking your lawyer with you on all doctor's visits. I now review doctor's notes completely (after transcription) and force them to make corrections. It is amazing what sorts of errors the transcription companies make in the notes. And this is what insurance companies look at when you apply for insurance.
In all, I'm pretty frightened of the medical system after a couple of incidents. I avoid the system at all costs. The funny thing is that it is this fear of the system, not of disease, that has actually prompted my very healthy lifestyle. I don't ever want to have to depend on that system for anything. Even the "nice good" doctors who are a part of it are to blame for idly sitting by and letting it all happen. They like to pretend that they are just pawns in a bigger game. Not!
But I'm very interested in technology as it relates to entertainment. This story is not in any way related to technology. I guess it has to do with Taco not being able to see the next Star Wars before eveyone else, or something.
It has to do with which media someone uses to review a movie. Wow. Fascinating. Where's the technology angle? Is it a new media or 7 year old technology? Um. I know! 7 year old technology!
And yes. Reviewers should go to the theater to review the movie. That's the target media for the director. Not a mini-DVD player hauled onto a cross-country flight.
This is a slashdot story? Any word on Demi or Ashton to go along with this Hollywood minute? Who cares if a bunch of movie freaks have to either sit at home or go to a theater to do their job? Give me a break. The only reason this got any press in the mainstream was because the hollywood nuts whined so freaking loud.
This has zero to do with technology, nerds, or stuff. It doesn't even qualify as news.
Anyone remember that movie with David Soul (Hutch) where the Soviets invade via Alaska? Cool concept at the time. This sort of idea reminds me of the whole "Alaska is very big. Like, I mean, VERY big." concept. Even on a map, Alaska looks very big, even when taking into consideration the fact that the map is just a very small representation of something else that is much larger. Know what I mean?
Seems that our rogue, zealot enemies (no, not linux zealots) could try to do some damage/steal stuff in a remote area with a small population. Security of the nuke material, especially during transport of waste, etc., would be my main concern here.
Please provide a link to something saying that the circumvention is "legal". I suspect you are in murky waters if you do such a thing.
Anyway, isn't that just security through obscurity? Aren't we slashdotters trained to spite such means? Where is your outrage and disgust at AAPL for using such measures?
Really? You can listen to the radio? Try one of the 128k stations. Total crap even with massive bandwidth. Worthless.
Heck, even the 28k stations are horrible compared to what I listen to through Media Player 9.
iTunes restricts what you can do with what you buy. You have fewer rights with iTunes than with buying CDs, although the cost is roughly the same. It will only take you a few minutes of education to burst your bubble.
Cool! Taco must be shaking in his boots, running scared due to today's release of Office 2003.
OK. I'm just sort of kidding. But really. This ramped up bashing does not look good when MS does a big release like they are today. It looks like sour grapes. Which, of course, it is...
Why not get more positive on what you believe in, rather than bash?
And just look at the story just before the consecutive MS bashing stories... It's about linux zealots gone wild. Hmmmm.
I get several hundred per day. The ones that get through the spam filter (like 15) are easily selected all together in the swipe of a mouse and then deleted. I empty the junk folder once a day. I'd say that it consumes 5 seconds of my day plus about.001% of my total bandwidth. Darn. It's such a nuisance. I don't pay for my spam filter separately, it's built into my email program.
If the ISPs don't like it, they can start banning these jerks instead of colluding with them by selling them services. Don't drag me into your spam mess. It's not my problem. Go bitch at the people who pay the spammers to advertise. Go bitch at the jerks who actually buy the spammers junk. Go bitch at legislatures who go out of their way to ignore the problem. Change your email address. How many people actually need your address? How hard is it to change every now and then? Sheesh. Have you ever actually tried calling spammers on the phone? I have. Guess what? It works to harass them. Are you involved or just whining?
It costs me less than a penny a piece to deal with an individual spam. Hit delete, turn on my filter, etc. Is it really such a nuisance that we have to waste billions of dollars to "solve" it?
This seems to be an ISP solution, not a user-oriented solution. A user-oriented solution would be authentication based. Why not put a system in place to check the validity of the "real" sender and be done with it? What does the penny solution have over this? Both require all SMTP servers to be upgraded.
It is easy to see that there are SOME spammers who would pay. Just like with telemarketing. It costs them. We would just end up with the problem all over again.
No thanks. I already pay for ISP service. Next, they'll want to charge Web hosts for every page they serve up in order to stop pop-up ads. Sounds like a vast left-wing conspiracy! We'll TAX the problem out of existance! Never works.
Remember... they are ADMITTEDLY the lowest IQ group in the country. Unemployable anywhere else, according to themselves. That is to say... they are very stupid people.
I find that telemarketers and IRS employees have a lot in common. Remember the gall of IRS employees who picketed the IDEA of a flat tax because it would put them out of work. Amazingly brazen, but just as stupid at the same time. Not to mention that they can't answer tax questions correctly 65% of the time.
I am getting calls, but the callers say that it is legal because "they are not selling anything". They want to 1) lower my interest rate on my non-existant mortgage, 2) Have me over for 3 hours to watch their presentation on a time share, or 3) sell me insurance.
Why do these people think they can get away with it? Should I report them? I suspect that this law is filled with all sorts of holes, as usual. Anyone care to comment or having similar experiences?
Yes. I have done this as well. I'm bored by the morning newspaper now. I already have read all the stories the day before on various news Web pages. We use the Internet as our TV guide and don't even bother saving it from the Sunday paper anymore. Stock quotes? Why does the newspaper even bother. And I'm all caught up on sports the night before I get the paper as well.
I am seriously considering cancelling the newspaper, except it is really the only good source of very local news. I find that a few casual minutes of browsing every couple of hours keeps me infinitely more informed than most.
I feel out of touch when I do not have decent Internet access. I get frustrated when I see people sitting around debating some fact (news, gossip, celebrities, sports...) and just want to drop some Cat5 wherever I am so we can hook up and resolve the issue immediately.
The weird thing is that I think I have good intuition about reliability of sources, etc. And I have proven this to be true over time. However, I notice that many, many people are not very good at this skill and end up getting hood-winked pretty easy by junk they read on the Internet.
The inherent naivete of the masses is the Achilles heal of the Internet becoming THE source of all info.
What about things like Voice IM? The standards for defining telephony are pretty loose. I talk to people (video conference, voice chat...) over IM all the time via Yahoo and Windows Messenger.
Seems odd to single it out because the lines already exist. I thought that the phone companies were regulated in large part because of the necessity of having only one line per house, rather than 20 providers digging up your town.
Don't most people already pay these access charges in one way or another via ISPs or other downstream providers.
I suspect that the politicians are much more stupid than we assumed. And I mean that.
That got me thinking. Wouldn't it be funny to rig something up that LOOKED like radar on top of your house. A DirectTV dish spinning around or something. Wonder what sorts of 3 letter agencies would show up.
I've been using alternative providers in the past 5 years. What is cable like these days in terms of services? Are you allowed to host at all? Do they offer a tier for business users who want to host or is hosting or running anything on any port just plain disallowed?
I guess I'd like to compare apples to apples when comparing to DSL or broadband wireless.
What are outages like? How often? How long do they last? What's the "real" upload speed vs. download speed? How are ping times to common sites as compared to other types of services?
I think we can use a quick discussion of these topics just so we're all on the same page.
I left the cable world because of many/all of these issues. I still see people struggling with them. What's it really like with cable, though? Do I just have a few bad experiences?
Slashdot Mirror
A little touchy on the subject, ain't you, doc?
That was semi-sarcasm. No. I don't take my lawyer with me. Then again, I haven't had to go to the doctor in years.
However, I will say this. It took a call from my lawyer explaining medical records law to get my doctor to fix the transcription errors that were caught by the insurance company I applied to for coverage. Some of the stuff was just bizarre, and there were quite a few errors. Going back a couple of years to other doctors and checking things made me realize how prevalent the problem is.
The doctor didn't want to bother with it. Most don't. Of course, you're the exception, right?
Let's not even get into you idiots charging people to see/verify their own records. Let's not get into how you idiots are the first to call a lawyer when someone questions the accuracy of records. Let's not get into the fraud of professional courtesy. Let's not get into all crap you accept from the drug company sales reps. Let's not get into your "inability" to provide upfront estimates on costs for simple visits or procedures before I come to the office so I can compare rates. Physician... heal thyself. Stop blaming the "system".
Even worse! They SELL the info to drug companies!
I once mentioned a certain problem (side effect of a drug) to a doctor. 7 years ago or so. I was not being treated for it, but he wrote in in his notes. Lo and behold, a month later, I start getting ads in my mail from drug companies for this problem. Not something common. I told the doctor and he was in shock. He agreed that the transcription company must have sold the info. He refused to follow up on it, as did I. In retrospect, I could have caused a stink, but I'm not at all convinced I would have gotten any satisfaction.
I strongly suggest taking your lawyer with you on all doctor's visits. I now review doctor's notes completely (after transcription) and force them to make corrections. It is amazing what sorts of errors the transcription companies make in the notes. And this is what insurance companies look at when you apply for insurance.
In all, I'm pretty frightened of the medical system after a couple of incidents. I avoid the system at all costs. The funny thing is that it is this fear of the system, not of disease, that has actually prompted my very healthy lifestyle. I don't ever want to have to depend on that system for anything. Even the "nice good" doctors who are a part of it are to blame for idly sitting by and letting it all happen. They like to pretend that they are just pawns in a bigger game. Not!
But I'm very interested in technology as it relates to entertainment. This story is not in any way related to technology. I guess it has to do with Taco not being able to see the next Star Wars before eveyone else, or something.
It has to do with which media someone uses to review a movie. Wow. Fascinating. Where's the technology angle? Is it a new media or 7 year old technology? Um. I know! 7 year old technology!
And yes. Reviewers should go to the theater to review the movie. That's the target media for the director. Not a mini-DVD player hauled onto a cross-country flight.
This is a slashdot story? Any word on Demi or Ashton to go along with this Hollywood minute? Who cares if a bunch of movie freaks have to either sit at home or go to a theater to do their job? Give me a break. The only reason this got any press in the mainstream was because the hollywood nuts whined so freaking loud.
This has zero to do with technology, nerds, or stuff. It doesn't even qualify as news.
What if they find something? Will they have to change their network name to the SciFact channel? Seems like they're digging their own grave!
Anyone remember that movie with David Soul (Hutch) where the Soviets invade via Alaska? Cool concept at the time. This sort of idea reminds me of the whole "Alaska is very big. Like, I mean, VERY big." concept. Even on a map, Alaska looks very big, even when taking into consideration the fact that the map is just a very small representation of something else that is much larger. Know what I mean?
Seems that our rogue, zealot enemies (no, not linux zealots) could try to do some damage/steal stuff in a remote area with a small population. Security of the nuke material, especially during transport of waste, etc., would be my main concern here.
So then what is the point of the DRM that Apple is using? It doesn't seem to "Manage" anything.
I'm bitching about the "obscurity" copy protection scheme.
I wrote my "bitching" in English, if you care to attempt to read it.
But I appreciate the name calling. It says a lot about you and makes me feel smugly superior.
Nice try. No, where does it tell you to rip it back in any format you want after you burn it?
Oh, yeah. Right. It doesn't. You just decided to make up a "fact" that it was legally OK to do so.
Please try again. This time, put some ooomph into it!
And, please address the security via obscurity issue as well, while you're at it. I love zealotous rationalization!
Please provide a link to something saying that the circumvention is "legal". I suspect you are in murky waters if you do such a thing.
Anyway, isn't that just security through obscurity? Aren't we slashdotters trained to spite such means? Where is your outrage and disgust at AAPL for using such measures?
I call "double standard" on you!
Amazing that Taco posted both stories.
The smell of desperation is embarassing. How pathetic.
"MS released a new version of Office! Oh no!! Prepare to bash at full speed!"
Really? You can listen to the radio? Try one of the 128k stations. Total crap even with massive bandwidth. Worthless.
Heck, even the 28k stations are horrible compared to what I listen to through Media Player 9.
iTunes restricts what you can do with what you buy. You have fewer rights with iTunes than with buying CDs, although the cost is roughly the same. It will only take you a few minutes of education to burst your bubble.
Cool! Taco must be shaking in his boots, running scared due to today's release of Office 2003.
OK. I'm just sort of kidding. But really. This ramped up bashing does not look good when MS does a big release like they are today. It looks like sour grapes. Which, of course, it is...
Why not get more positive on what you believe in, rather than bash?
And just look at the story just before the consecutive MS bashing stories... It's about linux zealots gone wild. Hmmmm.
I get several hundred per day. The ones that get through the spam filter (like 15) are easily selected all together in the swipe of a mouse and then deleted. I empty the junk folder once a day. I'd say that it consumes 5 seconds of my day plus about .001% of my total bandwidth. Darn. It's such a nuisance. I don't pay for my spam filter separately, it's built into my email program.
If the ISPs don't like it, they can start banning these jerks instead of colluding with them by selling them services. Don't drag me into your spam mess. It's not my problem. Go bitch at the people who pay the spammers to advertise. Go bitch at the jerks who actually buy the spammers junk. Go bitch at legislatures who go out of their way to ignore the problem. Change your email address. How many people actually need your address? How hard is it to change every now and then? Sheesh. Have you ever actually tried calling spammers on the phone? I have. Guess what? It works to harass them. Are you involved or just whining?
It costs me less than a penny a piece to deal with an individual spam. Hit delete, turn on my filter, etc. Is it really such a nuisance that we have to waste billions of dollars to "solve" it?
This seems to be an ISP solution, not a user-oriented solution. A user-oriented solution would be authentication based. Why not put a system in place to check the validity of the "real" sender and be done with it? What does the penny solution have over this? Both require all SMTP servers to be upgraded.
It is easy to see that there are SOME spammers who would pay. Just like with telemarketing. It costs them. We would just end up with the problem all over again.
No thanks. I already pay for ISP service. Next, they'll want to charge Web hosts for every page they serve up in order to stop pop-up ads. Sounds like a vast left-wing conspiracy! We'll TAX the problem out of existance! Never works.
I, for one, welcome our new faux-apologetic, flat-tax-inspiring overlords.
Now, I can write them that letter that firmly rejects their apology.
Remember... they are ADMITTEDLY the lowest IQ group in the country. Unemployable anywhere else, according to themselves. That is to say... they are very stupid people.
I find that telemarketers and IRS employees have a lot in common. Remember the gall of IRS employees who picketed the IDEA of a flat tax because it would put them out of work. Amazingly brazen, but just as stupid at the same time. Not to mention that they can't answer tax questions correctly 65% of the time.
I am getting calls, but the callers say that it is legal because "they are not selling anything". They want to 1) lower my interest rate on my non-existant mortgage, 2) Have me over for 3 hours to watch their presentation on a time share, or 3) sell me insurance.
Why do these people think they can get away with it? Should I report them? I suspect that this law is filled with all sorts of holes, as usual. Anyone care to comment or having similar experiences?
What a frickin' wast of time.
Give me a break.
"Ross's monkey was named blah!"
"No! It wasn't! It was named WuphonsReach!"
Dribble, dribble, dribble.
Your definition of "social interaction" sucks monkey balls.
Yes. I have done this as well. I'm bored by the morning newspaper now. I already have read all the stories the day before on various news Web pages. We use the Internet as our TV guide and don't even bother saving it from the Sunday paper anymore. Stock quotes? Why does the newspaper even bother. And I'm all caught up on sports the night before I get the paper as well.
I am seriously considering cancelling the newspaper, except it is really the only good source of very local news. I find that a few casual minutes of browsing every couple of hours keeps me infinitely more informed than most.
I feel out of touch when I do not have decent Internet access. I get frustrated when I see people sitting around debating some fact (news, gossip, celebrities, sports...) and just want to drop some Cat5 wherever I am so we can hook up and resolve the issue immediately.
The weird thing is that I think I have good intuition about reliability of sources, etc. And I have proven this to be true over time. However, I notice that many, many people are not very good at this skill and end up getting hood-winked pretty easy by junk they read on the Internet.
The inherent naivete of the masses is the Achilles heal of the Internet becoming THE source of all info.
What about things like Voice IM? The standards for defining telephony are pretty loose. I talk to people (video conference, voice chat...) over IM all the time via Yahoo and Windows Messenger.
Seems odd to single it out because the lines already exist. I thought that the phone companies were regulated in large part because of the necessity of having only one line per house, rather than 20 providers digging up your town.
Don't most people already pay these access charges in one way or another via ISPs or other downstream providers.
I suspect that the politicians are much more stupid than we assumed. And I mean that.
That got me thinking. Wouldn't it be funny to rig something up that LOOKED like radar on top of your house. A DirectTV dish spinning around or something. Wonder what sorts of 3 letter agencies would show up.
Has anyone home-brewed a radar system of any type? Is it possible? What could you do with it?
I've been using alternative providers in the past 5 years. What is cable like these days in terms of services? Are you allowed to host at all? Do they offer a tier for business users who want to host or is hosting or running anything on any port just plain disallowed?
I guess I'd like to compare apples to apples when comparing to DSL or broadband wireless.
What are outages like? How often? How long do they last? What's the "real" upload speed vs. download speed? How are ping times to common sites as compared to other types of services?
I think we can use a quick discussion of these topics just so we're all on the same page.
I left the cable world because of many/all of these issues. I still see people struggling with them. What's it really like with cable, though? Do I just have a few bad experiences?
Boeing or whoever has only sold 6 Space Shuttles. But look at the press they get. Go figure.
Even the Space Shuttle recalls get more press. I don't have a Space Shuttle so I just choose to ignore all the hoopla.