If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.
Like what? Documents showing the anti-immigration Trump marries 2/3 immigrants? That the "successful businessman" has filed bankruptcy 4 times?
What could they possibly find on that man? His mouth doesn't hold back. He has no secrets. Even if he were found to have committed multiple crimes, it would all be spun into a "they are out to get him" story that wouldn't hurt him in the polls. And I've seen more than one browser plug-in that will replace Trump with Voldemort, for more entertaining news. Though none that replace Trump with a random selection of humorous replacements.
A flat $110K is a little un-imaginative, but I prefer it to a complex system of prevailing "market rates" in each area.
The government already calculates a COLA for differences in areas. $100k+COLA would likely be more fair, but since nearly all of those jobs are concentrated in a few areas with high costs of living already, probably not an issue anyway.
That would do more harm that good, as the sales force and PMs would be in the US, but all the workers would be in India. The contract for the work would be made in the US, and the work would be done outside.
What I think would work is to charge a visa fee equal to the cost of training, then train an American for the job. Eliminate H-1B visas one job at a time.
Therefore, as I was saying, "a significant part of it is state owned", both in the narrow sense of "state" and in the generic sense of "state".
The fact that they are a German company
From your specific and literlal (pedantic) definition, you shouldn't call them a "German company", but a Lower Saxony Company, as that's the only government entity that owns any of it. Anything else makes you a liar. Lying by implication to drive your personal agenda. You are deliberately misleading people to drive your personal agenda. Why?
Foreign object is trivial and solved. More interesting is someone else violating all the rules. A police chase chased a criminal onto a one-way street, the wrong way. So you are driving down the middle lane of a 3-lane one-way road, one car coming at you, what do you do? When that's past, then you can see the police, what do you do then?
Or the ones where humans haven't solved it. Drive in white-out conditions. I've driven in white-out conditions. It's not easy, and much of it is playing the percentages. "Please don't let there be a car broken down in my lane", and such. The type of conditions that lead to the hundred+ car pile-ups in California. Even those who stop, just get rear-ended. So stopping isn't the correct solution. The only way I know to not get involved is to slow (or stop) then get off the road as quickly as possible, and hope nobody rams you on the shoulder (or just off it). Assuming the other cars will play by the rules isn't a reasonable assumption, but the question gets into the freedom to "think" and act when things are to the point there is no safe place on the road, even if stopped.
In Dallas, when you pull into traffic, you ask yourself the question, "If I pull out, and they slam on the brakes, would they hit me?" If the answer is "no" you go. Drivers in Dallas will "cut you off" all the time. Most of the rest of the US is in between the two, but in Boston, if the person you are pulling out in front of could floor it and hit you before you hit the person that was previously in front of them, they'll try, and lay on the horn for 37.32 minutes. Some will hit you out of spite, and claim you cut them off. So Boston drivers don't cut people off (or when they do, they accelerate hard to get out of the way as much as possible).
When I was in Paris, looking down from the Eiffel Tower, Pont d'lena dead ends into Quai Branly, and Pont d'lena is 3 lanes. The traffic stops 5-wide across the 3-lanes. Safe? No. Sane? No. Done every single light consistently for the 10-20 cycles I watched? Yes.
Or NYC. Right turn on red is illegal. There are too many pedestrians. So, because you can't turn on green because the pedestrans are in your way, and you can't turn on red, you improvise. The right lane is stopped. Everyone in the right lane is turning right, but no turn signals are on. When the light turns yellow, the second person in line moves into the next lane. The third the lane after. In unison, one car per lane fans out and stops. When the cycle comes around, the light turns green, and all of the cars turn, one per lane into the cross street. They stop for the pedestrians and wait. When the pedestrians are gone, the cross street gets a green, and they go. Again, to outsiders, it'd look like madness. But it works.
So a tourist in China would have no basis for critique. You don't even speak the language, so obviously can't understand a local's explanation of the behavior. There are lots of rules, and they are followed, they just didn't make sense to you. One of the rules in China is if only one person has damage to the front of their car, they are 100% at fault. It's not fair. It leads to lots of people aggressively cutting off others. But it works. It's no "worse" than Paris, NYC, Boston, or LA, just with different rules you didn't understand.
I have no idea how much one of those would cost, but a robot that's confusable for a person would be worth 10x your $15,000 number. Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has ones I'd spend $100,000 or more on. Need home repairs? Sure, done. Need the gardening done, not just the lawn mowed, but every plant identified, cataloged, and pulled if non native or invasive, and tended to as per botanist's recommendations? Sure. Twice a day, to perfection. Paint the house? That's a few thousand in labor for a human, and the robot will do a better job. The manual labor/maintenance work would be done, 24/7 by an automaton to perfection. Never need to pay or wait for delivery again,
The human analog robot would be worth a lot to a homeowner. Though, I expect an intercity apartment dweller would see much less use from it. Perhaps as a more trusted dog walker and grocery getter, replacing sub-minimum wage jobs. But the homeowner would see much more benefit. Keeping a house nice is a full time job (or more than just one).
Personally, I'd rather have an effective mass transit system in place, but the money is in selling individualized transportation.
So combine them. Personal rapid transport. It's cheaper than mass transit, and more like people want. Personally, I like http://www.skytran.com/ though their first operational public system is scheduled to be working before then end of 2015, and that's days away, and it's not operational, so they may go the way of the monorail. Cheaper than buses, more efficient than a hybrid, faster than roads, and never having to worry about parking. And if it works as described, cities should replace roads with them, and when 100% of roads have PRT above them, then people can buy their own station at their house, and park a personal car there, and have a PRT/car hybrid system, where you can own your car, so you never have to share with anyone, or just use the shared cars. A small toll for the private cars (rolled into property tax), and a small taxi fee for those that use the system's cars, and solves all the problems. More capacity than a full train, cheaper to build, and cheaper to run. There's not a single feature that a train beats PRT on. Though thinking for any weakness, time to board would be an issue. Think of the Superbowl. 100,000 people trying to get in one at the same time. Trains can board 1000 people in 10 seconds (10 cars, 10 people per second per car, reminds me of NYC), but at 20 seconds per car (1-4 people per car, as they are not shared transport unless you choose to share with your family/friends), PRT could be 2000 times slower for burst demand. Though, that's still faster than driving away. A regular game can lead to wait times of 30 minutes in the parking lot, just to get on the street, and then lots of time after that wasted in heavier traffic. At least with PRT, once you are on the system, you'll be going 60 mph+ towards you destination, regardless of time of day or demand.
But there are an awful lot of things that 'people want to know' that are NOT mandatory.
Again, "the people" want something that you don't think they deserve to know. Why don't we just bypass the whole democracy thing, since you find it inconvenient, and appoint you Benevolent Emperor (we hope) for Life?
As you say, people want to know. And it does no harm to "know", yet you are opposed to information and democracy. Yes, I know you'll object. But with my tone and implications, not with the facts. Your opinion doesn't trump fact. The Fact is, people want ingredients listed. And we have it. So add "GMO" as something to be listed as an ingredient. Simple, easy, and what the people want.
The left want the science of the telescope to go ahead. It's the conservative loonitarians who think eminent domain shouldn't be used against private land owners.
You should have used "liberal" The definition has been reduced to "anyone I don't like", with no regards to politics or anything else.
There is not much difference between explicitly changing behaviour during the test and optimising an engine and increasing EGR when the engine runs at the RPM corresponding to the emissions test under the perscribed load.
In VW's case, it was reported that pre-test the ECU program was set to a test-only program that could *never* be triggered in regular driving. How is that sporting? I take it you approve of the Cadillac scam? They settled because they set test conditions for A/C off. As the test is always conducted with the A/C off, and many people drive with the A/C on all the time. The difference in performance was high, and Cadillac claimed innocence, so GM settled before any internal conversations could be subpoenaed or execs deposed under oath, so that the truth could never be known. Was the performance target implemented with A/C on, and the test passed with a limp-along A/C off mode? Or did the 4.9l engine really have a stalling problem with the A/C on that needed a richer mix, and happened to make a large difference across the whole range?
I don't know the details, but given most cars disable the A/C compressor at WOT, I'd imagine that if the A/C compressor is disengaged at WOT and the performance is still A/C-on engine map, that'd be proof of malice, at least to my standard. Questions like that were never posed. GM paid about $100 per car to make the problem go away.
But the test pattern is to a standard. So you could buy a new car off the lot, then run the same test on it, and see if the results match the self-reported results. If not, open an investigation. If they match, then it's likely that they aren't gaming the system (and more likely they are clean for the more new cars you randomly test)
The GMO-Nazis claim here that GMOs have been proven 100% safe. So the GMO-Nazis should argue with the GMO-Nazis until you are in agreement which choice-hating stance you prefer.
And until the labeling is mandatory, it's rarely regulated. So you can have non-organic GMO food labeled "organic" without violating any rules or law. Organic isn't defined in law. No, you can't fraudulently put a 3rd party certification of organic on it you didn't earn, but that's a different thing. I haven't looked at whether it's legal to call GMO food non-GMO. But, as GMO isn't defined in law in regards to food labeling, non-GMO would be similarly undefined, thus not actionable.
That's the point for people calling for mandatory labels. In the US, until something is mandatory, it's unregulated.
Like seatbelts. Before seatbelts were mandatory, those who had them pretended they added to safety. THey were weak, elastic, and poorly mounted. In some cases, the seat belt was less safe than if they had none, but they could label the car as coming with "seat belts" because, before regulated, they were undefined. Once defined (and regulated), they were uniform and worked much better. Comparisons between "with" and "without" made a clear distinction. But that could only happen *after* regulation.
Nobody is forcing you to eat anything.
So I should be able to cook human meat, and sell it in a store as pork. After all, you are against labeling so someone knows what they are getting. Or can I just call it "animal meat". After all, properly labeling long pig is just going to lead to FUD against cannibalism.
So you are assuming that everything must have a purpose. Allow me to introduce you to my mother-in-law.
Some things are mildly superfluous, like the spleen. Others are completely superfluous, like the appendix and coccyx. To assume everything isn't superfluous until proven otherwise would be a illogical as assuming the opposite.
This isn't programming. This is editing a save file.
Find a save file with tetrachromacy. Run a diff between that and a normal save file. Delete the unwanted overlap. Insert the tetrachromacy code. You "should" end up with a genetic identical to the start save file, aside from tetrachromacy.
Repeat with whatever previously identified traits you want, and you build a super-save-file.
You can also do the reverse. Identify a disease sequence. Identify the associated sequence from a healthy save file. Replace the unwanted trait with the code for a lack of that trait. Add remove and change traits.
They aren't trying to figure out how tetrachromacy works and program that in to a new entity. They aren't "programming". They are editing a save file. Big things, like male or female should be quite easy. Remove Y, insert X, or the opposite.
The way it worked for save files (in the old days, before they were deliberately obfuscated), if you screw with your character attributes, you didn't change your inventory, or vice versa. We understand that for computing, so why do you not understand that for genes? So far, the genes have been mainly separate. Changing a protein for immunity may have a chain reaction with unknown consequences for digestion (related to that same protein), but so far, we haven't found that a single change has unrelated consequences.
That's the largest breach, and one of the few where the information ended up on a search engine. There were a few smaller fines I found, generally for careless sharing, with no specific breach found. Though, I could find none before 2014, which is about when I stopped following it, as it no longer mattered to my career or interests.
I'd already made plenty of money violating HIPAA to give the doctors what they ask for. All the HIPAA consultants are crooked, and over-sold worthless and not legally compliant solutions. Though, as someone who wasn't in the medical field, I was happy to give the customer what they wanted, even if it isn't what they should have wanted. The overpriced crooks pushing bad solutions often couldn't even correctly build what they sold, or were priced so high the doctors shopped around for someone different to implement the solution. And yes, I advised the doctors against the improper solution, but when a paying customer insists, I'm happy to take their money.
Doctors, lawyers, and engineers are universally incapable of accepting help from others. They are all experts in their field, so they think they are experts in everything.
Nah, this is just a slashvertisement for a consulting company that provides security to doctors. Note, they don't detail how many security breaches there were last year, nor the total sum of HIPAA fines for poor online security (Still $0 last I looked). But they talk FUD about how many there "will be" unless you subscribe to their snake oil, and when their prediction is way off, they'll imply their efforts had something to do with it. Their numbers are insane. And they have nothing backing up their position. But they are happy to take your money.
Where I've been if any of the following are met, then the police must be called:
More than $1000 damage total. Any injury either vehicle unable to drive under its own power.
The insurance lobby made those rules to help cut down on fraud. "Oh, sore neck? Then you broke the law by not reporting it at the scene. Let me call the police to get a police report started and see what they say about your illegal leaving the scene of a crash. Oh, you want to cancel your claim? Great."
Ah yes, the "if the government didn't take it by force, you have that right, even if you are unable to exercise it because the corporations have colluded to eliminate it" argument.
It's easy to boil down the argument to a single question: If every single restaurant in a town is "whites only", does anyone have any rights infringed upon? The government didn't do it, and there's nothing to stop you from moving to another town, or starting your own restaurant (other than being firebombed if you do), does it or doesn't it deny freedoms of anyone?
Like how Target outed a pregnant teen to her family?
Though so far it's only been used for good. The teen should have been able to have that conversation with her family, and then did. The driver who hit and run should have stopped, and then did. So far there's been no "injustice" reported, and given the rabid responses here, if there was one, I'm sure it'd be posted here many times.
Slashdot Mirror
If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.
Like what? Documents showing the anti-immigration Trump marries 2/3 immigrants? That the "successful businessman" has filed bankruptcy 4 times?
What could they possibly find on that man? His mouth doesn't hold back. He has no secrets. Even if he were found to have committed multiple crimes, it would all be spun into a "they are out to get him" story that wouldn't hurt him in the polls. And I've seen more than one browser plug-in that will replace Trump with Voldemort, for more entertaining news. Though none that replace Trump with a random selection of humorous replacements.
A flat $110K is a little un-imaginative, but I prefer it to a complex system of prevailing "market rates" in each area.
The government already calculates a COLA for differences in areas. $100k+COLA would likely be more fair, but since nearly all of those jobs are concentrated in a few areas with high costs of living already, probably not an issue anyway.
That would do more harm that good, as the sales force and PMs would be in the US, but all the workers would be in India. The contract for the work would be made in the US, and the work would be done outside.
What I think would work is to charge a visa fee equal to the cost of training, then train an American for the job. Eliminate H-1B visas one job at a time.
(4) Labor costs go up, and the increase in economic activity improves the US economy.
Therefore, as I was saying, "a significant part of it is state owned", both in the narrow sense of "state" and in the generic sense of "state".
The fact that they are a German company
From your specific and literlal (pedantic) definition, you shouldn't call them a "German company", but a Lower Saxony Company, as that's the only government entity that owns any of it. Anything else makes you a liar. Lying by implication to drive your personal agenda. You are deliberately misleading people to drive your personal agenda. Why?
Foreign object is trivial and solved. More interesting is someone else violating all the rules. A police chase chased a criminal onto a one-way street, the wrong way. So you are driving down the middle lane of a 3-lane one-way road, one car coming at you, what do you do? When that's past, then you can see the police, what do you do then?
Or the ones where humans haven't solved it. Drive in white-out conditions. I've driven in white-out conditions. It's not easy, and much of it is playing the percentages. "Please don't let there be a car broken down in my lane", and such. The type of conditions that lead to the hundred+ car pile-ups in California. Even those who stop, just get rear-ended. So stopping isn't the correct solution. The only way I know to not get involved is to slow (or stop) then get off the road as quickly as possible, and hope nobody rams you on the shoulder (or just off it). Assuming the other cars will play by the rules isn't a reasonable assumption, but the question gets into the freedom to "think" and act when things are to the point there is no safe place on the road, even if stopped.
If it's so crazy, why didn't you see any crashes?
In Dallas, when you pull into traffic, you ask yourself the question, "If I pull out, and they slam on the brakes, would they hit me?" If the answer is "no" you go. Drivers in Dallas will "cut you off" all the time. Most of the rest of the US is in between the two, but in Boston, if the person you are pulling out in front of could floor it and hit you before you hit the person that was previously in front of them, they'll try, and lay on the horn for 37.32 minutes. Some will hit you out of spite, and claim you cut them off. So Boston drivers don't cut people off (or when they do, they accelerate hard to get out of the way as much as possible).
When I was in Paris, looking down from the Eiffel Tower, Pont d'lena dead ends into Quai Branly, and Pont d'lena is 3 lanes. The traffic stops 5-wide across the 3-lanes. Safe? No. Sane? No. Done every single light consistently for the 10-20 cycles I watched? Yes.
Or NYC. Right turn on red is illegal. There are too many pedestrians. So, because you can't turn on green because the pedestrans are in your way, and you can't turn on red, you improvise. The right lane is stopped. Everyone in the right lane is turning right, but no turn signals are on. When the light turns yellow, the second person in line moves into the next lane. The third the lane after. In unison, one car per lane fans out and stops. When the cycle comes around, the light turns green, and all of the cars turn, one per lane into the cross street. They stop for the pedestrians and wait. When the pedestrians are gone, the cross street gets a green, and they go. Again, to outsiders, it'd look like madness. But it works.
So a tourist in China would have no basis for critique. You don't even speak the language, so obviously can't understand a local's explanation of the behavior. There are lots of rules, and they are followed, they just didn't make sense to you. One of the rules in China is if only one person has damage to the front of their car, they are 100% at fault. It's not fair. It leads to lots of people aggressively cutting off others. But it works. It's no "worse" than Paris, NYC, Boston, or LA, just with different rules you didn't understand.
What can an autonomous home robot do? Feed the pets? Let the dog out? Are people going to shell out $15,000 for that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have no idea how much one of those would cost, but a robot that's confusable for a person would be worth 10x your $15,000 number. Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has ones I'd spend $100,000 or more on. Need home repairs? Sure, done. Need the gardening done, not just the lawn mowed, but every plant identified, cataloged, and pulled if non native or invasive, and tended to as per botanist's recommendations? Sure. Twice a day, to perfection. Paint the house? That's a few thousand in labor for a human, and the robot will do a better job. The manual labor/maintenance work would be done, 24/7 by an automaton to perfection. Never need to pay or wait for delivery again,
The human analog robot would be worth a lot to a homeowner. Though, I expect an intercity apartment dweller would see much less use from it. Perhaps as a more trusted dog walker and grocery getter, replacing sub-minimum wage jobs. But the homeowner would see much more benefit. Keeping a house nice is a full time job (or more than just one).
Personally, I'd rather have an effective mass transit system in place, but the money is in selling individualized transportation.
So combine them. Personal rapid transport. It's cheaper than mass transit, and more like people want. Personally, I like http://www.skytran.com/ though their first operational public system is scheduled to be working before then end of 2015, and that's days away, and it's not operational, so they may go the way of the monorail. Cheaper than buses, more efficient than a hybrid, faster than roads, and never having to worry about parking. And if it works as described, cities should replace roads with them, and when 100% of roads have PRT above them, then people can buy their own station at their house, and park a personal car there, and have a PRT/car hybrid system, where you can own your car, so you never have to share with anyone, or just use the shared cars. A small toll for the private cars (rolled into property tax), and a small taxi fee for those that use the system's cars, and solves all the problems. More capacity than a full train, cheaper to build, and cheaper to run. There's not a single feature that a train beats PRT on. Though thinking for any weakness, time to board would be an issue. Think of the Superbowl. 100,000 people trying to get in one at the same time. Trains can board 1000 people in 10 seconds (10 cars, 10 people per second per car, reminds me of NYC), but at 20 seconds per car (1-4 people per car, as they are not shared transport unless you choose to share with your family/friends), PRT could be 2000 times slower for burst demand. Though, that's still faster than driving away. A regular game can lead to wait times of 30 minutes in the parking lot, just to get on the street, and then lots of time after that wasted in heavier traffic. At least with PRT, once you are on the system, you'll be going 60 mph+ towards you destination, regardless of time of day or demand.
But there are an awful lot of things that 'people want to know' that are NOT mandatory.
Again, "the people" want something that you don't think they deserve to know. Why don't we just bypass the whole democracy thing, since you find it inconvenient, and appoint you Benevolent Emperor (we hope) for Life?
As you say, people want to know. And it does no harm to "know", yet you are opposed to information and democracy. Yes, I know you'll object. But with my tone and implications, not with the facts. Your opinion doesn't trump fact. The Fact is, people want ingredients listed. And we have it. So add "GMO" as something to be listed as an ingredient. Simple, easy, and what the people want.
The left want the science of the telescope to go ahead. It's the conservative loonitarians who think eminent domain shouldn't be used against private land owners.
You should have used "liberal" The definition has been reduced to "anyone I don't like", with no regards to politics or anything else.
Sorry to rain in on your rant, but VW is a German company. A significant part of it is state-owned,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A state in Germany owns 12.7%, but as far as I could tell, "Germany" owns 0.0% of it. Where do you get your information from?
There is not much difference between explicitly changing behaviour during the test and optimising an engine and increasing EGR when the engine runs at the RPM corresponding to the emissions test under the perscribed load.
In VW's case, it was reported that pre-test the ECU program was set to a test-only program that could *never* be triggered in regular driving. How is that sporting? I take it you approve of the Cadillac scam? They settled because they set test conditions for A/C off. As the test is always conducted with the A/C off, and many people drive with the A/C on all the time. The difference in performance was high, and Cadillac claimed innocence, so GM settled before any internal conversations could be subpoenaed or execs deposed under oath, so that the truth could never be known. Was the performance target implemented with A/C on, and the test passed with a limp-along A/C off mode? Or did the 4.9l engine really have a stalling problem with the A/C on that needed a richer mix, and happened to make a large difference across the whole range?
I don't know the details, but given most cars disable the A/C compressor at WOT, I'd imagine that if the A/C compressor is disengaged at WOT and the performance is still A/C-on engine map, that'd be proof of malice, at least to my standard. Questions like that were never posed. GM paid about $100 per car to make the problem go away.
But the test pattern is to a standard. So you could buy a new car off the lot, then run the same test on it, and see if the results match the self-reported results. If not, open an investigation. If they match, then it's likely that they aren't gaming the system (and more likely they are clean for the more new cars you randomly test)
And until the labeling is mandatory, it's rarely regulated. So you can have non-organic GMO food labeled "organic" without violating any rules or law. Organic isn't defined in law. No, you can't fraudulently put a 3rd party certification of organic on it you didn't earn, but that's a different thing. I haven't looked at whether it's legal to call GMO food non-GMO. But, as GMO isn't defined in law in regards to food labeling, non-GMO would be similarly undefined, thus not actionable.
That's the point for people calling for mandatory labels. In the US, until something is mandatory, it's unregulated.
Like seatbelts. Before seatbelts were mandatory, those who had them pretended they added to safety. THey were weak, elastic, and poorly mounted. In some cases, the seat belt was less safe than if they had none, but they could label the car as coming with "seat belts" because, before regulated, they were undefined. Once defined (and regulated), they were uniform and worked much better. Comparisons between "with" and "without" made a clear distinction. But that could only happen *after* regulation.
Nobody is forcing you to eat anything.
So I should be able to cook human meat, and sell it in a store as pork. After all, you are against labeling so someone knows what they are getting. Or can I just call it "animal meat". After all, properly labeling long pig is just going to lead to FUD against cannibalism.
Mandatory labels shouldn't include ingredients lists, or nutritional information then. But The People want them. Why do you hate democracy?
So you are assuming that everything must have a purpose. Allow me to introduce you to my mother-in-law.
Some things are mildly superfluous, like the spleen. Others are completely superfluous, like the appendix and coccyx. To assume everything isn't superfluous until proven otherwise would be a illogical as assuming the opposite.
This isn't programming. This is editing a save file.
Find a save file with tetrachromacy. Run a diff between that and a normal save file. Delete the unwanted overlap. Insert the tetrachromacy code. You "should" end up with a genetic identical to the start save file, aside from tetrachromacy.
Repeat with whatever previously identified traits you want, and you build a super-save-file.
You can also do the reverse. Identify a disease sequence. Identify the associated sequence from a healthy save file. Replace the unwanted trait with the code for a lack of that trait. Add remove and change traits.
They aren't trying to figure out how tetrachromacy works and program that in to a new entity. They aren't "programming". They are editing a save file. Big things, like male or female should be quite easy. Remove Y, insert X, or the opposite.
The way it worked for save files (in the old days, before they were deliberately obfuscated), if you screw with your character attributes, you didn't change your inventory, or vice versa. We understand that for computing, so why do you not understand that for genes? So far, the genes have been mainly separate. Changing a protein for immunity may have a chain reaction with unknown consequences for digestion (related to that same protein), but so far, we haven't found that a single change has unrelated consequences.
Long pig is yummy, just don't ask where they got the meat from.
That's the largest breach, and one of the few where the information ended up on a search engine. There were a few smaller fines I found, generally for careless sharing, with no specific breach found. Though, I could find none before 2014, which is about when I stopped following it, as it no longer mattered to my career or interests.
I'd already made plenty of money violating HIPAA to give the doctors what they ask for. All the HIPAA consultants are crooked, and over-sold worthless and not legally compliant solutions. Though, as someone who wasn't in the medical field, I was happy to give the customer what they wanted, even if it isn't what they should have wanted. The overpriced crooks pushing bad solutions often couldn't even correctly build what they sold, or were priced so high the doctors shopped around for someone different to implement the solution. And yes, I advised the doctors against the improper solution, but when a paying customer insists, I'm happy to take their money.
Doctors, lawyers, and engineers are universally incapable of accepting help from others. They are all experts in their field, so they think they are experts in everything.
Nah, this is just a slashvertisement for a consulting company that provides security to doctors. Note, they don't detail how many security breaches there were last year, nor the total sum of HIPAA fines for poor online security (Still $0 last I looked). But they talk FUD about how many there "will be" unless you subscribe to their snake oil, and when their prediction is way off, they'll imply their efforts had something to do with it. Their numbers are insane. And they have nothing backing up their position. But they are happy to take your money.
Where I've been if any of the following are met, then the police must be called:
More than $1000 damage total.
Any injury
either vehicle unable to drive under its own power.
The insurance lobby made those rules to help cut down on fraud. "Oh, sore neck? Then you broke the law by not reporting it at the scene. Let me call the police to get a police report started and see what they say about your illegal leaving the scene of a crash. Oh, you want to cancel your claim? Great."
Ah yes, the "if the government didn't take it by force, you have that right, even if you are unable to exercise it because the corporations have colluded to eliminate it" argument.
It's easy to boil down the argument to a single question: If every single restaurant in a town is "whites only", does anyone have any rights infringed upon? The government didn't do it, and there's nothing to stop you from moving to another town, or starting your own restaurant (other than being firebombed if you do), does it or doesn't it deny freedoms of anyone?
You are suddenly getting junk mail for that little (LEGAL) problem you have, and now everyone in the house knows too.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Like how Target outed a pregnant teen to her family?
Though so far it's only been used for good. The teen should have been able to have that conversation with her family, and then did. The driver who hit and run should have stopped, and then did. So far there's been no "injustice" reported, and given the rabid responses here, if there was one, I'm sure it'd be posted here many times.
61 The IoT could watch me while I commit crimes.
Nah, they already have your credit score.