AppLocker, meanwhile, gives companies granular control over the applications - right down to the version number - that employees can install on their office machines.
In Debian-land, we call that apt-pinning. It's been in Debian since at least July 2002 (woody).
The biggest "offense" I saw was being able to transport to a ship at warp who knows how many light years away.
I saw that as believable as a one-time fluke. Future Spock had the equation, past Scotty was able to make it work once on his heavily-modified equipment, but I see no reason to believe that past Scotty could do it again without Future Spock's help -- who could easily say he has moral Prime Directive-ish objections to doing it again. Or there could be limitations to "transwarp teleporters" that the movie didn't mention: maybe its range is limited, or it takes too much power to run routinely.
Perhaps my favorite aspect of the movie is that they didn't shoot for scientific accuracy -- warping between stars within minutes, being able to see Nero a hundred yards from Saturn right over San Francisco, etc. I couldn't stand it when TNG would spout crap as a way to advance the plot; better just "do it" than try to bullshit about it. This movie was basically a rip from the TOS books, lots of adventure and each character able to shine in their own right.
My other favorite thing was that the Enterprise was actually allowed to kick ass. ALL of the other movies had some lame excuse why the Federation's flagship wasn't up to snuff, either outclassed by V'Ger or surprise-attacked by Khan or self-destructed or glitchy or obsolete...
If medical records can't even be protected at the state level, what makes people believe that national electronic health records will be any safer?
Maybe we think so because the federal government can sometimes be far more effective than small under-funded state governments? I mean, how many state governments have built their own space shuttles? How many can even fund their own highways?
The main damage of the unions, and the complicit management, was the extensive health care, retirement and unemployment benefits.
Actually, back in the 40's/50's the unions pushed for a universal government-provided health care, retirement, and unemployment. It was the auto makers that swore up and down that it would be better for everyone if the companies provided those instead. The management wanted the extra control over the employees that those benefits would provide, not seeing that decades later the unions would be proven right (yet again) and that these benefits would crush the auto makers bottom line.
This particular lose-lose deal came from Big Three management, not the unions.
Clearly you've never tried to implement a real spec. Even reasonably well-defined specs like ANSI X3.64 (character-based terminal emulation) have holes in them. Worse yet are specs that ship with a "reference implementation" that is itself buggy code (see Zmodem). APIs too: there were some functions in the Java 1.2.x APIs that "return null"'d when they were supposed to return an Object (e.g. java.net.HttpURLConnection.getErrorStream()) . It happens.
In this case however, according to TFA Microsoft must have known full well that they were breaking interoperability, since they had had it working OK before.
I must one of the 10% of users who preferred the Excel charting wizard. As it stands now in Office 2007, every time I create a new chart it's wrong. It takes three times longer to get the right X-Y scatterplot with Excel 2007 than Excel 2003, or OOo (which is saying something because OOo's charts used to suck really bad).
Explicitly allowing military contractors to overcharge the taxpayer to deliver broken systems on no-bid contracts is the heart of True Capitalism(tm) and A-OK.
Making it easier for employees to enter into unions so they can negotiate better pay/benefits within the constraints of market competition is Pure Socialism(tm) and Must Be Stopped at all costs lest the USA degenerate into a communist backwater like Sweden.
Suppose I agree (I don't) that New Deal was what got America out of Great Depression (it wasn't; it was the whole shake-up with WWII).
Now explain why government spending on military ventures (WWII) CAN fix the economy, yet government spending on anything else (roads, new technology (Internet anyone?), electrical grid, R&D, universities (GI Bill anyone?), city infrastructure, etc. etc.) CAN'T fix the economy.
This could lead to someone like Snowe defecting as well, which would really bury the Republican part, possibly for good, as it could split between the Bible Thumping retard faction and the neocon fascist faction, which would work to the benefit of the Democrats.
Yeah, this whole article discussion has been very amazing. Who knew that so many people who had at one time left remarkably cogent posts on Slashdot were harboring secret ultra-right-wing Libertarian nutjob fantasies underneath their once cool-headed exteriors?
All of these things are possible through government/private corruption. If government actually got out of the way and did NOT intervene then market forces would prevent all of this.
Last time government "got out of the way", the free market did all of those things, so much so that people were willing to die to keep a strike going. Why would government getting out of the way today not lead right back to the same situation?
Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
[sarcasm] Yeah, private industry can merely prevent you from earning income, which limits your ability to enjoy your political freedom and ultimately ends your life early for lack of food. That's clearly not in the same ballpark at all as what government can do. [/sarcasm]
Way to completely miss the point. Have you even been to an American doctor recently?
They routinely prescribe medications that the insurance won't cover, largely because they don't know which of the medically reasonable alternatives the insurance WILL cover. Surgery? Good luck finding ANY doctor that can guarantee ahead of time that all of the specialists and facilities involved will be appropriately paid by insurance, even for routine "pre-approved" procedures.
And the time you DO get with them is often wasted. They ask you questions that could trivially be automated by an expert system at check-in time. (Ask any young woman how many times she will be asked if she is pregnant through one round of referrals.) They suggest medical procedures or drugs, and your first question is often, "If my insurance won't cover that, what is the next best thing we could do?" It can take up to two months to schedule in the necessary diagnostic procedures, get the results sent back to your doctor, and discuss all the results. Sometimes you enter the office and they have to spend several minutes just catching up to their own notes, and then they STILL ask questions you've already answered in a prior meeting. God help you if you have something that wasn't taught in medical school fifteen years ago, it could take months of meetings with various doctors before you find one that asks that Magic Question that leads to the right diagnosis and treatment.
By the time the doctor sees you, they should already have in front of them the most common diagnoses that fit your symptoms, and spend most their time with you finding out if any of those conditions fit, or if it is something else entirely. They should know which procedures and drugs will be covered by YOUR insurance, and have the ability to challenge a coverage decision on medical grounds (e.g. "patient X absolutely cannot have the generic form of drug Y because..., and you must cover this"), and they should be able to do this while you are there in the office. They should be able to see the work load on the lab services they need and schedule you in. In short, they should be able to plan out your diagnostic procedures and treatment plan right there in front of you. Auto repair mechanics can do that, why can't doctors?
Maybe they will have slightly fewer appointments within a given day, but each of those would actually have positive effect on the patient's health, reducing the total number of appointments the patient has to make over the lifetime of that treatment cycle. In the end, more people would receive the care they need in a given time frame with that doctor that the current system.
Moreover, by having the receptionist take care of stuff like, say, scheduling and insurance, the doctor could see 3x more patients than the way you're describing.
Right, so you DON'T go to the doctor very often. Insurance isn't something the receptionist takes care of, fighting insurance companies for payments typically requires an entire full-time person per office. An automated system could eliminate THAT job entirely.
Doctor: Hello, I'm Dr. Foo. According to your chart, you are here because of a sore back.
Me: Yup.
Doctor: You already answered the computerized questionnaire that asked a lot about your symptoms. Why don't you tell me in your own words what feels abnormal?
Me: Well, when I bend down like this it hurts real bad right here. It's a shooting kind of pain. It's worse at night and during cold weather. It's only been happening the last couple weeks.
Doctor: Hmm. Well, between that and your other answers, it looks like three different things might be going on. Let's schedule some lab work to find out. Your insurance will cover an MRI, that's good. The clinic has slots available next Tuesday, can you make it then?
Me: Well, actually Wednesday would be better.
Doctor: How about Wednesday 3 pm?
Me: That works.
Doctor: OK, you're set. In the meantime we should probably get you hooked up with a muscle relaxant and some painkillers. Your insurance covers two relaxants and three painkillers. Do you prefer generics or name brands?
Me: Generics are good.
Doctor: Great. Would you like to pick these up at your pharmacy on file, that would be CVS on 123 Mobile Avenue?
Me: That works.
Doctor: OK. They will be ready after 2 pm today. Let's see, your insurance has already responded to my requests, your MRI and medications are already approved. They expect $30 in co-pays, would you like to pay at our front desk or have them bill you at home?
Me: I'd rather they billed me at home.
Doctor: No problem, that's all set. Would you like to meet with me Friday afternoon to discuss the results?
Me: Sure, is 4 pm available?
Doctor: It sure is. You're in. So: pick up your medications this afternoon, have the MRI on Wednesday 3 pm, and we'll meet back here Friday 4 pm to discuss the results. The receptionist already has instructions for the MRI and a map waiting for you at our front desk. Is there anything else I can help you with while you're here?
Me: That's it.
Doctor: Alright, I'll see you on Friday. Have a good day!
----snip----
A good IT system could take the insurance and pharmaceutical companies almost entirely out of the loop. Let the doctors see ahead of time what the insurance company will pay for and decide based on that how to treat.
I'd just be happy if government stuck to what the Constitution says the government should do, and spent as little tax dollars possible doing so.
I totally agree. In fact, the US could save close to half of its federal budget by abandoning its worldwide network of military bases supporting the American Empire. That would pay for a lot of tax breaks and still support the arts and sciences, roads, safety codes, police, fire protection,...
Slashdot Mirror
AppLocker, meanwhile, gives companies granular control over the applications - right down to the version number - that employees can install on their office machines.
In Debian-land, we call that apt-pinning. It's been in Debian since at least July 2002 (woody).
The biggest "offense" I saw was being able to transport to a ship at warp who knows how many light years away.
I saw that as believable as a one-time fluke. Future Spock had the equation, past Scotty was able to make it work once on his heavily-modified equipment, but I see no reason to believe that past Scotty could do it again without Future Spock's help -- who could easily say he has moral Prime Directive-ish objections to doing it again. Or there could be limitations to "transwarp teleporters" that the movie didn't mention: maybe its range is limited, or it takes too much power to run routinely.
Perhaps my favorite aspect of the movie is that they didn't shoot for scientific accuracy -- warping between stars within minutes, being able to see Nero a hundred yards from Saturn right over San Francisco, etc. I couldn't stand it when TNG would spout crap as a way to advance the plot; better just "do it" than try to bullshit about it. This movie was basically a rip from the TOS books, lots of adventure and each character able to shine in their own right.
My other favorite thing was that the Enterprise was actually allowed to kick ass. ALL of the other movies had some lame excuse why the Federation's flagship wasn't up to snuff, either outclassed by V'Ger or surprise-attacked by Khan or self-destructed or glitchy or obsolete...
If medical records can't even be protected at the state level, what makes people believe that national electronic health records will be any safer?
Maybe we think so because the federal government can sometimes be far more effective than small under-funded state governments? I mean, how many state governments have built their own space shuttles? How many can even fund their own highways?
Can I get an amen?
The main damage of the unions, and the complicit management, was the extensive health care, retirement and unemployment benefits.
Actually, back in the 40's/50's the unions pushed for a universal government-provided health care, retirement, and unemployment. It was the auto makers that swore up and down that it would be better for everyone if the companies provided those instead. The management wanted the extra control over the employees that those benefits would provide, not seeing that decades later the unions would be proven right (yet again) and that these benefits would crush the auto makers bottom line.
This particular lose-lose deal came from Big Three management, not the unions.
Woosh!
The issue was that the POTUS committed perjury
No, the issue was that the POTUS wasn't a Republican.
You can always tell who is racist by how pissed off they get when called out on it.
Dude, can you GET more racist?
Clearly you've never tried to implement a real spec. Even reasonably well-defined specs like ANSI X3.64 (character-based terminal emulation) have holes in them. Worse yet are specs that ship with a "reference implementation" that is itself buggy code (see Zmodem). APIs too: there were some functions in the Java 1.2.x APIs that "return null"'d when they were supposed to return an Object (e.g. java.net.HttpURLConnection.getErrorStream()) . It happens.
In this case however, according to TFA Microsoft must have known full well that they were breaking interoperability, since they had had it working OK before.
Name one -- ONE -- keyboard shortcut from pre-2007 releases that you can still use in 2007 that 2007 will actually tell you about.
I must one of the 10% of users who preferred the Excel charting wizard. As it stands now in Office 2007, every time I create a new chart it's wrong. It takes three times longer to get the right X-Y scatterplot with Excel 2007 than Excel 2003, or OOo (which is saying something because OOo's charts used to suck really bad).
I agree with you that broadcast and newspaper journalism organizations held a palpable liberal bias for many years.
If by "liberal", you mean pro-corporate, well then you're quite right.
get two newspapers with diametrally different interests and orientations
You mean there exists a newspaper that isn't oriented around making enough money to survive in the market?
Explicitly allowing military contractors to overcharge the taxpayer to deliver broken systems on no-bid contracts is the heart of True Capitalism(tm) and A-OK.
Making it easier for employees to enter into unions so they can negotiate better pay/benefits within the constraints of market competition is Pure Socialism(tm) and Must Be Stopped at all costs lest the USA degenerate into a communist backwater like Sweden.
Makes perfect sense!
Suppose I agree (I don't) that New Deal was what got America out of Great Depression (it wasn't; it was the whole shake-up with WWII).
Now explain why government spending on military ventures (WWII) CAN fix the economy, yet government spending on anything else (roads, new technology (Internet anyone?), electrical grid, R&D, universities (GI Bill anyone?), city infrastructure, etc. etc.) CAN'T fix the economy.
This could lead to someone like Snowe defecting as well, which would really bury the Republican part, possibly for good, as it could split between the Bible Thumping retard faction and the neocon fascist faction, which would work to the benefit of the Democrats.
Don't forget the "retard Libertarian" faction.
Conservatives don't grow the government.
Clearly then Reagan wasn't a conservative. Nixon wasn't a conservative. Eisenhower wasn't a conservative.
So ... who WAS a conservative?
Yeah, this whole article discussion has been very amazing. Who knew that so many people who had at one time left remarkably cogent posts on Slashdot were harboring secret ultra-right-wing Libertarian nutjob fantasies underneath their once cool-headed exteriors?
All of these things are possible through government/private corruption. If government actually got out of the way and did NOT intervene then market forces would prevent all of this.
Last time government "got out of the way", the free market did all of those things, so much so that people were willing to die to keep a strike going. Why would government getting out of the way today not lead right back to the same situation?
Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
[sarcasm]
Yeah, private industry can merely prevent you from earning income, which limits your ability to enjoy your political freedom and ultimately ends your life early for lack of food. That's clearly not in the same ballpark at all as what government can do.
[/sarcasm]
Way to completely miss the point. Have you even been to an American doctor recently?
They routinely prescribe medications that the insurance won't cover, largely because they don't know which of the medically reasonable alternatives the insurance WILL cover. Surgery? Good luck finding ANY doctor that can guarantee ahead of time that all of the specialists and facilities involved will be appropriately paid by insurance, even for routine "pre-approved" procedures.
And the time you DO get with them is often wasted. They ask you questions that could trivially be automated by an expert system at check-in time. (Ask any young woman how many times she will be asked if she is pregnant through one round of referrals.) They suggest medical procedures or drugs, and your first question is often, "If my insurance won't cover that, what is the next best thing we could do?" It can take up to two months to schedule in the necessary diagnostic procedures, get the results sent back to your doctor, and discuss all the results. Sometimes you enter the office and they have to spend several minutes just catching up to their own notes, and then they STILL ask questions you've already answered in a prior meeting. God help you if you have something that wasn't taught in medical school fifteen years ago, it could take months of meetings with various doctors before you find one that asks that Magic Question that leads to the right diagnosis and treatment.
By the time the doctor sees you, they should already have in front of them the most common diagnoses that fit your symptoms, and spend most their time with you finding out if any of those conditions fit, or if it is something else entirely. They should know which procedures and drugs will be covered by YOUR insurance, and have the ability to challenge a coverage decision on medical grounds (e.g. "patient X absolutely cannot have the generic form of drug Y because ..., and you must cover this"), and they should be able to do this while you are there in the office. They should be able to see the work load on the lab services they need and schedule you in. In short, they should be able to plan out your diagnostic procedures and treatment plan right there in front of you. Auto repair mechanics can do that, why can't doctors?
Maybe they will have slightly fewer appointments within a given day, but each of those would actually have positive effect on the patient's health, reducing the total number of appointments the patient has to make over the lifetime of that treatment cycle. In the end, more people would receive the care they need in a given time frame with that doctor that the current system.
Moreover, by having the receptionist take care of stuff like, say, scheduling and insurance, the doctor could see 3x more patients than the way you're describing.
Right, so you DON'T go to the doctor very often. Insurance isn't something the receptionist takes care of, fighting insurance companies for payments typically requires an entire full-time person per office. An automated system could eliminate THAT job entirely.
Poe's Law. I can't tell if this is satire from the center-left or wingnuttia from the right.
It's like a reverse-deja-vu of The Colbert Report.
What I want is this:
----snip----
Doctor: Hello, I'm Dr. Foo. According to your chart, you are here because of a sore back.
Me: Yup.
Doctor: You already answered the computerized questionnaire that asked a lot about your symptoms. Why don't you tell me in your own words what feels abnormal?
Me: Well, when I bend down like this it hurts real bad right here. It's a shooting kind of pain. It's worse at night and during cold weather. It's only been happening the last couple weeks.
Doctor: Hmm. Well, between that and your other answers, it looks like three different things might be going on. Let's schedule some lab work to find out. Your insurance will cover an MRI, that's good. The clinic has slots available next Tuesday, can you make it then?
Me: Well, actually Wednesday would be better.
Doctor: How about Wednesday 3 pm?
Me: That works.
Doctor: OK, you're set. In the meantime we should probably get you hooked up with a muscle relaxant and some painkillers. Your insurance covers two relaxants and three painkillers. Do you prefer generics or name brands?
Me: Generics are good.
Doctor: Great. Would you like to pick these up at your pharmacy on file, that would be CVS on 123 Mobile Avenue?
Me: That works.
Doctor: OK. They will be ready after 2 pm today. Let's see, your insurance has already responded to my requests, your MRI and medications are already approved. They expect $30 in co-pays, would you like to pay at our front desk or have them bill you at home?
Me: I'd rather they billed me at home.
Doctor: No problem, that's all set. Would you like to meet with me Friday afternoon to discuss the results?
Me: Sure, is 4 pm available?
Doctor: It sure is. You're in. So: pick up your medications this afternoon, have the MRI on Wednesday 3 pm, and we'll meet back here Friday 4 pm to discuss the results. The receptionist already has instructions for the MRI and a map waiting for you at our front desk. Is there anything else I can help you with while you're here?
Me: That's it.
Doctor: Alright, I'll see you on Friday. Have a good day!
----snip----
A good IT system could take the insurance and pharmaceutical companies almost entirely out of the loop. Let the doctors see ahead of time what the insurance company will pay for and decide based on that how to treat.
I'd just be happy if government stuck to what the Constitution says the government should do, and spent as little tax dollars possible doing so.
I totally agree. In fact, the US could save close to half of its federal budget by abandoning its worldwide network of military bases supporting the American Empire. That would pay for a lot of tax breaks and still support the arts and sciences, roads, safety codes, police, fire protection, ...