Well the effects of schooling are likely overshadowed by the effects of "oh we're bad for doing something illegal!" See also under-age drinking in college.
No one is questioning what a heart rate monitor does. It measures one's heart rate. It is common knowledge. This bit of information was never called into question, not by the OP, nor by any other poster following that I've seen.
Well that was part of my point.. read the orginal ask question. I just re-read it myself, and notice that the question states only the strap was asked to be purchased. Now, without more information, as far as I know there's no "group heart rate monitors," and since I don't know if a particular item was mentioned in the letter, its still confusing as best. The strap is useless without a monitor, and usually the monitor and strap are coded so as not to be interfered with by other monitors. So are they really being asked to only buy the strap and not the monitor, or is the question wrong and the parents must buy the watch as well.
Thing is, this generates data. Data such as "Student Y's heart rate was 118 bpm after 5 minutes of moderate exertion".
No... the data it generates is "beep... beep, beep beep....beep... beep." The monitor interperates that data, and as I said, AFAIK theres no system that monitors a group of straps (esp. from various manfacturers). And even after interpretation, you know "student Y's heart rate averaged 118 bpm over the course of five minutes." It tells you nothing else, not how much work was done (if any), or how intense the work was, because heart rate varies based on a host of other factors.. stress, general fitness level, caffiene, illness, etc.
Educate kids on how exercise effects heart rate Demonstrate the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise Evaluate a child's level of fitness for the school's insurance purposes Create a permanent record of an individual's fitness levels Create a data pool that can be mined for statistical models of the citizens of various regions Of course, that list is far from inclusive, nor is every item all that realistic. The point is, does it hurt to ask?
In that list, the only realistic one is the first one. Heart rate doesn't give you great insights on fitness level. It may give you an idea how efficent the body is moving oxygen around, but as I said its so easily affected by a number of factors its mostly useless, except for the narrow focus of "make sure my workout intensity is appropriate for my goal."
And no, it doesn't hurt to ask, but the phrasing of the Ask submission, and the phrasing of the post to which I responded makes me wonder if it is common knowledge as to what it is the monitors do. Of course, there's also details missing from the submission that make it hard to give any kind of answer... for example, if the kids just have to buy the strap, what WILL be doing the monitoring? Is the school supplying a watch monitor for the school year? Is there some device which can monitor a room full of the straps? If the monitor is under the schools control, sure its approrpiate to ask what data is collected and if its transmitted off the watch (mine uses irda to update to a website).
my cousin is and her husband is a police officer, and one of her biggest complaints is that jurors are now expecting evidence to be collected
The horror!
more importantly processed along the lines of the tv show CSI. Where DNA results are turned around in an hour
Well, unless the trial starts immediately after the supsect is arrested, I don't see why DNA evidence shouldn't be available by the time the trial starts. If DNA labs are backlogged, that's another problem that needs to be addressed... but saying requiring evidence to convict isn't all that far fetched.
bullets collected in the pouring rain can still be matched to a national gunpowder manufacturer database
Well, the flip side is that without knowing the manufacturer, how do you know the accused is the one that shot, given that you have his ammo collected from his house? Just because one owns a.38 and that's what was used doesn't mean that particular person used his particular gun to commit the crime.
My problem when I watch investigation documentiers is how many people are conviced based on circumstantial evidence ALONE.
I suppose you could argue that's what they're using the data for, but given that a heart rate monitor's function is fairly well know, and that its being required for gym class, the logical conclusion is that the school is trying to educate the kids (by showing what data can be collected and why) and optimize their exercise in gym class (using that same data to effect healthy change).
I was honestly shocked by the submission itself; even before I ever got into fitness, I knew what heart rate monitors were and what they did, I would have expected this to be fairly common knowledge.
And the day you are stricken low by a chronic condition, or indeed simply grow older? Will you then be satisfied in paying increased premiums for the rest for your life?
I thought I was pretty clear. It's fine to be charged higher premiums if you're DOING something risky. That is, you can chose it. So if the chronic condition was brought about because I was acting irresponsibley, then sure, charge me a higher premium. If I was doing what was considered healthy, then no. AFAIK, you can't control your age, so again no, no higher premiums simply for being older.
This is the important point about insurance. Instead of spreading costs evenly across the system, so that people who are better off now support those in hard times (this is the whole theory of insurance), we instead simply pass on all the burden to the people who can't afford it and who need the most help.
Really? Because EVERY OTHER KIND OF INSURANCE is based on risk. Live in an area with a high flood risk? You pay more. Drive recklessly and rack up tickets or accidents? You again pay more. Smoke or skydive for a living? Your life insurance COSTS YOU MORE. See the pattern? The costs are usually tied to things you can control. Regarding health insurance, I think its reasonable to ONLY base premiums on things you can control, because now we're talking about people's lives. At the same time, I don't pity someone who's reckless with their own life.
This situation has come about because we invited risk based premiums in the door when we allowed smokers, obese people and similar people to be charged higher rates. You can justify it any way you want, but it was based more on righteousness more than hard facts.
You're wrong; smokers and obese peope right now are NOT charged higher premiums.
If we really based risk assessment on facts, we'd have situations where groups like West Africans and Ashkenazi Jews were charged higher premiums because of hereditary disorders like Sickle Cells disease and Cystic fibrosis. But, we don't do that because it would be socially and morally unacceptable and repugnant.
I am drawing a line between things beyond an individuals control and those things which ARE under and individuals control. And if you look at health care costs and the leading causes of death, the majority today in the US is not sickle cell or CF, its obesity related diseases. In other words, people are making choices contributing as much as 10% to the cost of health care, more than any other single cost. Look at this and tell me again if you think your lifestyle shouldn't be a factor for health insurance: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php
It's good that you keeper yourself healthy. And you currently enjoy windfalls because of that. It would be nice if you could be healthy forever. But sooner or later, time will take its toll, and when it does the insurance system which you now support will seem a lot less friendly and rewarding, and a lot more harsh and punitive.
You act as if its inevitable to become unhealthy as you get older. You really know nothing of fitness and healthy living. Studies have been showing exercise can help with artiritus, mental disorders, bone density problems, ciruclation problems, an a host of other problems. http://www.thirdage.com/exercise-fitness/strength-training-the-best-anti-aging-remedy-ever There's much more out there, go look. No, you'll not live forever, eventually everything dies... but your assemsement that we are helpless to rapidly decay is simply not true.
Nobody will do anything to you for only $100. You won't be sued, dragged into court, nothing. At most, it will show up on your credit report, where likely nobody will care about it there either.
Well there's always this option: There's overwise alot of very unhealthy kids and we want to show them that by keeping up a certain heart rate during excercise and eating properly, you can become healthy instead of the useless fatass you currently are.
I'm not sure where you're going with your post, but your driving habits DO dicate your rate. Get a few tickets for moving violations, and your rate goes up. Its also based on the rate of accidents in your local area. I see that as plenty fair.
To get to your points at the end of of your post, insurance is supposed to be for people in case something bad happens they didn't plan for. Chronic drinking, smoking, eating highly fatty foods are all things you can 1) control and 2) plan on doing or not doing. Going back to car insurance, why shouldn't health insurance be based on things you CAN control? Certainly someone born with sickle cell can't have helped that, and so I have no problem with insurance covering that. But covering a surgery to make your stomach smaller and remove a chunk ofyour intestines because you have no self control? No, insurance should NEVER cover that, nor should it cover type II diabetes except in the rarest cases (cases where its not the patients lifestyle causing the diabetes) http://diabetes.webmd.com/guide/diabetes-causes
As to why I feel I should pay lower then the majority; I take care of my self my not smoking, drinking responsibly, and working out six days a week.
Myself, I am a slightly left-leaning centrist libertarian, and a new dad (5 days ago! Woot!), I can understand the concern. This is the sort of odd request that I just have to ask "What is this being used for anyways?" I'm not saying I automatically disapprove of it, whatever it is.
I really have to ask... do you know what one is? If you know, there's no reason to ask "What is the being used for."
Indeed. When my wife and I signed up at the gym, our trainer (and the owner of the gym) said the monitors were a good idea to help use figure out fat burning ranges. Now that I'm a trainer, I have an ever better understanding of it.
To the one that posted the question... put down your fucking tin foil hat. The strap is just electrods which pick up the wearers heartbeat, which is transmitted to a wristwatch (usually coded so as not to pick up someone elses signal). The watch tells you your heart rate, VO2Max and times your workout, and usually will calculate calories burned. That's it. Good ones ask for your weight height and age (age is a factor in determining your max heart rate, which is 220 - your age.
Ajaxamander: Nice job being so fit. Mine hovers around 50 when fully at rest. The only downside was in recovery from an outpatient surgery, the machine monitoring my respiration kept going off... because although I felt I was breathing fine (that is, slow and getting enough o2), the machine didn't.. I almost hyperventalated trying to keep the damn thing happy).
We aren't talking about a life-saving device here. We are talking about a device that makes communication easier. What happens if it malfunctions? Nothing. If this were a pace-maker, it's a no-brainer. More expensive and more reliable is the way to go. However, it's not.
So shall we also cover the cost of the plan? Why should money let someone play games? If the device is so affordable, why involve insurance at all? Oh, the last line of the article points out why: "Technology has become as important to me as air, food, water," she wrote.
That kinda applies to everyone, doesn't it?
I also like this: "The iPhone has been a runaway success with these kids," she said. "It takes them about 10 minutes to learn how to use the iPhone, and there is this cool factor for them."
So they like it not because it helps them, they think its cool?
Seriously.. if you want to drive down prices, build your own text 2 speech computer and don't charge the huge markup. You'll make a killing.
Did you miss the part of my sentence regarding the FDA testing medical devices must go through?
And it can do more, bonus! Why is that a problem?
Its a problem because people just wnat their insurance to pay for a cell phone they otherwise couldn't buy on their own. If the idea is to save insurance money, won't don't these jackasses pay for the phone themselves? That would cost the insurance company nothing.
So, you are proposing they spend $5,000 on a specialty "medical" device, instead of the $450 iphone + software combo, because $450 is too much?
No, its "I don't want some wanker getting an iPhone because they THINK its the same as a tested medical device." I suppose we should also say for the phone's plan too, right? And then pay for the persons care when they stroke or have some other complication, because, suprise, an iPhone ISN'T AS RELIABLE AS THE $5000 DEVICE.
And by the way... unless you develop cancer, aids, or some other very bad disease, you will NEVER use more money than you give your insurance company. In fact, the only sane reason to have medical insurance is to be protected "just in case." If you are young and healthy (and especially if you are self-employed or don't get employment benefits for whatever reason), insurance is a scam. Just set aside what your insurance premium is, and when you have to go to the emergency room for falling off a ladder, you'll have more than enough to cover it (and you'll realize how much money your insurance company was making off of you).
Ya, good luck with that. One broken leg and an infection would wipe out all that you "saved" by not having insurance.
Yes, because one device was vetted by the FDA and proven to be reliable, the other is a fucking cell phone. And its not just that it has a non-medical use... its MAIN use is non-medical.
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job.
Since when is it medical insurance's job to pay for someone's iPhone? Sorry, they are not medically necessary. Health insurance is supposed to pay for health problems that come up unexpectedly... but it quickly doesn't work if everyone is expected to get back more than they pay in.
which of course means that two thirds of the time you are more likely to stay alive. I look at seat belts kind of like insurance.
Really? You'd be insurance that's little better than a coin flip?
Society has to pay to scrape you off the highway in a serious crash
Society also has to put to cut your corpse out of the car when the seatbelt is responsible for your death... or worse, keep you alive because you're in a coma for years. I fail to see how its cheaper for society to deal with someone injuried but not killed vs flat out dead.
you're still alive and you have no insurance, the hospital has to eat the cost to treat you as well, which makes my medical insurance or medical costs higher
Um, ya, and what does this have to due with a seatbelt? Oh ya, nothing, because seatbelt use doesn't protect you from injury either, plenty of people die using them, or are still severly injured. I know this, because my wife knows people that have been in accidents. Anyway, you're being exteremly dishonest..
The issue there is not having insurance, isn't it? Of course, we can fix that in other ways too... no insurance, no treatment. But don't confuse not having health insurance with mandatory seat belt use.
If you through carelessness or just plain bad luck cause damage to someone, you should be held responsible.
Hmm.. well all these fatasses running around causes damage to me in higher healthcare costs, why aren't they being held responsible?
As far as bad luck causing someone else damage... how exactly do you figure THAT should be a basis for tort? Some crashes into me through no fault of my own, and I don't have insurance, and I should be held responsible? Sounds very similar to a burglar sueing when he fell down your stairs.
Having seatbelts and insurance is just a normal expense and operating a motor vehicle, no different than putting gasoline in the tank once in a while when it gets empty.
Again you're being exteremly dishonest. What right to you have to decide for me whether or not I wear a seatbelt, given that the odds they keep me alive in a fatal crash are little better than a coin flip? You're gambling with MY life... because of a money issue? Really?
They're under no obligation to ever release the source code. Why should they? If they did, it probably would cut into sales of newer OSes, regardless of whether or not the new OS is better or not.
To answer your last question... they never said they couldn't do it, they said they wouldn't. "Not feasible" means "the effort involved would not be worth the benefit."
It would also charge drivers? Not if they turn their phones off - they shouldn't be talking/texting and driving anyway.
No, but I'd sure like to be able to use the GPS in my phone instead of shelling out hundreds more for something installed into my car. Oh, and I think passangers should be able to talk / text all they like.
- It wouldn't charge people with their phones off or with a protective layer around the phone? Well... If they are really willing to take that much preparation just to cross the street in a non-designated spot... they will probably pay enough attention so as not to be run over by an incoming truck. Which is what jaywalking fine is there to prevent anyway, right?
No, they won't, nor does a fine have an impact on jaywalking. Laws like this rarely acomplish what they set out to do, and instead are not enforced or used to make up for budget deficents. But don't think safety every comes into the equation. If you want to stop jaywalking, make a law which absolves drivers from responsiblity if they hit someone, unless that person was in a crosswalk and / or had a cross signal telling them they could cross.
Would some drivers "get away with it?" Yes... but very few people would run over someone... but plenty of people see no problem with stepping out into traffic. Where I live, they EXPECT you to stop on a dime, and don't even bother looking.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the effects of schooling are likely overshadowed by the effects of "oh we're bad for doing something illegal!" See also under-age drinking in college.
When was your flight? I don't think anyone even pays attention to this anymore, do they?
I think they should rename yellow to "lets face it, the world never WAS safe, and never will be. Learn to accept it."
No one is questioning what a heart rate monitor does. It measures one's heart rate. It is common knowledge. This bit of information was never called into question, not by the OP, nor by any other poster following that I've seen.
Well that was part of my point.. read the orginal ask question. I just re-read it myself, and notice that the question states only the strap was asked to be purchased. Now, without more information, as far as I know there's no "group heart rate monitors," and since I don't know if a particular item was mentioned in the letter, its still confusing as best. The strap is useless without a monitor, and usually the monitor and strap are coded so as not to be interfered with by other monitors. So are they really being asked to only buy the strap and not the monitor, or is the question wrong and the parents must buy the watch as well.
Thing is, this generates data. Data such as "Student Y's heart rate was 118 bpm after 5 minutes of moderate exertion".
No... the data it generates is "beep... beep, beep beep....beep... beep." The monitor interperates that data, and as I said, AFAIK theres no system that monitors a group of straps (esp. from various manfacturers). And even after interpretation, you know "student Y's heart rate averaged 118 bpm over the course of five minutes." It tells you nothing else, not how much work was done (if any), or how intense the work was, because heart rate varies based on a host of other factors.. stress, general fitness level, caffiene, illness, etc.
Educate kids on how exercise effects heart rate
Demonstrate the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise
Evaluate a child's level of fitness for the school's insurance purposes
Create a permanent record of an individual's fitness levels
Create a data pool that can be mined for statistical models of the citizens of various regions
Of course, that list is far from inclusive, nor is every item all that realistic. The point is, does it hurt to ask?
In that list, the only realistic one is the first one. Heart rate doesn't give you great insights on fitness level. It may give you an idea how efficent the body is moving oxygen around, but as I said its so easily affected by a number of factors its mostly useless, except for the narrow focus of "make sure my workout intensity is appropriate for my goal."
And no, it doesn't hurt to ask, but the phrasing of the Ask submission, and the phrasing of the post to which I responded makes me wonder if it is common knowledge as to what it is the monitors do. Of course, there's also details missing from the submission that make it hard to give any kind of answer... for example, if the kids just have to buy the strap, what WILL be doing the monitoring? Is the school supplying a watch monitor for the school year? Is there some device which can monitor a room full of the straps? If the monitor is under the schools control, sure its approrpiate to ask what data is collected and if its transmitted off the watch (mine uses irda to update to a website).
my cousin is and her husband is a police officer, and one of her biggest complaints is that jurors are now expecting evidence to be collected
The horror!
more importantly processed along the lines of the tv show CSI. Where DNA results are turned around in an hour
Well, unless the trial starts immediately after the supsect is arrested, I don't see why DNA evidence shouldn't be available by the time the trial starts. If DNA labs are backlogged, that's another problem that needs to be addressed... but saying requiring evidence to convict isn't all that far fetched.
bullets collected in the pouring rain can still be matched to a national gunpowder manufacturer database
Well, the flip side is that without knowing the manufacturer, how do you know the accused is the one that shot, given that you have his ammo collected from his house? Just because one owns a .38 and that's what was used doesn't mean that particular person used his particular gun to commit the crime.
My problem when I watch investigation documentiers is how many people are conviced based on circumstantial evidence ALONE.
I suppose you could argue that's what they're using the data for, but given that a heart rate monitor's function is fairly well know, and that its being required for gym class, the logical conclusion is that the school is trying to educate the kids (by showing what data can be collected and why) and optimize their exercise in gym class (using that same data to effect healthy change).
I was honestly shocked by the submission itself; even before I ever got into fitness, I knew what heart rate monitors were and what they did, I would have expected this to be fairly common knowledge.
And the day you are stricken low by a chronic condition, or indeed simply grow older? Will you then be satisfied in paying increased premiums for the rest for your life?
I thought I was pretty clear. It's fine to be charged higher premiums if you're DOING something risky. That is, you can chose it. So if the chronic condition was brought about because I was acting irresponsibley, then sure, charge me a higher premium. If I was doing what was considered healthy, then no. AFAIK, you can't control your age, so again no, no higher premiums simply for being older.
This is the important point about insurance. Instead of spreading costs evenly across the system, so that people who are better off now support those in hard times (this is the whole theory of insurance), we instead simply pass on all the burden to the people who can't afford it and who need the most help.
Really? Because EVERY OTHER KIND OF INSURANCE is based on risk. Live in an area with a high flood risk? You pay more. Drive recklessly and rack up tickets or accidents? You again pay more. Smoke or skydive for a living? Your life insurance COSTS YOU MORE. See the pattern? The costs are usually tied to things you can control. Regarding health insurance, I think its reasonable to ONLY base premiums on things you can control, because now we're talking about people's lives. At the same time, I don't pity someone who's reckless with their own life.
This situation has come about because we invited risk based premiums in the door when we allowed smokers, obese people and similar people to be charged higher rates. You can justify it any way you want, but it was based more on righteousness more than hard facts.
You're wrong; smokers and obese peope right now are NOT charged higher premiums.
If we really based risk assessment on facts, we'd have situations where groups like West Africans and Ashkenazi Jews were charged higher premiums because of hereditary disorders like Sickle Cells disease and Cystic fibrosis. But, we don't do that because it would be socially and morally unacceptable and repugnant.
I am drawing a line between things beyond an individuals control and those things which ARE under and individuals control. And if you look at health care costs and the leading causes of death, the majority today in the US is not sickle cell or CF, its obesity related diseases. In other words, people are making choices contributing as much as 10% to the cost of health care, more than any other single cost. Look at this and tell me again if you think your lifestyle shouldn't be a factor for health insurance: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php
It's good that you keeper yourself healthy. And you currently enjoy windfalls because of that. It would be nice if you could be healthy forever. But sooner or later, time will take its toll, and when it does the insurance system which you now support will seem a lot less friendly and rewarding, and a lot more harsh and punitive.
You act as if its inevitable to become unhealthy as you get older. You really know nothing of fitness and healthy living. Studies have been showing exercise can help with artiritus, mental disorders, bone density problems, ciruclation problems, an a host of other problems. http://www.thirdage.com/exercise-fitness/strength-training-the-best-anti-aging-remedy-ever There's much more out there, go look. No, you'll not live forever, eventually everything dies... but your assemsement that we are helpless to rapidly decay is simply not true.
Nobody will do anything to you for only $100. You won't be sued, dragged into court, nothing. At most, it will show up on your credit report, where likely nobody will care about it there either.
That's false. The VISA merchant agreement (which can be downloaded by anyone on their website) explicitlly ALLOWS cash discounts.
Well there's always this option: There's overwise alot of very unhealthy kids and we want to show them that by keeping up a certain heart rate during excercise and eating properly, you can become healthy instead of the useless fatass you currently are.
I'm not sure where you're going with your post, but your driving habits DO dicate your rate. Get a few tickets for moving violations, and your rate goes up. Its also based on the rate of accidents in your local area. I see that as plenty fair.
To get to your points at the end of of your post, insurance is supposed to be for people in case something bad happens they didn't plan for. Chronic drinking, smoking, eating highly fatty foods are all things you can 1) control and 2) plan on doing or not doing. Going back to car insurance, why shouldn't health insurance be based on things you CAN control? Certainly someone born with sickle cell can't have helped that, and so I have no problem with insurance covering that. But covering a surgery to make your stomach smaller and remove a chunk ofyour intestines because you have no self control? No, insurance should NEVER cover that, nor should it cover type II diabetes except in the rarest cases (cases where its not the patients lifestyle causing the diabetes) http://diabetes.webmd.com/guide/diabetes-causes
As to why I feel I should pay lower then the majority; I take care of my self my not smoking, drinking responsibly, and working out six days a week.
Myself, I am a slightly left-leaning centrist libertarian, and a new dad (5 days ago! Woot!), I can understand the concern. This is the sort of odd request that I just have to ask "What is this being used for anyways?" I'm not saying I automatically disapprove of it, whatever it is.
I really have to ask... do you know what one is? If you know, there's no reason to ask "What is the being used for."
http://www.polar.fi/
Indeed. When my wife and I signed up at the gym, our trainer (and the owner of the gym) said the monitors were a good idea to help use figure out fat burning ranges. Now that I'm a trainer, I have an ever better understanding of it.
To the one that posted the question... put down your fucking tin foil hat. The strap is just electrods which pick up the wearers heartbeat, which is transmitted to a wristwatch (usually coded so as not to pick up someone elses signal). The watch tells you your heart rate, VO2Max and times your workout, and usually will calculate calories burned. That's it. Good ones ask for your weight height and age (age is a factor in determining your max heart rate, which is 220 - your age.
Ajaxamander: Nice job being so fit. Mine hovers around 50 when fully at rest. The only downside was in recovery from an outpatient surgery, the machine monitoring my respiration kept going off... because although I felt I was breathing fine (that is, slow and getting enough o2), the machine didn't.. I almost hyperventalated trying to keep the damn thing happy).
We aren't talking about a life-saving device here. We are talking about a device that makes communication easier. What happens if it malfunctions? Nothing. If this were a pace-maker, it's a no-brainer. More expensive and more reliable is the way to go. However, it's not.
So shall we also cover the cost of the plan? Why should money let someone play games? If the device is so affordable, why involve insurance at all? Oh, the last line of the article points out why: "Technology has become as important to me as air, food, water," she wrote.
That kinda applies to everyone, doesn't it?
I also like this: "The iPhone has been a runaway success with these kids," she said. "It takes them about 10 minutes to learn how to use the iPhone, and there is this cool factor for them."
So they like it not because it helps them, they think its cool?
Seriously.. if you want to drive down prices, build your own text 2 speech computer and don't charge the huge markup. You'll make a killing.
Did you miss the part of my sentence regarding the FDA testing medical devices must go through?
And it can do more, bonus! Why is that a problem?
Its a problem because people just wnat their insurance to pay for a cell phone they otherwise couldn't buy on their own. If the idea is to save insurance money, won't don't these jackasses pay for the phone themselves? That would cost the insurance company nothing.
Which boosted sales of Windows applications. Good job.
So, you are proposing they spend $5,000 on a specialty "medical" device, instead of the $450 iphone + software combo, because $450 is too much?
No, its "I don't want some wanker getting an iPhone because they THINK its the same as a tested medical device." I suppose we should also say for the phone's plan too, right? And then pay for the persons care when they stroke or have some other complication, because, suprise, an iPhone ISN'T AS RELIABLE AS THE $5000 DEVICE.
And by the way... unless you develop cancer, aids, or some other very bad disease, you will NEVER use more money than you give your insurance company. In fact, the only sane reason to have medical insurance is to be protected "just in case." If you are young and healthy (and especially if you are self-employed or don't get employment benefits for whatever reason), insurance is a scam. Just set aside what your insurance premium is, and when you have to go to the emergency room for falling off a ladder, you'll have more than enough to cover it (and you'll realize how much money your insurance company was making off of you) .
Ya, good luck with that. One broken leg and an infection would wipe out all that you "saved" by not having insurance.
Ok, troll, I'm not going to bother with you anymore, since anyone with half a brain can google and find dozens of sites all saying the same thing.
Yes, because one device was vetted by the FDA and proven to be reliable, the other is a fucking cell phone. And its not just that it has a non-medical use... its MAIN use is non-medical.
Wow... I'm replying to you even though there are plenty of similar posts... but I'm amazed people are posting such nonsense.
Win7 is available for pre-order. So yes, you can have sales for it even though its not officially released yet.
Funny, b/c I seem to remember that from a story posted on this very site a few days ago.
And I easily found this story: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=119190
How stating a simple fact became astroturfing I'll never know.
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job.
Since when is it medical insurance's job to pay for someone's iPhone? Sorry, they are not medically necessary. Health insurance is supposed to pay for health problems that come up unexpectedly... but it quickly doesn't work if everyone is expected to get back more than they pay in.
which of course means that two thirds of the time you are more likely to stay alive. I look at seat belts kind of like insurance.
Really? You'd be insurance that's little better than a coin flip?
Society has to pay to scrape you off the highway in a serious crash
Society also has to put to cut your corpse out of the car when the seatbelt is responsible for your death... or worse, keep you alive because you're in a coma for years. I fail to see how its cheaper for society to deal with someone injuried but not killed vs flat out dead.
you're still alive and you have no insurance, the hospital has to eat the cost to treat you as well, which makes my medical insurance or medical costs higher
Um, ya, and what does this have to due with a seatbelt? Oh ya, nothing, because seatbelt use doesn't protect you from injury either, plenty of people die using them, or are still severly injured. I know this, because my wife knows people that have been in accidents. Anyway, you're being exteremly dishonest..
The issue there is not having insurance, isn't it? Of course, we can fix that in other ways too... no insurance, no treatment. But don't confuse not having health insurance with mandatory seat belt use.
If you through carelessness or just plain bad luck cause damage to someone, you should be held responsible.
Hmm.. well all these fatasses running around causes damage to me in higher healthcare costs, why aren't they being held responsible?
As far as bad luck causing someone else damage... how exactly do you figure THAT should be a basis for tort? Some crashes into me through no fault of my own, and I don't have insurance, and I should be held responsible? Sounds very similar to a burglar sueing when he fell down your stairs.
Having seatbelts and insurance is just a normal expense and operating a motor vehicle, no different than putting gasoline in the tank once in a while when it gets empty.
Again you're being exteremly dishonest. What right to you have to decide for me whether or not I wear a seatbelt, given that the odds they keep me alive in a fatal crash are little better than a coin flip? You're gambling with MY life... because of a money issue? Really?
They're under no obligation to ever release the source code. Why should they? If they did, it probably would cut into sales of newer OSes, regardless of whether or not the new OS is better or not.
To answer your last question... they never said they couldn't do it, they said they wouldn't. "Not feasible" means "the effort involved would not be worth the benefit."
Sales of Win7 are much higher than Vista; where they are at now, it took Vista weeks to get to.
It would also charge drivers? Not if they turn their phones off - they shouldn't be talking/texting and driving anyway.
No, but I'd sure like to be able to use the GPS in my phone instead of shelling out hundreds more for something installed into my car. Oh, and I think passangers should be able to talk / text all they like.
- It wouldn't charge people with their phones off or with a protective layer around the phone? Well... If they are really willing to take that much preparation just to cross the street in a non-designated spot... they will probably pay enough attention so as not to be run over by an incoming truck. Which is what jaywalking fine is there to prevent anyway, right?
No, they won't, nor does a fine have an impact on jaywalking. Laws like this rarely acomplish what they set out to do, and instead are not enforced or used to make up for budget deficents. But don't think safety every comes into the equation. If you want to stop jaywalking, make a law which absolves drivers from responsiblity if they hit someone, unless that person was in a crosswalk and / or had a cross signal telling them they could cross.
Would some drivers "get away with it?" Yes... but very few people would run over someone... but plenty of people see no problem with stepping out into traffic. Where I live, they EXPECT you to stop on a dime, and don't even bother looking.