Eh, I've personally worked on the other side of that equation, and the data says that having data driven reviews(without even having a penalty attached) of doctors' outcomes makes a huge difference per cost. A lot of them just don't have time to follow up properly and understand where their biggest weaknesses are.
I'm not sure how the penalties for bad outcomes part is going to turn out, but the idea of systematic review is really dead simple.
1. LinkedIn is actually a sort-of competitor of slashdot's owner. That's a bit of a weird slashvertisement choice(not impossible, but weird). 2. The FTC would come down on facebook like a ton of bricks if they tried to buy out one of the largest other social networks. 3. Remember to report spam on those emails so that someday we might collectively not get them.
Do you remember how hard it was to pass watered-down it'll-cost-us-more-not-to health care reform on the grounds that it was socialism? People would blow their stacks at anything resembling preparing for a work-free future. Americans can't stand "slackers".
I suspect that they could refuse a search if they wanted(and the police would have no trouble getting a warrant to search anyways if there was even the remotest semblance of probable cause). The extent to which people will voluntarily waive their rights to solve problems is both a necessary part of the system, and distressingly easy to abuse.
On the one hand, this is the U.S. and we have a 4th amendment to our constitution, that does being secure in ones person in addition to papers and effects, which draws a pretty clear line(though not clear enough) about when a warrant is required. On the other hand, if you expect to have privacy on the streets of New York City you're dangerously crazy.
It just leaves the open question of whether there's a limit of what we'll late the state do beyond what we'll let the public at large do.
Unfortunately, I disagree with people who think a revolution will be a viable solution. Killing is one of the many things that computers are getting better at than us.
People who think they tune out ads are actually more influenced by them in their purchasing choices. They don't recognize the familiarity effect. I wish I could remember the marketing terminology for that so I could find some research to substantiate my claim. Working from memory here. Sorry.
Yes, but people will perceive that distinction as goalpost moving. Let's be honest about what's happening here: we are moving into a post-worker society. The set of jobs that a computer+automated machinery can achieve is rapidly approaching the point where it surpasses average human capacity in almost every field.
And I don't mean this as a neo-luddite "computers are taking our jobs" kind of way, just that the set of skills that are unique to humanity are shrinking. We're running, as fast as we can, at a point where ownership of capital is the only factor for success in a free-market economy.
Globalization only compounds this fact, by making historically disenfranchised workers able to compete for the same shrinking set of valuable labor skills. We're headed back towards a 2-class society, and I don't like it.
My fucking computer better not come with ads. Ads on webpages are clearly the fault of the website owner(and I adblock the hell out of a lot things). I don't buy magazines with ads. I don't watch ad-supported television(PBS: yes, netflix: sure, network/cable: never) My shirts are all quite advertisement free.
I don't like advertisement. If it costs some website owner their living, I find it less distressing than allowing mentally draining, emotional manipulative lies to permeate my life. The are two things I can't avoid: billboards, and junk mail. At least they're static and easy to ignore.
Let's be fair, my phrasing was ambiguous. There is a viable reading of what I posted that makes it look like I was implying what he said I was. I wasn't, but it is my fault for being insufficiently clear that I meant it as an example, not a universal assertion.
I'm aware that I'm a bit of an extremist in this regards, but I believe advertisements to be fundamentally detrimental to society. The idea that I'd pay someone for ads offends me to no end. The fact that I could potentially limit my exposure by taking a particular course of action is not good enough.
Sure is easy to live in a world where people who make [common choice] are all universally morons. It makes it trivial to be the world's only super-genius.
I originally got a console for same-couch-multiplayer, which is another thing game company greed(we can make them buy 2 copies!) has eroded to almost non-existence.
Microsoft managed to advertise themselves out of my interest in any of their console offerings. I actually bought the first two xboxes, reliably purchased xbox live and games for the 360, but then after their choices to put more and more ads on EVERYTHING, I realized just how stupid I was being, and cut every last entertainment dollar from going to MS. I was done.
If you don't want to be exploited both coming and going, don't buy an xbox anything.
They can actually be really funny, but when you realize that the person telling the joke legitimately doesn't like black people, it creates a depressing side to the joke that ruins any humor.
For some reason the humor of this joke is sabotaged for me by the fact that you're a climate change denialist. It's just really off-putting when it seems like someone might believe their joke.
The number of viable reasons to answer that question "No" is simply so staggering, I cannot imagine the question arising in the mind of someone whose idea of fashion isn't "straight jacket."
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, I've personally worked on the other side of that equation, and the data says that having data driven reviews(without even having a penalty attached) of doctors' outcomes makes a huge difference per cost. A lot of them just don't have time to follow up properly and understand where their biggest weaknesses are.
I'm not sure how the penalties for bad outcomes part is going to turn out, but the idea of systematic review is really dead simple.
Several points:
1. LinkedIn is actually a sort-of competitor of slashdot's owner. That's a bit of a weird slashvertisement choice(not impossible, but weird).
2. The FTC would come down on facebook like a ton of bricks if they tried to buy out one of the largest other social networks.
3. Remember to report spam on those emails so that someday we might collectively not get them.
Do you remember how hard it was to pass watered-down it'll-cost-us-more-not-to health care reform on the grounds that it was socialism? People would blow their stacks at anything resembling preparing for a work-free future. Americans can't stand "slackers".
Actually describing what the new technology does? That doesn't seem important... What we need in this summary is technology buzzwords.
I suspect that they could refuse a search if they wanted(and the police would have no trouble getting a warrant to search anyways if there was even the remotest semblance of probable cause). The extent to which people will voluntarily waive their rights to solve problems is both a necessary part of the system, and distressingly easy to abuse.
It's something of an an understatement to say that that is a very liberal interpretation the second amendment.
If you're going to that level of effort, why not rewire them to defraud your insurance company?
And, the moment I did, I'd pirate every single thing in my steam library, and never touch valve again.
On the one hand, this is the U.S. and we have a 4th amendment to our constitution, that does being secure in ones person in addition to papers and effects, which draws a pretty clear line(though not clear enough) about when a warrant is required. On the other hand, if you expect to have privacy on the streets of New York City you're dangerously crazy.
It just leaves the open question of whether there's a limit of what we'll late the state do beyond what we'll let the public at large do.
Unfortunately, I disagree with people who think a revolution will be a viable solution. Killing is one of the many things that computers are getting better at than us.
People who think they tune out ads are actually more influenced by them in their purchasing choices. They don't recognize the familiarity effect. I wish I could remember the marketing terminology for that so I could find some research to substantiate my claim. Working from memory here. Sorry.
Yes, but people will perceive that distinction as goalpost moving. Let's be honest about what's happening here: we are moving into a post-worker society. The set of jobs that a computer+automated machinery can achieve is rapidly approaching the point where it surpasses average human capacity in almost every field.
And I don't mean this as a neo-luddite "computers are taking our jobs" kind of way, just that the set of skills that are unique to humanity are shrinking. We're running, as fast as we can, at a point where ownership of capital is the only factor for success in a free-market economy.
Globalization only compounds this fact, by making historically disenfranchised workers able to compete for the same shrinking set of valuable labor skills. We're headed back towards a 2-class society, and I don't like it.
I'm not actually radically anti-microsoft. They can continue to make office software and IDEs, which they're actually pretty good at.
Could you clarify? I certainly wouldn't wand some random stranger on the internet thinking poorly of me.
My fucking computer better not come with ads. Ads on webpages are clearly the fault of the website owner(and I adblock the hell out of a lot things).
I don't buy magazines with ads.
I don't watch ad-supported television(PBS: yes, netflix: sure, network/cable: never)
My shirts are all quite advertisement free.
I don't like advertisement. If it costs some website owner their living, I find it less distressing than allowing mentally draining, emotional manipulative lies to permeate my life. The are two things I can't avoid: billboards, and junk mail. At least they're static and easy to ignore.
Let's be fair, my phrasing was ambiguous. There is a viable reading of what I posted that makes it look like I was implying what he said I was. I wasn't, but it is my fault for being insufficiently clear that I meant it as an example, not a universal assertion.
I'm not sure I buy that pop-psych explanation, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
I'm aware that I'm a bit of an extremist in this regards, but I believe advertisements to be fundamentally detrimental to society. The idea that I'd pay someone for ads offends me to no end. The fact that I could potentially limit my exposure by taking a particular course of action is not good enough.
Sure is easy to live in a world where people who make [common choice] are all universally morons. It makes it trivial to be the world's only super-genius.
I originally got a console for same-couch-multiplayer, which is another thing game company greed(we can make them buy 2 copies!) has eroded to almost non-existence.
If you live in a region with one major broadband ISP, they suck balls. Because they can.
Microsoft managed to advertise themselves out of my interest in any of their console offerings. I actually bought the first two xboxes, reliably purchased xbox live and games for the 360, but then after their choices to put more and more ads on EVERYTHING, I realized just how stupid I was being, and cut every last entertainment dollar from going to MS. I was done.
If you don't want to be exploited both coming and going, don't buy an xbox anything.
It's kinda like racist jokes:
They can actually be really funny, but when you realize that the person telling the joke legitimately doesn't like black people, it creates a depressing side to the joke that ruins any humor.
For some reason the humor of this joke is sabotaged for me by the fact that you're a climate change denialist. It's just really off-putting when it seems like someone might believe their joke.
The number of viable reasons to answer that question "No" is simply so staggering, I cannot imagine the question arising in the mind of someone whose idea of fashion isn't "straight jacket."
You think they'll be melting shortly? Or just crushed by one too many houses?