The thing is, Facebook, like Google, has become the Way that Lots of Things are Just Done. Too many of my family members use it to stay in touch: if I eschewed it, it would be like not participating in the extended family. Circles of friends work the same way.
When a social platform gets big enough, becoming a de facto standard, the choice to participate or not participate is somewhat weightier than the choice to ïbuy or not buy other types of goods.
OK, stories like this reveal a fascinating contradiction.
The original question expressed concern that a child's heart rate and other health info would be used to either deny them health insurance or force them into a higher risk pool.
But the libertarian presumption is that free markets with full information work better for everyone involved. The insurers want information that will enable them to remove expensive-to-insure people from coverage where possible, or at least to put them in a much more expensive pool. While they want perfect information (to make insuring people as low-risk and profitable as possible,) clearly the parents of kids who may have pre-existing conditions do not want that information available. Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to allow insurers to take every possible measure to get that information out into the open, so that they can tier insurance appropriately? Doesn't that mean that people who are loath to share their information are probably "free-riding" on lower-risk populations? Wouldn't that make the refusal of information (such as heart rates, etc.) a reasonable basis for refusing insurance, or at least charging a higher premium for it?
I would not trust Motorola to maintain the cloud services behind MotoBlur for very long. Neither phone manufacturers nor service providers, in my experience, do a very poor job in follow-through for software and software-based services (Apple, for the most part, excepted; RIM as well.) The strength of the Android platform has been that Google is providing those services, and Google is interested in continuity, long-term relationships with their customers, etc.
Trying to take the Google out of Android and making it a "custom brand" is a confidence-killer for me. The Samsung phone is more promising.
1. There are specialized scholarships for all sorts of people: people of Irish descent, people from a certain high school, people studying toads. There are definitely scholarships available for Canadian universities for white students: I know many Canadian students, mostly post-graduates, who have them.
2. Oddly enough, almost all corporate executives and managers remain white. There is no government feedback regarding the composition of one's staff whatsover, as long as one does not discriminate in the workplace. There are some incentives to offer contracts for certain types of work to minority-owned businesses, yes.
3. Neither of the above have absolutely anything to do with hate crime laws. Also, hate speech is not the same as hate crime; in the US, there is no law against hate speech; however, some jurisdictions have hate crime legislations.
You are deeply ignorant and rather angry. Remedy both.
No, you are wrong. A significant number of hate crime convictions are for crimes against white people. From the FBI:
Of the 9,528 victims of hate crimes in 2004, 9,514 were associated with an incident involving a single bias. More than half of that number (53.8 percent) were victims of racial prejudice. Of those, 67.9 percent were victimized because of anti-black attitudes, and 20.1 percent were targets of anti-white sentiments.
Here's another way to look at it. If marketing increases the number of people who buy a game four-fold, then, without marketing, games would need to cost four times as much (minus the cost o marketing, of course.) The more people who buy a game, the smaller the margin can be and the lower the price can go, particularly since the marginal unit cost of a game is pennies.
Hmmn, maybe this is like Charles Stross novel "Halting State:" the players think they are playing a game, but in fact they really are managing Iceland's monetary supply.
Hugo Chavez retains power because Venezuela has historically had such a dramatic gap between the wealthy few and the poor many, and he has, generally speaking, improved the lot of the poor many. Of course, he's done this in an economically unsustainable way, and eventually it will all go to rot. But the wealthy classes in Venezuela have a history of profound and ongoing indifference to the large mass of poor, and a democracy with such a dramatic rich/poor gap will inevitably turn into a populist re-distributionist state.
What people's rights are, are derived from one's morals, metaphysics and ideology. Some people believe that the right to, for example, move freely is more important than property rights. Some believe that beaches can be owned, some can't. Some also believe that children belong to their parents, others don't.
If everyone shared a consistent view of what "rights" were, then there wouldn't be a problem. But any political theory that relies on a non-existent consensus and an equally non-existent standard of human behavior is pretty useless.
Liskula Cohen obtained the information by asking a court to get it, and the court forced the release. Which means the person who should be sued is... the court. Which doesn't happen.
Even.1% is a hell of a lot more common than "rare." That's 1 in 1000 people. Which mean over 6 million people. The "unclassifiable phenotype" percentage gives us about 1.2 million people.
I'm talking about secondary education: the US spends a great deal on the quality of its universities (they really are the best in the world for research and education), but this doesn't help with economic mobility. European universities are cheaper, often free to students, and there is more financial support for students - that helps mobility more.
Slashdot Mirror
Ulysses? A lot of people. Finnegans Wake is the one that's a slog. Ulysses is pretty straightforward.
Layoffs hit middle management harder than anyone else. It's safer in the rank-and-file, if safety's what you want.
The thing is, Facebook, like Google, has become the Way that Lots of Things are Just Done. Too many of my family members use it to stay in touch: if I eschewed it, it would be like not participating in the extended family. Circles of friends work the same way.
When a social platform gets big enough, becoming a de facto standard, the choice to participate or not participate is somewhat weightier than the choice to ïbuy or not buy other types of goods.
OK, stories like this reveal a fascinating contradiction.
The original question expressed concern that a child's heart rate and other health info would be used to either deny them health insurance or force them into a higher risk pool.
But the libertarian presumption is that free markets with full information work better for everyone involved. The insurers want information that will enable them to remove expensive-to-insure people from coverage where possible, or at least to put them in a much more expensive pool. While they want perfect information (to make insuring people as low-risk and profitable as possible,) clearly the parents of kids who may have pre-existing conditions do not want that information available. Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to allow insurers to take every possible measure to get that information out into the open, so that they can tier insurance appropriately? Doesn't that mean that people who are loath to share their information are probably "free-riding" on lower-risk populations? Wouldn't that make the refusal of information (such as heart rates, etc.) a reasonable basis for refusing insurance, or at least charging a higher premium for it?
I would not trust Motorola to maintain the cloud services behind MotoBlur for very long. Neither phone manufacturers nor service providers, in my experience, do a very poor job in follow-through for software and software-based services (Apple, for the most part, excepted; RIM as well.) The strength of the Android platform has been that Google is providing those services, and Google is interested in continuity, long-term relationships with their customers, etc.
Trying to take the Google out of Android and making it a "custom brand" is a confidence-killer for me. The Samsung phone is more promising.
Among a certain crowd, that program passes the Turing test.
Because statistics are hard and outrage is easy.
1. There are specialized scholarships for all sorts of people: people of Irish descent, people from a certain high school, people studying toads. There are definitely scholarships available for Canadian universities for white students: I know many Canadian students, mostly post-graduates, who have them.
2. Oddly enough, almost all corporate executives and managers remain white. There is no government feedback regarding the composition of one's staff whatsover, as long as one does not discriminate in the workplace. There are some incentives to offer contracts for certain types of work to minority-owned businesses, yes.
3. Neither of the above have absolutely anything to do with hate crime laws. Also, hate speech is not the same as hate crime; in the US, there is no law against hate speech; however, some jurisdictions have hate crime legislations.
You are deeply ignorant and rather angry. Remedy both.
No, you are wrong. A significant number of hate crime convictions are for crimes against white people. From the FBI:
Of the 9,528 victims of hate crimes in 2004, 9,514 were associated with an incident involving a single bias. More than half of that number (53.8 percent) were victims of racial prejudice. Of those, 67.9 percent were victimized because of anti-black attitudes, and 20.1 percent were targets of anti-white sentiments.
In that case, you really are reliant on a game long having been a success. The initial point not only stands, but is reinforced.
Here's another way to look at it. If marketing increases the number of people who buy a game four-fold, then, without marketing, games would need to cost four times as much (minus the cost o marketing, of course.) The more people who buy a game, the smaller the margin can be and the lower the price can go, particularly since the marginal unit cost of a game is pennies.
I used to believe that, too. But it's wrong, an urban legend.
Hmmn, maybe this is like Charles Stross novel "Halting State:" the players think they are playing a game, but in fact they really are managing Iceland's monetary supply.
It has pew pew! Real life doesn't have pew pew. Apparently, though, it has too much graft and mismanagement and not enough pew pew.
Hugo Chavez retains power because Venezuela has historically had such a dramatic gap between the wealthy few and the poor many, and he has, generally speaking, improved the lot of the poor many. Of course, he's done this in an economically unsustainable way, and eventually it will all go to rot. But the wealthy classes in Venezuela have a history of profound and ongoing indifference to the large mass of poor, and a democracy with such a dramatic rich/poor gap will inevitably turn into a populist re-distributionist state.
I've seen this in dozens of countries in Latin America and elsewhere. Venezuela is comparable to Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, and many others.
What people's rights are, are derived from one's morals, metaphysics and ideology. Some people believe that the right to, for example, move freely is more important than property rights. Some believe that beaches can be owned, some can't. Some also believe that children belong to their parents, others don't.
If everyone shared a consistent view of what "rights" were, then there wouldn't be a problem. But any political theory that relies on a non-existent consensus and an equally non-existent standard of human behavior is pretty useless.
No, the WSJ is pretty much Fox with more decorum. The Economist is more balanced, as is the FT.
By "executives," do you mean managers and working professionals in general? Because there aren't all that many "executives," properly speaking.
EA Spouse?
That... was a good rebuttal. Thanks.
It would disarm the whistleblower *and* usher in an age of civility. Which is a trade-off some people are willing to make.
Actually, are anonymous internet whistleblowers really effective? I can't really think of any.
Liskula Cohen obtained the information by asking a court to get it, and the court forced the release. Which means the person who should be sued is... the court. Which doesn't happen.
Even .1% is a hell of a lot more common than "rare." That's 1 in 1000 people. Which mean over 6 million people. The "unclassifiable phenotype" percentage gives us about 1.2 million people.
But if the condition is congenital, it may be an advantage, but not an unnatural one.
I'm talking about secondary education: the US spends a great deal on the quality of its universities (they really are the best in the world for research and education), but this doesn't help with economic mobility. European universities are cheaper, often free to students, and there is more financial support for students - that helps mobility more.