"I mean, really...anyone remember when insurance used to be called 'hospitalization'? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies.
For some of us, a doctor's visit becomes a catastrophic event. I only go to the doctor when something is wrong, which means that I almost always end up walking out of there with either a prescription for medication or further medical testing. Do you have any idea how much a CT costs? I got self-billed once...it was for >$10k. There was no emergency...health care just costs that much.
I thought the same thing. [sarcasm]I must say, their city look much cleaner and much more advanced without those pesky signs blocking the view of those billboard skeletons.[/sarcasm]
seriously, that's such a pathetic point. It makes the city look like a ghost town.
I think that this kind of attitude is just belligerent, to say the least. As the author stated in TFA, the goal here is not to get money, it's to establish fairness.
The reason we dislike the MPAA and RIAA is because they sue us (people in the general population). The reason we HATE them is because they sue us for ludicrous amounts of money for no good reason. I don't think people would hate the RIAA as much if all they did was take people to court to obtain a court order to stop that said entity from further distributing their work. Encouraging the author to do the same to a large media company isn't poetic justice...it's just a short-sighted way to gain revenge. Not to mention that suing Viacom won't help the general problem...just the individual that's using this as an excuse to line their pockets.
Lest you forget that there would be nothing to comment on were it not for his video in the first place. Viacom copied and distributed something that didn't belong to them. For all of the money they made off of that video, you'd figure that the least they can do is to let him repost the clip. After all, it doesn't cost Viacom anything.
Another thought. The reason why Comcast won't disclose the bandwidth limit is maybe to instill FUD among the masses... Suppose they go on record and say the limit is 100gb. Then everyone knows the limit and tries to get their money's worth, where as now, most cautious users will do as little as possible, lest Comcast shut them off? Think of how slow the internet would be for everyone if we all tried to max out our 100gb limit...
Then if they can't handle everyone using 100GB/month, then perhaps they should...I don't know...lower the fucking limit! If they went on the record and announced something like 50GB/month, they could reserve the right to "selectively enforce" the policy. What I mean by this is that "reasonable" does not have a number. If they assign a number, they can enforce it when need be.
For instance, say they can't handle everyone doing 100GB/Month, but they could handle 50. Now, not everybody goes near the 50GB limit, let alone 100. They could let someone go over the 50GB limit, and not bother them so long as that bandwidth saturation doesn't hurt the network. As soon as it does, they have an "on paper" response, and can ask the customer to adhere to the predefined number that was stated to be "reasonable" (in this case, 50).
Cops do this all of the time. Look at speedlimits on your roads. Most cops won't pull you over unless you're doing something in the neighborhood of 10-15 over. In fact, where I live, the police can't issue a ticket unless you're going 5 mph over. When you are pulled over for speeding, the cop is able to ticket you without (a) any doubt that you were in clear violation, as you were going 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and (b) without guilt, since they did deliver a hell of a lot of lee-way. I don't see why Comcast can't do a similar thing. All they have to do is set an artificially low limit.
*VoIP telephony (which is horribly crippled now by ISPs in the US)
*It helps small/medium business (most small companies I've worked for pay $500+ a month for 1.5Mbps)
*Video conferencing (see the above 2)
*New consumer products as a result of the enriching of the medium
Let's also not forget that one largest things that makes most/.ers angry isn't the fact that we don't have 45Mbps internet, it's that we have 6Mbps internet and we're paying much more for it than people overseas that have 40+Mbps. Sure, I don't think I *need* a 40+Mbps line, but why would I want to pay $60/month, and get 85% less bandwidth? Sounds like a good reason to be upset to me. At the very least, it's a good reason to want change.
I feel your pain whole-heartedly. The paper-trail methodology only works when there is someone in charge that appeals to reason. I'm in a similar situation myself.
Mr Gates probably gets more done (as do I, in fact) by picking up the phone.
This approach only works when you're at the top of the food-chain. Everywhere I've worked, the corporate culture has always emphasized "covering one's ass" more than actually doing business.
For instance, PHB gives a subordinate an assignment and asks for X, Y, and Z. The subordinate then delivers X, Y, and Z. PHB then finds out that he fsked-up the requirements (because he's a PHB). Instead of taking the blame, his first instinct is to pass the blame to the subordinate. If it were not for email, it would simply become a he-said/she-said loop, with the manager always winning, simply because they are more trusted due to their title.
I, like most human beings, would like to be able to actually talk with the people that I'm in close quarters with. It seems kind of silly that I have to send an email to the guy sitting next to me, but that's the reality. The business place is too cut-throat to ignore using a communications system that produces a paper trail.
In my attempts to consider the relation between pirate's treasure and technology news, I could only come up with a few ideas, none of which were addressed in the summary
It was never stated because it's obvious...this is teh l00t that will be used to buy Sealand. Just in time, too!
I would be inclined to agree with this if we were talking about the average joe. Police, firefighters, etc are trained to drive in a rushed manor. Further more, citizens are trained to get the hell out of their way. I think these 2 factors mitigate a majority of the risk of rushing.
I think that my argument against this can be summed up very easily: It can't hurt to get there any faster. If the dispatcher underestimated the urgency, then it's the right thing to do. If the dispatcher claimed that it was not urgent and the emergency personnel decide to rush anyway, good for them. If I'm in enough trouble to have to summon municipality forces, whether it be police or fire fighters or what have you, I'd rather them show up early than late. To me, this is seems simple: Rushing is simply a precaution...God forbid that a non-emergency suddenly turns into an emergency, and the 2 minutes that the ambulance wasn't rushing cost me my life.
In a Q&A session with BusinessWeek last month, Ballmer offered similar sentiments on the wireless capabilities of his company's new digital media player.
"I want to squirt you a picture of my kids. You want to squirt me back a video of your vacation. That's [an] experience," he said.
Am I the only one that finds Ballmer's quest to "squirt" me his kid...um...disturbing?
Slashdot Mirror
"I mean, really...anyone remember when insurance used to be called 'hospitalization'? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies.
For some of us, a doctor's visit becomes a catastrophic event. I only go to the doctor when something is wrong, which means that I almost always end up walking out of there with either a prescription for medication or further medical testing. Do you have any idea how much a CT costs? I got self-billed once...it was for >$10k. There was no emergency...health care just costs that much.
It does when the vendor is able to remotely affect/disable you product.
Are you running WSUS2? I'm wondering if perhaps there is a difference in behavior between the 2 systems in regards to this patch.
seriously, that's such a pathetic point. It makes the city look like a ghost town.
Senator Craig? Is that you?
Wait...you guys don't do that? Wuss...
I think that this kind of attitude is just belligerent, to say the least. As the author stated in TFA, the goal here is not to get money, it's to establish fairness.
The reason we dislike the MPAA and RIAA is because they sue us (people in the general population). The reason we HATE them is because they sue us for ludicrous amounts of money for no good reason. I don't think people would hate the RIAA as much if all they did was take people to court to obtain a court order to stop that said entity from further distributing their work. Encouraging the author to do the same to a large media company isn't poetic justice...it's just a short-sighted way to gain revenge. Not to mention that suing Viacom won't help the general problem...just the individual that's using this as an excuse to line their pockets.
Lest you forget that there would be nothing to comment on were it not for his video in the first place. Viacom copied and distributed something that didn't belong to them. For all of the money they made off of that video, you'd figure that the least they can do is to let him repost the clip. After all, it doesn't cost Viacom anything.
Then if they can't handle everyone using 100GB/month, then perhaps they should...I don't know...lower the fucking limit! If they went on the record and announced something like 50GB/month, they could reserve the right to "selectively enforce" the policy. What I mean by this is that "reasonable" does not have a number. If they assign a number, they can enforce it when need be.
For instance, say they can't handle everyone doing 100GB/Month, but they could handle 50. Now, not everybody goes near the 50GB limit, let alone 100. They could let someone go over the 50GB limit, and not bother them so long as that bandwidth saturation doesn't hurt the network. As soon as it does, they have an "on paper" response, and can ask the customer to adhere to the predefined number that was stated to be "reasonable" (in this case, 50).
Cops do this all of the time. Look at speedlimits on your roads. Most cops won't pull you over unless you're doing something in the neighborhood of 10-15 over. In fact, where I live, the police can't issue a ticket unless you're going 5 mph over. When you are pulled over for speeding, the cop is able to ticket you without (a) any doubt that you were in clear violation, as you were going 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and (b) without guilt, since they did deliver a hell of a lot of lee-way. I don't see why Comcast can't do a similar thing. All they have to do is set an artificially low limit.
Someone a little more intimidating than you already came along
Oh, and on your way our, please give me a copy of all of your music. I'll need it for list^H^H^H^Hevidence.
*VoIP telephony (which is horribly crippled now by ISPs in the US)
*It helps small/medium business (most small companies I've worked for pay $500+ a month for 1.5Mbps)
*Video conferencing (see the above 2)
*New consumer products as a result of the enriching of the medium
Let's also not forget that one largest things that makes most /.ers angry isn't the fact that we don't have 45Mbps internet, it's that we have 6Mbps internet and we're paying much more for it than people overseas that have 40+Mbps. Sure, I don't think I *need* a 40+Mbps line, but why would I want to pay $60/month, and get 85% less bandwidth? Sounds like a good reason to be upset to me. At the very least, it's a good reason to want change.
Sounds like an assault case to me!
I feel your pain whole-heartedly. The paper-trail methodology only works when there is someone in charge that appeals to reason. I'm in a similar situation myself.
This approach only works when you're at the top of the food-chain. Everywhere I've worked, the corporate culture has always emphasized "covering one's ass" more than actually doing business.
For instance, PHB gives a subordinate an assignment and asks for X, Y, and Z. The subordinate then delivers X, Y, and Z. PHB then finds out that he fsked-up the requirements (because he's a PHB). Instead of taking the blame, his first instinct is to pass the blame to the subordinate. If it were not for email, it would simply become a he-said/she-said loop, with the manager always winning, simply because they are more trusted due to their title.
I, like most human beings, would like to be able to actually talk with the people that I'm in close quarters with. It seems kind of silly that I have to send an email to the guy sitting next to me, but that's the reality. The business place is too cut-throat to ignore using a communications system that produces a paper trail.
You had better hope that Bush doesn't user the inter-pipes
English...do you speak it, mothafucka?
It was never stated because it's obvious...this is teh l00t that will be used to buy Sealand. Just in time, too!
I would be inclined to agree with this if we were talking about the average joe. Police, firefighters, etc are trained to drive in a rushed manor. Further more, citizens are trained to get the hell out of their way. I think these 2 factors mitigate a majority of the risk of rushing.
I think that my argument against this can be summed up very easily: It can't hurt to get there any faster. If the dispatcher underestimated the urgency, then it's the right thing to do. If the dispatcher claimed that it was not urgent and the emergency personnel decide to rush anyway, good for them. If I'm in enough trouble to have to summon municipality forces, whether it be police or fire fighters or what have you, I'd rather them show up early than late. To me, this is seems simple: Rushing is simply a precaution...God forbid that a non-emergency suddenly turns into an emergency, and the 2 minutes that the ambulance wasn't rushing cost me my life.
I'm sorry...You must be new here.
hire Terry Tate: Office Quarterback!
So wait...Novel's getting a tit job? Maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all.
You don't think he'll begin "squirting" chairs at people....do you?
Am I the only one that finds Ballmer's quest to "squirt" me his kid...um...disturbing?