I think use of credit scores to allow companies in the credit industry to more intelligently give credit to people is a good thing. Credit isn't something that everyone should be entitled to, nor does everyone need credit. The availability of credit helps people's lives, helps the economy, etc. etc..
However, the development of a health score by an industry that provides health insurance is going to decrease the amount of people who require healthcare having access to it, and it will increase the cost of healthcare and insurance for those that will require more of it. Now, you may say that this is right and proper - as those that require less healthcare will benefit from better rates of insurance. The major downside to society will be the increase in sickness - I don't seeing that being beneficial for anyone. Does the government want to see the negative effects this will have have on the economy?
Okay, so the above is a crude analysis. But don't we all benefit when access to healthcare increases? This action looks to work in the opposite direction. I'm very glad I live in a country with a Nationalised Healthcare System.
I work for a UK bank. All employees are required to demonstrate they are financially competent, due our access to information which could potentially be used for personal financial gain. I believe that once a year we are subject to a 'silent' credit check (which doesn't affect our score). If we've a bad score, say due to falling into a debt we can't manage, then we'd be invited to a meeting discussion with our managers. A colleague of mine had such a meeting after his credit score dropped when the water utility for a previous property he lived in tried to land him with a big bill and sent debt collectors round. The next resident of his previous property hadn't declared they'd moved in, and didn't pay for the 9 months or so he lived there.
Anyway, my point was that as a worker in the financial industry, my credit score is relevant. Not the be all and end all, but relevant. Oh, and you don't necessarily have a bad credit score if you don't use credit. You just won't have a good one.
I'm wrong that not all not everything bad that a monopoly does is *caused* by them being a monopoly? I'm sorry, I don't understand that position. I've already shown that a monopoly isn't required for this problem to occur and I've agreed with you that being a monopoly will not help.
I get the feeling you're not prepared to countenance that I might be right now that you've publicly stated to the opposite, and so I'm not going to argue further with someone who's replies consist only of name-calling and telling me I'm wrong.
Take a look at the other examples of the Scunthorpe problem. You'll see that mistakes by obscenity filters are not restricted to monopolies. That there appears to be a DSL monopoly in his area (I haven't seen any proof of this yet) may have exacerbated his problem, and may allow it to continue to happen to others. But it didn't *cause* his problem - hence why I questioned why being a monopoly was relevant to this example of a mistake by an obscenity filter.
To say that I'm correct only through pedantry, but in the same sentence tell me that I'm wrong ("..main problem boils down to Verizon being a monopoly" - well, that doesn't make any sense. You're just trolling me, right?
When it was time to enter their user name and create an e-mail address, Verizon wouldn't let them complete the job.
" 'We can't install it because your name has - in it.' "
...
The Libshitzes got the same answer from the supervisor, who suggested they try misspelling their last name
Oh, so you think that it's a failure of the market which caused him this problem? No, it's just a crude obscenity filter on the email address he wanted to use when signing up. A problem related to the Scunthorpe problem.
Yes, monopolies are overall not good, but not everything bad they do is *caused* by them being a monopoly. That's just a stupid position to take.
I don't really see why it is monopolies that caused the problem here. It's not as if an operating free market would have meant that this wouldn't have occured.
True - there are other mass transports that take place before the groceries are delivered to the store. But do these use the same roads that the OP requested bike paths for? Do bike paths completely replace roads making trucks unable to delivery groceries to the store?
What about it? My point was the the MASS TRANSPORT of groceries in that truck is an efficient use of the road (and fuel, now that you bring it up) compared to the many vehicles used to take it from the store to home.
"where all our jobs are within 5 minutes of our homes." There is such a place, they even have effective public transportation. I hear it is called "Western Europe"
...excluding the UK. Our public transport is run by for-profit private companies: the focus is on how to make the most money from commuters, not how to most effectively transport the population.
There are many examples of superstitions which are normally bad luck which turn out to be good luck if they occur on your wedding day - black cats and rain spring to mind. Presumably this is so that the big day isn't spoiled.
Also, isn't it fairly well established that the main irony of 'Ironic' is that there are zero instances of irony in it?
People need to start considering personal/sensitive data in the same way as cash - it needs to be protected from theft and loss in effective ways. Only that sort of culture change will lead people to look after it properly - and not just send it in an internal envelope through the internal post.
Don't worry about down mods, they don't mean too much. Moderations are just aggregates of opinions of a uneven cross-section of the/. crowd (i.e. who has mod points that day, who sees the comment, etc). Most of the time 'bad moderations' are corrected without the need for a post about it. Not that it really matter anyway for myself anyway, since I browse at -1 in order not to miss the posts which have been erroneous modded down.
Because of the interest groups which are pressuring the government in those areas. Where business has an interest, an unregulated free market allows them most scope to make as much as possible. Where religious prudes have an interest, they advocate laws to regulate society - they can't convince you to act as they want so they will force you.
One side provides the cash needed for re-election, the other the votes.
What's ironic about his use of multiple accounts to shill his own posts and create the illusion that many people share his views is that it's directly analogous to the behaviour of the company he professes so much hate for: Microsoft. I think most people would agree that the quality of Windows and Internet Explorer do not explain their massive presence in the market. Through use of hard-nosed business practices (most/all perfectly legal) Microsoft exploited customers to push what they wanted to push - their software.
Twitter's unethical practices push what he wants to push - his POV. He;s certainly entitled to share his POV; it's his manipulation of the system which loses him most respect and authority.
I don't hate twitter, I just think he's a dick. Which is a shame, because he sometimes makes really good posts - but I never mod these up, because he's a dick and deserves the karma hell he exists in. I've read slashdot long enough to know the 5 main accounts he uses. And that none of the duplicate accounts ever deny being twitter.
Slashdot Mirror
I think use of credit scores to allow companies in the credit industry to more intelligently give credit to people is a good thing. Credit isn't something that everyone should be entitled to, nor does everyone need credit. The availability of credit helps people's lives, helps the economy, etc. etc..
However, the development of a health score by an industry that provides health insurance is going to decrease the amount of people who require healthcare having access to it, and it will increase the cost of healthcare and insurance for those that will require more of it. Now, you may say that this is right and proper - as those that require less healthcare will benefit from better rates of insurance. The major downside to society will be the increase in sickness - I don't seeing that being beneficial for anyone. Does the government want to see the negative effects this will have have on the economy?
Okay, so the above is a crude analysis. But don't we all benefit when access to healthcare increases? This action looks to work in the opposite direction. I'm very glad I live in a country with a Nationalised Healthcare System.
I work for a UK bank. All employees are required to demonstrate they are financially competent, due our access to information which could potentially be used for personal financial gain. I believe that once a year we are subject to a 'silent' credit check (which doesn't affect our score). If we've a bad score, say due to falling into a debt we can't manage, then we'd be invited to a meeting discussion with our managers. A colleague of mine had such a meeting after his credit score dropped when the water utility for a previous property he lived in tried to land him with a big bill and sent debt collectors round. The next resident of his previous property hadn't declared they'd moved in, and didn't pay for the 9 months or so he lived there.
Anyway, my point was that as a worker in the financial industry, my credit score is relevant. Not the be all and end all, but relevant. Oh, and you don't necessarily have a bad credit score if you don't use credit. You just won't have a good one.
I'm wrong that not all not everything bad that a monopoly does is *caused* by them being a monopoly? I'm sorry, I don't understand that position. I've already shown that a monopoly isn't required for this problem to occur and I've agreed with you that being a monopoly will not help.
I get the feeling you're not prepared to countenance that I might be right now that you've publicly stated to the opposite, and so I'm not going to argue further with someone who's replies consist only of name-calling and telling me I'm wrong.
Take a look at the other examples of the Scunthorpe problem. You'll see that mistakes by obscenity filters are not restricted to monopolies. That there appears to be a DSL monopoly in his area (I haven't seen any proof of this yet) may have exacerbated his problem, and may allow it to continue to happen to others. But it didn't *cause* his problem - hence why I questioned why being a monopoly was relevant to this example of a mistake by an obscenity filter.
To say that I'm correct only through pedantry, but in the same sentence tell me that I'm wrong ("..main problem boils down to Verizon being a monopoly" - well, that doesn't make any sense. You're just trolling me, right?
When it was time to enter their user name and create an e-mail address, Verizon wouldn't let them complete the job.
...
" 'We can't install it because your name has - in it.' "
The Libshitzes got the same answer from the supervisor, who suggested they try misspelling their last name
The obscenity filter was on the email address he wanted to use. Which, as is fairly common, contained his name.
You quote me, but don't actually refute what I say.
This case occurred because they are a large company, and have a crude obscenity filter. NOT because they are a monopoly!
Oh, so you think that it's a failure of the market which caused him this problem? No, it's just a crude obscenity filter on the email address he wanted to use when signing up. A problem related to the Scunthorpe problem.
Yes, monopolies are overall not good, but not everything bad they do is *caused* by them being a monopoly. That's just a stupid position to take.
I don't really see why it is monopolies that caused the problem here. It's not as if an operating free market would have meant that this wouldn't have occured.
New Results Contradict Long-Held Chemistry Paradigm
There, fixed it for you.
I'll point you here. The sources for the evidence are at the bottom of the page.
True - there are other mass transports that take place before the groceries are delivered to the store. But do these use the same roads that the OP requested bike paths for? Do bike paths completely replace roads making trucks unable to delivery groceries to the store?
No, and no.
What about it? My point was the the MASS TRANSPORT of groceries in that truck is an efficient use of the road (and fuel, now that you bring it up) compared to the many vehicles used to take it from the store to home.
You still don't have a point. One truck of groceries Vs several hundred to transport the same groceries out again?
"where all our jobs are within 5 minutes of our homes." There is such a place, they even have effective public transportation. I hear it is called "Western Europe"
Also, isn't it fairly well established that the main irony of 'Ironic' is that there are zero instances of irony in it?
I've seen your sig on a bathroom stall wall before. Granted, it was the the top uni in Scotland. Damned pretentious bastards.
People need to start considering personal/sensitive data in the same way as cash - it needs to be protected from theft and loss in effective ways. Only that sort of culture change will lead people to look after it properly - and not just send it in an internal envelope through the internal post.
Don't worry about down mods, they don't mean too much. Moderations are just aggregates of opinions of a uneven cross-section of the /. crowd (i.e. who has mod points that day, who sees the comment, etc). Most of the time 'bad moderations' are corrected without the need for a post about it. Not that it really matter anyway for myself anyway, since I browse at -1 in order not to miss the posts which have been erroneous modded down.
One side provides the cash needed for re-election, the other the votes.
The justification for burkhas is that they protect women from stirring the sexual interests of men.
What kind of sexy dogs came to your house?
Too right. Specialisation is for insects.
Of course I do.
What's ironic about his use of multiple accounts to shill his own posts and create the illusion that many people share his views is that it's directly analogous to the behaviour of the company he professes so much hate for: Microsoft. I think most people would agree that the quality of Windows and Internet Explorer do not explain their massive presence in the market. Through use of hard-nosed business practices (most/all perfectly legal) Microsoft exploited customers to push what they wanted to push - their software.
Twitter's unethical practices push what he wants to push - his POV. He;s certainly entitled to share his POV; it's his manipulation of the system which loses him most respect and authority.
I don't hate twitter, I just think he's a dick. Which is a shame, because he sometimes makes really good posts - but I never mod these up, because he's a dick and deserves the karma hell he exists in. I've read slashdot long enough to know the 5 main accounts he uses. And that none of the duplicate accounts ever deny being twitter.
I think there's a website with tech, babes and porn