1. Lost productivity due to forgetting the thumb drive with your work at home 2. Lost productivity due to your company's internal network going down 3. Lost work due to a hard drive failure 4. Lost work AND productivity due to computer theft 5. Lost work AND productivity due to accidental overwrite of a shared file on a network drive 6. Lost work AND productivity due to malicious code (viruses, trojans, et al) 7. Lost productivity due to most software's inability to provide a decent collaborative environment
2,3,4 & 6 all affect using google apps too, to precisely the same degree assuming you have even a half decent backup solution. 1 is offset by the internet / google going down 5 not an issue assuming you have a decent backup solution on the network drive 7 most documents aren't collaborative and what you gain in collaboration you lose in script and automation/workflow support
Using cloud authoring software compared to personal software is COMPLETELY different for the reasons I listed above and others.
And contains pitfalls as well as benefits. We didn't talk about any of the pitfalls of cloud apps:
1) No change control of applications or ability to handle training in advance. If google rolls out a new theme and re-arranges the buttons your help desk and IT department find out about the same time users do.
2) If the service provider removes or alters a feature you rely on - tough. Especially if you are using 'free' SAAS.
3) Legal liabilities. No control over googles security policy. No control over googles retention policy. No control or ability to discover intrusions or data theft. No control over their response in the event of a subpoena.
4) Loss of productivity due to the issues that result from running your office suite in your browser. Things are getting better, but I'd rather pull my hair out with Office 97 than do anything serious with Google Docs.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc as what essentially amounts to a massive whiteboard to outline our plan of attack and add our ideas and solutions to the task at hand, as well as comment on others.
There are even better whiteboard solutions out there. Wikis come to mind for 'massive only collaboration document' while actual honest to goodness whiteboard software works great for when you actually need an online whiteboard.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc
This seems more like a 'when have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." situation.
The fact is that neither one is REALLY better than the other, it all depends on the task at hand, as both approches have their strengths and weaknesses.
I can agree with that, to a point, based on pure productivity/cost. But when you factor in legal implications, change control, training, and so forth, I don't think its sane for most businesses to use cloud apps in the vast majority of situations.
Do you really think it's wise or responsible to be using a piece of closed-source software (and one not known for its security, to say the least) so many years after the vendor has stopped supporting or releasing patches for it, and for which known exploits are in the wild?
Word/Excel/Powerpoint? I really wouldn't worry about it, as long as they meet his needs. (Although, I'd consider giving OO.o a try.)
Outlook - yeah, I'd suggest he pony up for a new copy, or switch to something else.
In what way does, for example, Google Apps Standard Edition ($0/year), cost more -- either up-front or in the long term?
Lost productivity.
1) Lost productivity when the local ISP or some some intermediate router is down? Multiply by each user. (In a lot of places that's pretty significant. Lots of places suffer multiple hours of network down time / flaky internet every month.)
2) Lost productivity as your employees are clicking on google ads and browsing online when they should be working on that spreadsheet or word document, or simply lost productivity as the ads become insufferably intrusive and distracting.
Think about it... you are getting standard edition for "free". Google wouldn't do unless some non-trivial number of users is READING and CLICKING on those ads. If your secretary is working on a budget spreadsheet, and gets distracted by an google ad in the corner of her spreadsheet, gets distracted and clicks on it, and goes browsing for 20 minutes as a result... that costs you money. And THAT is PRECISELY what your beloved partner google is counting on. THAT is their entire business model. Give you the app for free, and then extract a profit by luring your staff to click ads instead of work.
Now you might counter that google ads are unobtrusive and easily ignored. That's true to a point, but I find adds in my productivity apps VERY distracting; far more than I do on the web. I personally won't use ad supported software, but don't find them nearly so distracting on the web. Maybe its just me... But face facts google is a multi-billion dollar advertising company as direct result of people not ignoring those ads. So the ads =DO= work. Maybe YOU don't click them, but SOMEBODY is. And every time they work on someone in your company they cost you money.
I don't object to google apps for home and noncommercial use, and their 'premium' stuff is ad free, as you are now paying them directly for service.
But a business owner who gets his staff to use standard edition? Its idiotic... what's next? Will you switch to "free" printer toner from the Jehova's Witnesses, and in exchange they'll have witnesses wander around your office to spread the good news?
Do you not think using current tools at the time to produce a file, then ensuring the file is stored in an industry-standard open file format (such as ODF, RTF, plain text, HTML, TeX, or PDF -- or even better, more than one), is an acceptable archive, without needing to also archive a copy of (or later run) a dated (and bug-ridden and proprietary, in this case) application along with it -- which may not even run on machines "15 or 20 years" later, as you mention?
What makes you so confident ODF will be readable in 20 years by Google Apps, or that a google apps will even exist? All ODF being a standard ensures is that you WILL be able to write something that can read it 20 years from now, because the specification is documented and public. There is no gaurantee google apps or anything else will run it 20 years from now. And if you are looking to archive ODF, you should probably make a point of storing something that can actually read it too, ideally along with its source, unless you want to gamble on having to implement something yourself from scratch 20 years from now.
Google apps doesn't enable you to avoid making your own backups, and if anything google apps, makes it slightly more complicated. Google apps could disappear tomorrow (unlikely in the immediate future, but possible, and who knows what the more distant future holds; companies have been shut off before), so not only do you need backups, but you should have some means of reading them too... because you can't rely on google apps being available or supporting the files.
I never quite understand why I would want a VGA or DVI or any other external graphics slot on a netbook. Seems to defeat the purpose of a netbook.
For me the purpose of a netbook is to be an ultra portable computer to get small amounts of work done ("bite sized tasks") without being a drag to haul around. To that end, it has to interface with whatever I encounter whereever I go. From a clients board room to their server room.
The only thing I can think of that might require that is a presentation, in which case turn it into a PDF and do your presentation using Acrobat on what ever PC happens to be connected to the projector.
So now you have to arrange for there to be a PC connected to the projector. I've been to a lot of meetings where I as the presenter am the only one with a laptop at the meeting. Sure I can pull out my flash stick and ask if someone can grab their laptop... but that's markedly less professional, and wastes time.
Other uses for a VGA port - showing pictures, home movies, watching a movie. Sure I can in all these situations burn CDs or DVDs, but why bother, if I can just plug it in? When we visit the grandparents its so handy to just be able to plug in, and show them stuff. (Actually that's my biggest complaint about the Apple laptops... they all have ridiculous port types that noone else uses - minidvi, mini displayport... so you have have to carry an adapter everywhere you go. That and apple charges stupid amounts of money for these adapters -- THAT is the apple tax.)
As for RJ45 - I think its pretty critical. 1) Its the fall back position, if you don't know the wifi password; or if the router hasn't been setup yet, or if there is a problem with the network. (something I encounter a lot as a network admin)
2) I can't rely on having wifi wherever I go. I can't rely on having a cable either. But between the two, I'm pretty safe.
I suppose I could get a USB-ethernet adapter, but then I'd have to carry it around, and my ideal netbook doesn't require me to carry a bag of parts and dongles and adapters around everywhere I go.
Then again my perfect netbook has a Cortex A9 ARM processor, 1GB of RAM and 8GB of flash, coupled with a 9" screen using the technology from the XO-1, with WiFi and Bluetooth, a few USB sockets, Mac style calculator keyboard, a battery life of 12 hours minimum and cost under $200
Whereas my -ideal- netbook, is probably an atom or equivalent so it can run x86 software, a few usb ports, SD card slot, rj45, vga, and a good old fashioned 9-pin serial port(!!)
For my purposes I could probably drop bluetooth, but it would be a nice bonus. I'd also add a good GPS. (and a power switch for any power hungry module (e.g. wifi, bluetooth, gps modules). 2GB RAM, and I'd bump it to 64GB of Flash so I could dual boot OSes (Windows / Linux). 12 hrs battery would be a godsend, and I'd even accept only getting it while one of gps, bluetooth, and wifi are turned on.
Oh, and it shouldn't get stupidly hot either.
But then I'd be willing to pay $1000+ for it, too. I can't even find a small laptop that meets many of the above specs, never mind all of them.
For me the ideal netbook is a small bundle of connectivity and computing. Price isn't the key factor. Functionality and Size are.
The Gateway one "won" in the writer's estimate, due to a larger screen, faster CPU, better graphics.
Well that's effing retarded.
The entire -point- of netbooks is that they are small. The whole netbook industry seems to be grappling with its product identity, and reviewers aren't helping by routinely grading them on how close to a laptop they are.
Netbooks should be graded on size, favoring SMALL. Performance is important, but secondary to battery life. Items like durability, and comfort of the keyboard, position of the trackpad (or inclusion of a track point), operating system options, connectivity (usb/firewire/vga/dvi/etc), dvdrw internal or external, ram, flash, hard drive, etc should all factor in.
Selecting for "Largest screen and hard drive" however is demented. I can buy a Toshiba at Bestbuy for 299$ with a 15.4" screen and a 160GB hd. If I wanted a large screen I wouldn't buy a netbook. For $50 more I can make that a 300+ GB Hd.
What then? the best netbook on the market is... not a netbook!?
When that happens something's wrong with your selection criteria.
you can't really blame him for 7 that's exactly what he asked for
No he asked for it to be restored to the way it was.
Putting in a picture that looked the way it was but of course didn't work, isn't at all what the user wanted, and the user will be calling back shortly to complain that the "icons" aren't clickable... or perhaps more likely to complain that his mouse button doesn't work anymore.
It was hilarious, don't get me wrong, I laughed my ass off... but it was completely inexcusable behavior and the only reason he gets away with it is that users and management don't actually know they've been duped. But if I were this guys immediate supervisor in IT, I'd laugh my ass off, and then I'd discipline or fire him. I'd have to presume this guys supervisor is a PHB not a competent IT person in their own right.
The Nostromo was diverted to the planet where they found the Xenomorph because someone in the company knew it was there. How they knew has not been explained in the films, to date. Presumably there was some prior contact that was covered up. The AvP series showed how the company could know that the aliens existed, but no reason to know where they could be found.
There are few options:
One: the company didn't know about the alien beacon in advance, and the whole android with recovery orders and crew expendable stuff was just standing standard procedure, in case they got lucky. Its plausible I think, but means there can be no prequel.
Two: The company knew the aliens existed by previously merely detecting/analyzing the beacon, then they might divert the Nostromo with the intention of picking whatever they find up. It would make sense, even to the subterfuge of planting Ash with extra orders to recover it, and diverting the ship so it picks up the beacon forcing the crew to respond (per their contract to respond to distress calls) allowing the company to get a 'free expedition' out the crew.
That all works, but would make a boring prequel movie. Some remote station or passing ship detect an alien beacon, and don't investigate it.
Three: The company knew the aliens existed, previously investigated, and had already lost an expedition trying to recover it, perhaps they got some reports and know something about the aliens, perhaps they got nothing at all... the expedition just vanished without a trace. Either way it doesn't follow that they'd divert a fully loaded and ridiculously expensive refinery ship to the planet for a 2nd attempt.
That would be like Spain deliberately diverting a fully loaded treasure ship to investigate a new island where a previous expedition had already been lost. I just don't see it happening. The Nostromo was ridiculously valuable; they might gamble it on it on an expedition where no real exceptional risks could be assessed, but it just doesn't make sense to gamble an expensive treasure ship, with an unqualified crew -- if they already knew that they'd lost an expedition.
Oh I never claimed it was ALL IT's fault, but lets face it...
1) he's playing video games when he should be working, even as the shit is hitting the fan 2) he brings down a website he wasn't supposed to, without any real reason 3) he initially lies about the fact that he brught it down 4) he lies about the fact that he received an email not to reboot it 5) he deletes the sent record of a message from someones exchange box to help him justify the lie he never received it 6) he takes a screenshot of the penis desktop with the intent of posting it online 7) after rearranging the desktop so the user is upset, he fixes it by using the screenshot (making the user 'happy' but leaving the laptop completely unusable) 8) he was also indirectly responsible for bringing down the mail server as well...
I agree completely that the users were completely worthless too... they were clueless, ignorant, irrational, demanding, and everything IT loves to make fun of... but IT's behaviour was just as bad. They were not the suffering unthanked heroes here.
I suppose you could say the users got the IT they deserved.:)
But not because it illustrates the idiocy of the users (which it does) but because in that one IT is completely dysfunctional too. I mean its funny not because I know users like that (and I do), but because I know IT people like that... arrogant, dishonest, totally incompetent...
Its unbelievable (and yet eerily familiar) how bad IT is in that that clip.
I do get your point really. But my dad (read: the boss) would not be happy if he missed a deal cause a million people who got spoofed got 1 mail from us telling them to call us if their message wasn't spam.
Read that over a few times. You are saying its ok to send out a MILLION unsolicited and annoying email messages (aka SPAM) to people who have never heard of you, so that your father won't miss a single deal?
How is that any different from rationalizing sending out a million direct marketing spam in the hopes of securing a single deal from it?
Bottom line, if your dad absolutely can't afford to "miss a deal", two things:
1) your backscatter system isn't going to necessarily work. Just because it worked 4 times is meaningless, you have no idea how many legitimate emails you lost. There is a high percentage change that your backscatter will be (correctly) identified as spam by other mail servers and discarded, so your notifications won't get delivered. And there is a high percentage that even if someone received your backscatter, they just deleted it. (I receive literally dozens of 'your mail could not be delivered' messages daily - some of them are backscatter, many of them are virus/malware pretending to be backscatter.) Which leads me to my next item:
2) if 'not missing a deal' is that important, then scan your own spam box for false positives. That's the sane way to handle this.
We send on every 1000 mails one message, telling them they got in the spambox and that they should call if it's not spam.
Please clarify this. Are you saying for every 1000 spam, you only send 1 notification? If so how do you choose which 999 spam you ignore vs the 1 you send a notification? Or are you saying only 1 in a thousand messages you receive is spam??
We are not the problem. The spammers are, so please, don't turn it around... I am not the problem
This is like seeing a drive by shooting in progress, whipping out your semi-auto and pumping as many rounds as you can in the general direction of the car. Your bullets are just as likely to hurt innocent bystanders as the criminals. Similiarly your email back scatter is just as harmful as the spam itself. You aren't the only problem, but you aren't part of the solution.
Now, go bug the dudes who don't want to make their precious smpt more secure.
Don't be naive. Secure email is trivial. Convincing everyone from Australia to Zimbabwe to switch to it is hard. And until YOU are willing to miss out on messages from people who haven't switched to your secure solution of choice, the problems will persist. And I don't see that happening anytime soon... you said it yourself... dad doesn't want to miss a single deal... no way in hell he's going to require that everyone who wants to send him messages conform to some new security regime... he'd miss messages left and right.
What's the problem with rejecting the SMTP session, with the error displaying the SMTP error code along with your phone number/error message in it?
Nothing, but that's not what was described. What was described was a situation where a 'bounce' message was sent by the recipient.
Additionally, for performance reasons a lot of spam processing usually happens after the message is accepted. In this case you can't reject the SMTP session, because by the time you decide its spam, the session is long over.
No family run stores where inbred family members call the shots and change store policy to suit them.
What a ringing endorsement: its better to work for walmart than a pack of inbred idiots.
For some reason I hold ultra profitable mega corporations to higher standards than barely scraping by inbred idiots. Perhaps because they have human resources departments instead of 'Ma', and teams of layers instead of 'Pa', and increase profitability by "negotiating massive tax breaks from the city" instead of "thinkin' bout gettin a new sign".
Just don't tell me and others where to shop.
Why exactly shouldn't I be allowed to tell people how awful I think Walmart is?
Don't blow smoke about things you know nothing about.
I'm not.
How many mom and pop stores pay their employees profit sharing and match stock purchases at 15%?
A large number of walmart employees earn far below the poverty line. How much stock are they buying?
And in 2004, walmart contributed $570 per US employee for profit sharing AND 401(k) plans. Wooo profit sharing and 401k plans..! Its pretty hard to get excited about a profit sharing and 401k plan that's worth around 28 cents per hour.
Based on that, when I worked at McDonald's as a kid the employee discount on a meal was worth more than your profit sharing. And I really wasn't all that excited about that either.
With trips going twice, even three times a month for a family, I am avoiding spending up to $600 a month just by shopping there. I'm sorry, but $600 a month is more value to me (and just about everyone else) than feeling good that I didn't indirectly support some sweat shop.
Gee, how enlightened. Just think how much more money you could save if you just got some slaves yourself then and took out the middle man.
But me, its not even about the sweatshops. I won't shop there because more often than not the 'walmart' version of something is lower quality than the product somewhere else - even of the same brand.
I am also disgusted at how they treat their own employees. If ever a company deserved to have its workforce unionize its Walmart... of course walmart is on guard for that, and will do (and does do) anything to avoid it.
People get hit by lightning too. Probably shouldn't go outside when it's raining.
Not going outside when its raining is a huge inconvenience relative to the slight risk. Going 45 in a 45 instead of 48 is an extremely slight inconvenience to avoid a slight risk.
And when my mail filters blocks spam, it sends out a message with redirections to an alternative gsm-number telling them to call me so I can whitelist the adres.
That's called back scatter and its as bad as spam.
Think about it, my mail servers block about 35,000 spam per day. If they sent a message to each failed recipient with alternative instructions, that would be 35,000 messages I sent out. Some 34,990 of those messages would either be undeliverable or would get delivered to people who had nothing to do with the original message. You are effectively clogging up a bunch of innocent peoples mail systems with your messages.
Put it another way, suppose some spammer sends 1,000,000 messages with your email address spoofed as the sender. If everyone else did what you do, you would then receive 1,000,000 messages back to your inbox giving you alternate instructions to contact these people.
You wouldn't want that. Nobody else does either. So please stop.
I think you're misunderstanding what they are doing.
I think you are correct. However, that raises the question: why use WINE?
Since they aren't relying on 'real in the wild exploits' they could model botnets and how they proagate through networks on linux or freebsd just as easily. Its really just specialized p2p and client server software to simulate botnet behaviour and spread.
Black people really do have brown to very dark brown skin. Turds are also brown. That's all the joke is saying.
If that were true, then it wouldn't be funny. The joke says more than that. Its saying cats can't distinguish black children from their own shit.
Its a racist joke. That doesn't mean you can't tell it or laugh at it, or that doing so makes you a racist. But don't pretend its not a racist joke. The humour comes from equating people of a specific race to shit. That makes it a racist joke.
It's called getting over yourself and not taking everything so goddamned seriously.
I don't know you. I don't know if you are a racist or not. But if you are going to broadcast racist jokes to the general public, you should expect that people will be offended. Suck it up.
I'll defend your right to tell off color jokes, but I'll also defend anyone who wants to call you on it. Free speech goes both ways.
Ok, this seems to be pretty clearly a problem with the IT department.
Insofar that the IT department let him have a Mac. I guess so. But hey he's the boss.
Why the fsck are you having the end user run updates?
Really? How else should the IT department handle the single Mac laptop in the entire enterprise? Just how much special infrastructure should they put into place to support the one mac laptop?
Yet when you're asked for specifics you bring up toys and personal devices.
I assumed I was asked for specifics on what sort of hardware you still need to check Mac compatibility for. Most enterprises don't plug in a lot of hardware to the average unit they buy. If it works with the network printers (and it will unless you've got really old stuff) you are pretty much done in terms of hardware compatibility checks for the average user.
Mac's don't fit well into the enterprise for software and management reasons, not hardware compatibility. And I already gave some specifics, and other posters have filled out more.
When I say you have to check, I mean just that. I'm not saying nothing works, or even that most doesn't work, but there is enough out there that doesn't work that you still have to check.
For example... all-in-one printers. GPS systems. Lego Mindstorms (and other toys -- this generation of Mindstorms does actually work with OSX, buy slightly older stuff doesn't), Cellphone/PDAs and software, home automation systems, mp3 players (esp from Sony)...
You also have to check for pretty much any internal expansion card (hardware encryption, video cards, network cards, raid cards, tv tuners,...)... of course these days most Mac owners don't have the option of doing any sort of expansion anyway.
Then there are gaming keyboards and mice (sure they generally work as basic keyboards, but often the gaming/macro/other programmable features are windows only), joysticks, etc.
I remember a recent Tuesday where I had to reboot 3 times because of patches.
We patch in the middle of the night, and the PCs reboot as needed automatically. Like I said... if your whole office loses a couple hours productivitiy every tuesday you are doing it wrong.
Setting up the OS by itself is one thing. Setting up your computer as a whole to work with your peripherals is part of the picture too. Unfortunately MS has a lot to do with that as they are the OS. If your camera doesn't work with your Sony VAIO because of driver issues with Windows, is that really Sony's problem?
Oh get real. Microsoft hardware support trumps OSX's without breaking a sweat. When I buy something today I can safely assume its going to work with XP and Vista. I still have to CHECK to see if its going to work with my Mac.
Its true, that if I have an older peripheral, I may have issues with it with Vista/Win7. But that's hardly a Microsoft issue... Apple leaves hardware behind all the time too, and if you think manufacturers drag their feet releasing drivers for their old products for new versions of windows, that's nothing. Its like squeezing blood from a stone to get them to release new OSX drivers for old products.
But hey, they's part of mac culture... people just assume if you buy a new mac, you'll buy all new harware to attach to it right?
For most people who don't have specific needs, a Mac is far more usable and more hassle-free than a Windows machine. As apps starting moving to the web and open standards adopted, the opportunity to move to Macs increases.
Most people do have specific needs. Doubly so in an enterprise. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a good enterprise level accounting/inventory management/CRM system that runs well on Macs. Now they might exist, but odds are your enterprise isn't using it.
As for apps moving to the web, there are serious tradeoffs, and while many apps are improved by extending them onto the web, that doesn't eliminate the need for a 'real' app in most cases.
Where do you get that idea from? My whole company switched to Macs and productivity is up as we spend so much less time on desktop maintenance.
What desktop maintenance were you spending so much time on? Because if you were spending THAT much time on desktop maintenance you were doing it wrong.
In the last few years most of my friends have switched to Macs and they all say they're easier to use.
Yeah, a new PC out of the box from apple is setup better than same from an OEM. That's not Apple vs Microsoft. That's Apple vs HP and Sony. HP and Sony etc really need to pick up the ball to deliver a much better out of box experience.
They need to dump the shovelware, trialware, and utter crap, and invest in good quality productivity options.
I know one high level executive who's arguing with his IT department to let him use his Mac and iPhone on the corporate network because he prefers their usability and productivity.
And I know one high level executive who switched back to PC after he got tired of having to remote access or virtualize 4/5ths of the stuff he wanted to do because there was no mac equivalent, and it drove him nuts. He'd have his mail running on his Mac, then launch VMware to run the accounting software, pull up a report, and then have to jump through hoops to paste it into his email... because outlook supports OLE and when he pastes the spreadsheet bit in, he can edit it... but not on his mac, where it comes through as an image... so now he gets to copy it from the vm accounting to excel on the mac, tweak it some more, and paste it again to mail...
And now he gets to run Mac OS software update, AND windows update. Productivity dropped into the toilet. Not to mention the burden on IT as they have to handle everything they do with him as separate case.
89 PW of solar energy reaches the earth's surface. That's over 5,000x the power we need.
I -also- support nuclear, and I realize you were (very effectively) countering the GPs assertion that not enough solar energy hits the earth, but I thought I'd add that an even more interesting number is the amount of solar energy that DOESN'T reach the earth and is radiated off into space.
386,000 billion PW are emitted vs the mere 89PW that reach the earths surface. Space based solar collectors/reflectors/aggregators/transmitters/rebroadcasters... but large arrays of solar collectors around the sun... if we ever master that we'll have practically limitless power.
But that's still sci-fi for now. And I too support nuclear for today.
Now I don't know what your definition of "work with companies in the industry" is, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you're positioned to talk down to me about HIPAA.
Not at all. My intent wasn't to try and come off with more knowledge than I have. I almost went AC but rewrote as more vague instead to "protect the innocent".
The landscape of information controls will become more coherant over time...
I can agree with that. At this stage though I find HIPAA is tossed around like SOX -- its a scapegoat for not doing anything. Not because HIPAA or SOX actually says they can't do something, but because it says stuff like... 'take a reasonable effort too' and everyone says 'we don't know what that means, so we have to take EXTREME EFFORT because we'd hate to be found on the short side of 'reasonable', but that EXTREME EFFORT comes with match extreme cost and means we won't do anything.... and it serves to effectively defeat the very purpose of the rules. A big part of HIPAA was supposed to ensure Patients had access to their own data, after all. So making them jump through needless hoops and expense (incl. time off work) to get it contravenes the rule.
For example...
Part 164 Section 522...
(b)(1) Standard: Confidential communications requirements. (i) A covered health care provider must permit individuals to request and must accommodate reasonable requests by individuals to receive communications of protected health information from the covered health care provider by alternative means or at alternative locations."
I interpret that as they are SUPPOSED to make a reasonable effort to accomodate reasonable requests to tell me my test results in an alternative means or at alternative locations?
Does "I hereby sign this document to authorize you to call my cell phone and tell me my test results over the phone (alternative means) while I'm at work (alternative location)." really completely fail the 'reasonable' test, to your reading?
Frankly, I could make an argument that NOT agreeing to accommodate my reasonable request "to tell me my lab results over the phone, saving me a needless time consuming and costly trip in, by calling the cell phone number I gave them, and signed in writing while they witnessed it, that I authorized them to call that cell number" contravenes more HIPAA rules and objectives than it supports.
Drives me nuts. And the fact that their position happens to be the one that ensures tons of extra needless appointments, makes me extremely skeptical of their genuine interest in following the rule vs just scapegoating it, while billing the insurance company the whole time.
Look, you are missing the point. I work with companies in the industry. Look at all these small practices scattered around the country. Look at how many of them use hotmail and gmail and yahoo. Look at how many of them send patient data through those accounts. Its HUGE.
You already have the user id, the password? birthdays, pets, anniversaries, etc, etc... better hope they aren't on facebook.
If these doctors were REALLY so concerned about HIPAA, that they aren't even willing to contemplate coming up with some sort of option to allow informed patients to authorize them to tell them their test results over the phone --- well then they wouldn't be able to sleep at night while google data mines those same results for advertising, and 2000 records are sitting on the public internet with only their dogs name as security.
Its ridiculous.
Plus, if the medical complex really wanted to be able to tell patients who wanted them to tell them their test results over the phone, and save the system a ton of money, eliminate needless appointments, and reduce legal risk. They could lobby for a defined standard they could follow and congress would write one, pass it, and be done with it.
Its not like healthcare doesn't have an effective lobby.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Lost productivity due to forgetting the thumb drive with your work at home
2. Lost productivity due to your company's internal network going down
3. Lost work due to a hard drive failure
4. Lost work AND productivity due to computer theft
5. Lost work AND productivity due to accidental overwrite of a shared file on a network drive
6. Lost work AND productivity due to malicious code (viruses, trojans, et al)
7. Lost productivity due to most software's inability to provide a decent collaborative environment
2,3,4 & 6 all affect using google apps too, to precisely the same degree assuming you have even a half decent backup solution.
1 is offset by the internet / google going down
5 not an issue assuming you have a decent backup solution on the network drive
7 most documents aren't collaborative and what you gain in collaboration you lose in script and automation/workflow support
Using cloud authoring software compared to personal software is COMPLETELY different for the reasons I listed above and others.
And contains pitfalls as well as benefits. We didn't talk about any of the pitfalls of cloud apps:
1) No change control of applications or ability to handle training in advance. If google rolls out a new theme and re-arranges the buttons your help desk and IT department find out about the same time users do.
2) If the service provider removes or alters a feature you rely on - tough. Especially if you are using 'free' SAAS.
3) Legal liabilities. No control over googles security policy. No control over googles retention policy. No control or ability to discover intrusions or data theft. No control over their response in the event of a subpoena.
4) Loss of productivity due to the issues that result from running your office suite in your browser. Things are getting better, but I'd rather pull my hair out with Office 97 than do anything serious with Google Docs.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc as what essentially amounts to a massive whiteboard to outline our plan of attack and add our ideas and solutions to the task at hand, as well as comment on others.
There are even better whiteboard solutions out there. Wikis come to mind for 'massive only collaboration document' while actual honest to goodness whiteboard software works great for when you actually need an online whiteboard.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc
This seems more like a 'when have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." situation.
The fact is that neither one is REALLY better than the other, it all depends on the task at hand, as both approches have their strengths and weaknesses.
I can agree with that, to a point, based on pure productivity/cost. But when you factor in legal implications, change control, training, and so forth, I don't think its sane for most businesses to use cloud apps in the vast majority of situations.
Do you really think it's wise or responsible to be using a piece of closed-source software (and one not known for its security, to say the least) so many years after the vendor has stopped supporting or releasing patches for it, and for which known exploits are in the wild?
Word/Excel/Powerpoint? I really wouldn't worry about it, as long as they meet his needs. (Although, I'd consider giving OO.o a try.)
Outlook - yeah, I'd suggest he pony up for a new copy, or switch to something else.
In what way does, for example, Google Apps Standard Edition ($0/year), cost more -- either up-front or in the long term?
Lost productivity.
1) Lost productivity when the local ISP or some some intermediate router is down? Multiply by each user. (In a lot of places that's pretty significant. Lots of places suffer multiple hours of network down time / flaky internet every month.)
2) Lost productivity as your employees are clicking on google ads and browsing online when they should be working on that spreadsheet or word document, or simply lost productivity as the ads become insufferably intrusive and distracting.
Think about it... you are getting standard edition for "free". Google wouldn't do unless some non-trivial number of users is READING and CLICKING on those ads. If your secretary is working on a budget spreadsheet, and gets distracted by an google ad in the corner of her spreadsheet, gets distracted and clicks on it, and goes browsing for 20 minutes as a result... that costs you money. And THAT is PRECISELY what your beloved partner google is counting on. THAT is their entire business model. Give you the app for free, and then extract a profit by luring your staff to click ads instead of work.
Now you might counter that google ads are unobtrusive and easily ignored. That's true to a point, but I find adds in my productivity apps VERY distracting; far more than I do on the web. I personally won't use ad supported software, but don't find them nearly so distracting on the web. Maybe its just me... But face facts google is a multi-billion dollar advertising company as direct result of people not ignoring those ads. So the ads =DO= work. Maybe YOU don't click them, but SOMEBODY is. And every time they work on someone in your company they cost you money.
I don't object to google apps for home and noncommercial use, and their 'premium' stuff is ad free, as you are now paying them directly for service.
But a business owner who gets his staff to use standard edition? Its idiotic... what's next? Will you switch to "free" printer toner from the Jehova's Witnesses, and in exchange they'll have witnesses wander around your office to spread the good news?
Do you not think using current tools at the time to produce a file, then ensuring the file is stored in an industry-standard open file format (such as ODF, RTF, plain text, HTML, TeX, or PDF -- or even better, more than one), is an acceptable archive, without needing to also archive a copy of (or later run) a dated (and bug-ridden and proprietary, in this case) application along with it -- which may not even run on machines "15 or 20 years" later, as you mention?
What makes you so confident ODF will be readable in 20 years by Google Apps, or that a google apps will even exist? All ODF being a standard ensures is that you WILL be able to write something that can read it 20 years from now, because the specification is documented and public. There is no gaurantee google apps or anything else will run it 20 years from now. And if you are looking to archive ODF, you should probably make a point of storing something that can actually read it too, ideally along with its source, unless you want to gamble on having to implement something yourself from scratch 20 years from now.
Google apps doesn't enable you to avoid making your own backups, and if anything google apps, makes it slightly more complicated. Google apps could disappear tomorrow (unlikely in the immediate future, but possible, and who knows what the more distant future holds; companies have been shut off before), so not only do you need backups, but you should have some means of reading them too... because you can't rely on google apps being available or supporting the files.
I never quite understand why I would want a VGA or DVI or any other external graphics slot on a netbook. Seems to defeat the purpose of a netbook.
For me the purpose of a netbook is to be an ultra portable computer to get small amounts of work done ("bite sized tasks") without being a drag to haul around. To that end, it has to interface with whatever I encounter whereever I go. From a clients board room to their server room.
The only thing I can think of that might require that is a presentation, in which case turn it into a PDF and do your presentation using Acrobat on what ever PC happens to be connected to the projector.
So now you have to arrange for there to be a PC connected to the projector. I've been to a lot of meetings where I as the presenter am the only one with a laptop at the meeting. Sure I can pull out my flash stick and ask if someone can grab their laptop... but that's markedly less professional, and wastes time.
Other uses for a VGA port - showing pictures, home movies, watching a movie. Sure I can in all these situations burn CDs or DVDs, but why bother, if I can just plug it in? When we visit the grandparents its so handy to just be able to plug in, and show them stuff. (Actually that's my biggest complaint about the Apple laptops... they all have ridiculous port types that noone else uses - minidvi, mini displayport... so you have have to carry an adapter everywhere you go. That and apple charges stupid amounts of money for these adapters -- THAT is the apple tax.)
As for RJ45 - I think its pretty critical.
1) Its the fall back position, if you don't know the wifi password; or if the router hasn't been setup yet, or if there is a problem with the network. (something I encounter a lot as a network admin)
2) I can't rely on having wifi wherever I go. I can't rely on having a cable either. But between the two, I'm pretty safe.
I suppose I could get a USB-ethernet adapter, but then I'd have to carry it around, and my ideal netbook doesn't require me to carry a bag of parts and dongles and adapters around everywhere I go.
Then again my perfect netbook has a Cortex A9 ARM processor, 1GB of RAM and 8GB of flash, coupled with a 9" screen using the technology from the XO-1, with WiFi and Bluetooth, a few USB sockets, Mac style calculator keyboard, a battery life of 12 hours minimum and cost under $200
Whereas my -ideal- netbook, is probably an atom or equivalent so it can run x86 software, a few usb ports, SD card slot, rj45, vga, and a good old fashioned 9-pin serial port(!!)
For my purposes I could probably drop bluetooth, but it would be a nice bonus. I'd also add a good GPS. (and a power switch for any power hungry module (e.g. wifi, bluetooth, gps modules). 2GB RAM, and I'd bump it to 64GB of Flash so I could dual boot OSes (Windows / Linux). 12 hrs battery would be a godsend, and I'd even accept only getting it while one of gps, bluetooth, and wifi are turned on.
Oh, and it shouldn't get stupidly hot either.
But then I'd be willing to pay $1000+ for it, too. I can't even find a small laptop that meets many of the above specs, never mind all of them.
For me the ideal netbook is a small bundle of connectivity and computing. Price isn't the key factor. Functionality and Size are.
The Gateway one "won" in the writer's estimate, due to a larger screen, faster CPU, better graphics.
Well that's effing retarded.
The entire -point- of netbooks is that they are small. The whole netbook industry seems to be grappling with its product identity, and reviewers aren't helping by routinely grading them on how close to a laptop they are.
Netbooks should be graded on size, favoring SMALL. Performance is important, but secondary to battery life. Items like durability, and comfort of the keyboard, position of the trackpad (or inclusion of a track point), operating system options, connectivity (usb/firewire/vga/dvi/etc), dvdrw internal or external, ram, flash, hard drive, etc should all factor in.
Selecting for "Largest screen and hard drive" however is demented. I can buy a Toshiba at Bestbuy for 299$ with a 15.4" screen and a 160GB hd. If I wanted a large screen I wouldn't buy a netbook. For $50 more I can make that a 300+ GB Hd.
What then? the best netbook on the market is ... not a netbook!?
When that happens something's wrong with your selection criteria.
you can't really blame him for 7 that's exactly what he asked for
No he asked for it to be restored to the way it was.
Putting in a picture that looked the way it was but of course didn't work, isn't at all what the user wanted, and the user will be calling back shortly to complain that the "icons" aren't clickable... or perhaps more likely to complain that his mouse button doesn't work anymore.
It was hilarious, don't get me wrong, I laughed my ass off... but it was completely inexcusable behavior and the only reason he gets away with it is that users and management don't actually know they've been duped. But if I were this guys immediate supervisor in IT, I'd laugh my ass off, and then I'd discipline or fire him. I'd have to presume this guys supervisor is a PHB not a competent IT person in their own right.
The Nostromo was diverted to the planet where they found the Xenomorph because someone in the company knew it was there. How they knew has not been explained in the films, to date. Presumably there was some prior contact that was covered up. The AvP series showed how the company could know that the aliens existed, but no reason to know where they could be found.
There are few options:
One: the company didn't know about the alien beacon in advance, and the whole android with recovery orders and crew expendable stuff was just standing standard procedure, in case they got lucky. Its plausible I think, but means there can be no prequel.
Two: The company knew the aliens existed by previously merely detecting/analyzing the beacon, then they might divert the Nostromo with the intention of picking whatever they find up. It would make sense, even to the subterfuge of planting Ash with extra orders to recover it, and diverting the ship so it picks up the beacon forcing the crew to respond (per their contract to respond to distress calls) allowing the company to get a 'free expedition' out the crew.
That all works, but would make a boring prequel movie. Some remote station or passing ship detect an alien beacon, and don't investigate it.
Three: The company knew the aliens existed, previously investigated, and had already lost an expedition trying to recover it, perhaps they got some reports and know something about the aliens, perhaps they got nothing at all... the expedition just vanished without a trace. Either way it doesn't follow that they'd divert a fully loaded and ridiculously expensive refinery ship to the planet for a 2nd attempt.
That would be like Spain deliberately diverting a fully loaded treasure ship to investigate a new island where a previous expedition had already been lost. I just don't see it happening. The Nostromo was ridiculously valuable; they might gamble it on it on an expedition where no real exceptional risks could be assessed, but it just doesn't make sense to gamble an expensive treasure ship, with an unqualified crew -- if they already knew that they'd lost an expedition.
Oh I never claimed it was ALL IT's fault, but lets face it...
1) he's playing video games when he should be working, even as the shit is hitting the fan ...
2) he brings down a website he wasn't supposed to, without any real reason
3) he initially lies about the fact that he brught it down
4) he lies about the fact that he received an email not to reboot it
5) he deletes the sent record of a message from someones exchange box to help him justify the lie he never received it
6) he takes a screenshot of the penis desktop with the intent of posting it online
7) after rearranging the desktop so the user is upset, he fixes it by using the screenshot (making the user 'happy' but leaving the laptop completely unusable)
8) he was also indirectly responsible for bringing down the mail server as well
I agree completely that the users were completely worthless too ... they were clueless, ignorant, irrational, demanding, and everything IT loves to make fun of... but IT's behaviour was just as bad. They were not the suffering unthanked heroes here.
I suppose you could say the users got the IT they deserved. :)
That's one of my favorites. Its sheer brilliance.
But not because it illustrates the idiocy of the users (which it does) but because in that one IT is completely dysfunctional too. I mean its funny not because I know users like that (and I do), but because I know IT people like that... arrogant, dishonest, totally incompetent...
Its unbelievable (and yet eerily familiar) how bad IT is in that that clip.
I do get your point really. But my dad (read: the boss) would not be happy if he missed a deal cause a million people who got spoofed got 1 mail from us telling them to call us if their message wasn't spam.
Read that over a few times. You are saying its ok to send out a MILLION unsolicited and annoying email messages (aka SPAM) to people who have never heard of you, so that your father won't miss a single deal?
How is that any different from rationalizing sending out a million direct marketing spam in the hopes of securing a single deal from it?
Bottom line, if your dad absolutely can't afford to "miss a deal", two things:
1) your backscatter system isn't going to necessarily work. Just because it worked 4 times is meaningless, you have no idea how many legitimate emails you lost. There is a high percentage change that your backscatter will be (correctly) identified as spam by other mail servers and discarded, so your notifications won't get delivered. And there is a high percentage that even if someone received your backscatter, they just deleted it. (I receive literally dozens of 'your mail could not be delivered' messages daily - some of them are backscatter, many of them are virus/malware pretending to be backscatter.) Which leads me to my next item:
2) if 'not missing a deal' is that important, then scan your own spam box for false positives. That's the sane way to handle this.
We send on every 1000 mails one message, telling them they got in the spambox and that they should call if it's not spam.
Please clarify this. Are you saying for every 1000 spam, you only send 1 notification? If so how do you choose which 999 spam you ignore vs the 1 you send a notification? Or are you saying only 1 in a thousand messages you receive is spam??
We are not the problem. The spammers are, so please, don't turn it around... I am not the problem
This is like seeing a drive by shooting in progress, whipping out your semi-auto and pumping as many rounds as you can in the general direction of the car. Your bullets are just as likely to hurt innocent bystanders as the criminals. Similiarly your email back scatter is just as harmful as the spam itself. You aren't the only problem, but you aren't part of the solution.
Now, go bug the dudes who don't want to make their precious smpt more secure.
Don't be naive. Secure email is trivial. Convincing everyone from Australia to Zimbabwe to switch to it is hard. And until YOU are willing to miss out on messages from people who haven't switched to your secure solution of choice, the problems will persist. And I don't see that happening anytime soon... you said it yourself... dad doesn't want to miss a single deal... no way in hell he's going to require that everyone who wants to send him messages conform to some new security regime... he'd miss messages left and right.
What's the problem with rejecting the SMTP session, with the error displaying the SMTP error code along with your phone number/error message in it?
Nothing, but that's not what was described. What was described was a situation where a 'bounce' message was sent by the recipient.
Additionally, for performance reasons a lot of spam processing usually happens after the message is accepted. In this case you can't reject the SMTP session, because by the time you decide its spam, the session is long over.
No family run stores where inbred family members call the shots and change store policy to suit them.
What a ringing endorsement: its better to work for walmart than a pack of inbred idiots.
For some reason I hold ultra profitable mega corporations to higher standards than barely scraping by inbred idiots. Perhaps because they have human resources departments instead of 'Ma', and teams of layers instead of 'Pa', and increase profitability by "negotiating massive tax breaks from the city" instead of "thinkin' bout gettin a new sign".
Just don't tell me and others where to shop.
Why exactly shouldn't I be allowed to tell people how awful I think Walmart is?
Don't blow smoke about things you know nothing about.
I'm not.
How many mom and pop stores pay their employees profit sharing and match stock purchases at 15%?
A large number of walmart employees earn far below the poverty line. How much stock are they buying?
And in 2004, walmart contributed $570 per US employee for profit sharing AND 401(k) plans. Wooo profit sharing and 401k plans..! Its pretty hard to get excited about a profit sharing and 401k plan that's worth around 28 cents per hour.
Based on that, when I worked at McDonald's as a kid the employee discount on a meal was worth more than your profit sharing. And I really wasn't all that excited about that either.
With trips going twice, even three times a month for a family, I am avoiding spending up to $600 a month just by shopping there. I'm sorry, but $600 a month is more value to me (and just about everyone else) than feeling good that I didn't indirectly support some sweat shop.
Gee, how enlightened. Just think how much more money you could save if you just got some slaves yourself then and took out the middle man.
But me, its not even about the sweatshops. I won't shop there because more often than not the 'walmart' version of something is lower quality than the product somewhere else - even of the same brand.
I am also disgusted at how they treat their own employees. If ever a company deserved to have its workforce unionize its Walmart... of course walmart is on guard for that, and will do (and does do) anything to avoid it.
People get hit by lightning too. Probably shouldn't go outside when it's raining.
Not going outside when its raining is a huge inconvenience relative to the slight risk. Going 45 in a 45 instead of 48 is an extremely slight inconvenience to avoid a slight risk.
And when my mail filters blocks spam, it sends out a message with redirections to an alternative gsm-number telling them to call me so I can whitelist the adres.
That's called back scatter and its as bad as spam.
Think about it, my mail servers block about 35,000 spam per day. If they sent a message to each failed recipient with alternative instructions, that would be 35,000 messages I sent out. Some 34,990 of those messages would either be undeliverable or would get delivered to people who had nothing to do with the original message. You are effectively clogging up a bunch of innocent peoples mail systems with your messages.
Put it another way, suppose some spammer sends 1,000,000 messages with your email address spoofed as the sender. If everyone else did what you do, you would then receive 1,000,000 messages back to your inbox giving you alternate instructions to contact these people.
You wouldn't want that. Nobody else does either. So please stop.
I think you're misunderstanding what they are doing.
I think you are correct. However, that raises the question: why use WINE?
Since they aren't relying on 'real in the wild exploits' they could model botnets and how they proagate through networks on linux or freebsd just as easily. Its really just specialized p2p and client server software to simulate botnet behaviour and spread.
Black people really do have brown to very dark brown skin. Turds are also brown. That's all the joke is saying.
If that were true, then it wouldn't be funny. The joke says more than that. Its saying cats can't distinguish black children from their own shit.
Its a racist joke. That doesn't mean you can't tell it or laugh at it, or that doing so makes you a racist. But don't pretend its not a racist joke. The humour comes from equating people of a specific race to shit. That makes it a racist joke.
It's called getting over yourself and not taking everything so goddamned seriously.
I don't know you. I don't know if you are a racist or not. But if you are going to broadcast racist jokes to the general public, you should expect that people will be offended. Suck it up.
I'll defend your right to tell off color jokes, but I'll also defend anyone who wants to call you on it. Free speech goes both ways.
Ok, this seems to be pretty clearly a problem with the IT department.
Insofar that the IT department let him have a Mac. I guess so. But hey he's the boss.
Why the fsck are you having the end user run updates?
Really? How else should the IT department handle the single Mac laptop in the entire enterprise? Just how much special infrastructure should they put into place to support the one mac laptop?
Yet when you're asked for specifics you bring up toys and personal devices.
I assumed I was asked for specifics on what sort of hardware you still need to check Mac compatibility for. Most enterprises don't plug in a lot of hardware to the average unit they buy. If it works with the network printers (and it will unless you've got really old stuff) you are pretty much done in terms of hardware compatibility checks for the average user.
Mac's don't fit well into the enterprise for software and management reasons, not hardware compatibility. And I already gave some specifics, and other posters have filled out more.
Like what?
When I say you have to check, I mean just that. I'm not saying nothing works, or even that most doesn't work, but there is enough out there that doesn't work that you still have to check.
For example... all-in-one printers. GPS systems. Lego Mindstorms (and other toys -- this generation of Mindstorms does actually work with OSX, buy slightly older stuff doesn't), Cellphone/PDAs and software, home automation systems, mp3 players (esp from Sony)...
You also have to check for pretty much any internal expansion card (hardware encryption, video cards, network cards, raid cards, tv tuners, ...)... of course these days most Mac owners don't have the option of doing any sort of expansion anyway.
Then there are gaming keyboards and mice (sure they generally work as basic keyboards, but often the gaming/macro/other programmable features are windows only), joysticks, etc.
etc, etc, etc...
Did you miss all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over hardware peripherals that didn't and would never be supported with Windows Vista?
OEMs hate updating their legacy drivers, and as bad as it is on Windows its that much worse again on Macs.
OSX updates are no picnic either.
I remember a recent Tuesday where I had to reboot 3 times because of patches.
We patch in the middle of the night, and the PCs reboot as needed automatically. Like I said... if your whole office loses a couple hours productivitiy every tuesday you are doing it wrong.
Setting up the OS by itself is one thing. Setting up your computer as a whole to work with your peripherals is part of the picture too. Unfortunately MS has a lot to do with that as they are the OS. If your camera doesn't work with your Sony VAIO because of driver issues with Windows, is that really Sony's problem?
Oh get real. Microsoft hardware support trumps OSX's without breaking a sweat. When I buy something today I can safely assume its going to work with XP and Vista. I still have to CHECK to see if its going to work with my Mac.
Its true, that if I have an older peripheral, I may have issues with it with Vista/Win7. But that's hardly a Microsoft issue... Apple leaves hardware behind all the time too, and if you think manufacturers drag their feet releasing drivers for their old products for new versions of windows, that's nothing. Its like squeezing blood from a stone to get them to release new OSX drivers for old products.
But hey, they's part of mac culture... people just assume if you buy a new mac, you'll buy all new harware to attach to it right?
For most people who don't have specific needs, a Mac is far more usable and more hassle-free than a Windows machine. As apps starting moving to the web and open standards adopted, the opportunity to move to Macs increases.
Most people do have specific needs. Doubly so in an enterprise. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a good enterprise level accounting/inventory management/CRM system that runs well on Macs. Now they might exist, but odds are your enterprise isn't using it.
As for apps moving to the web, there are serious tradeoffs, and while many apps are improved by extending them onto the web, that doesn't eliminate the need for a 'real' app in most cases.
Where do you get that idea from? My whole company switched to Macs and productivity is up as we spend so much less time on desktop maintenance.
What desktop maintenance were you spending so much time on? Because if you were spending THAT much time on desktop maintenance you were doing it wrong.
In the last few years most of my friends have switched to Macs and they all say they're easier to use.
Yeah, a new PC out of the box from apple is setup better than same from an OEM. That's not Apple vs Microsoft. That's Apple vs HP and Sony. HP and Sony etc really need to pick up the ball to deliver a much better out of box experience.
They need to dump the shovelware, trialware, and utter crap, and invest in good quality productivity options.
I know one high level executive who's arguing with his IT department to let him use his Mac and iPhone on the corporate network because he prefers their usability and productivity.
And I know one high level executive who switched back to PC after he got tired of having to remote access or virtualize 4/5ths of the stuff he wanted to do because there was no mac equivalent, and it drove him nuts. He'd have his mail running on his Mac, then launch VMware to run the accounting software, pull up a report, and then have to jump through hoops to paste it into his email... because outlook supports OLE and when he pastes the spreadsheet bit in, he can edit it... but not on his mac, where it comes through as an image... so now he gets to copy it from the vm accounting to excel on the mac, tweak it some more, and paste it again to mail...
And now he gets to run Mac OS software update, AND windows update. Productivity dropped into the toilet. Not to mention the burden on IT as they have to handle everything they do with him as separate case.
He curses at it all day, but its what he wanted.
89 PW of solar energy reaches the earth's surface.
That's over 5,000x the power we need.
I -also- support nuclear, and I realize you were (very effectively) countering the GPs assertion that not enough solar energy hits the earth, but I thought I'd add that an even more interesting number is the amount of solar energy that DOESN'T reach the earth and is radiated off into space.
386,000 billion PW are emitted vs the mere 89PW that reach the earths surface. Space based solar collectors/reflectors/aggregators/transmitters/rebroadcasters... but large arrays of solar collectors around the sun... if we ever master that we'll have practically limitless power.
But that's still sci-fi for now. And I too support nuclear for today.
Now I don't know what your definition of "work with companies in the industry" is, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you're positioned to talk down to me about HIPAA.
Not at all. My intent wasn't to try and come off with more knowledge than I have. I almost went AC but rewrote as more vague instead to "protect the innocent".
The landscape of information controls will become more coherant over time...
I can agree with that. At this stage though I find HIPAA is tossed around like SOX -- its a scapegoat for not doing anything. Not because HIPAA or SOX actually says they can't do something, but because it says stuff like ... 'take a reasonable effort too' and everyone says 'we don't know what that means, so we have to take EXTREME EFFORT because we'd hate to be found on the short side of 'reasonable', but that EXTREME EFFORT comes with match extreme cost and means we won't do anything.... and it serves to effectively defeat the very purpose of the rules. A big part of HIPAA was supposed to ensure Patients had access to their own data, after all. So making them jump through needless hoops and expense (incl. time off work) to get it contravenes the rule.
For example...
Part 164 Section 522...
(b)(1) Standard: Confidential communications requirements. (i) A
covered health care provider must permit individuals to request and must
accommodate reasonable requests by individuals to receive communications
of protected health information from the covered health care provider by
alternative means or at alternative locations."
I interpret that as they are SUPPOSED to make a reasonable effort to accomodate reasonable requests to tell me my test results in an alternative means or at alternative locations?
Does "I hereby sign this document to authorize you to call my cell phone and tell me my test results over the phone (alternative means) while I'm at work (alternative location)." really completely fail the 'reasonable' test, to your reading?
Frankly, I could make an argument that NOT agreeing to accommodate my reasonable request "to tell me my lab results over the phone, saving me a needless time consuming and costly trip in, by calling the cell phone number I gave them, and signed in writing while they witnessed it, that I authorized them to call that cell number" contravenes more HIPAA rules and objectives than it supports.
Drives me nuts. And the fact that their position happens to be the one that ensures tons of extra needless appointments, makes me extremely skeptical of their genuine interest in following the rule vs just scapegoating it, while billing the insurance company the whole time.
Look, you are missing the point. I work with companies in the industry. Look at all these small practices scattered around the country. Look at how many of them use hotmail and gmail and yahoo. Look at how many of them send patient data through those accounts. Its HUGE. You already have the user id, the password? birthdays, pets, anniversaries, etc, etc... better hope they aren't on facebook. If these doctors were REALLY so concerned about HIPAA, that they aren't even willing to contemplate coming up with some sort of option to allow informed patients to authorize them to tell them their test results over the phone --- well then they wouldn't be able to sleep at night while google data mines those same results for advertising, and 2000 records are sitting on the public internet with only their dogs name as security. Its ridiculous. Plus, if the medical complex really wanted to be able to tell patients who wanted them to tell them their test results over the phone, and save the system a ton of money, eliminate needless appointments, and reduce legal risk. They could lobby for a defined standard they could follow and congress would write one, pass it, and be done with it. Its not like healthcare doesn't have an effective lobby.