If consumers have alternatives they can decide to go with a competitor if they don't like a particular policy, and the problem fixes itself. Setting policies which encourage or at least don't hinder competition is much more likely to be effective than setting policies to try to control things, as the supposed bad actors will always find ways around the latter.
The government regulation catechism is common enough, but that doesn't make it true. And I believe we've already established that we aren't talking about an unfettered free market. I didn't even mention Medicare and Medicaid which are major market distortions.
As long as most of the money goes though insurance, there is little incentive for providers to pay attention to the few demands for pricing information. There are exceptions, of course. Some providers have decided not to accept insurance and either provide fee-for-service or subscription plans. They were put at a serious disadvantage by schemes like the ACA which tried to force everyone into the health insurance pigeon hole.
Trade unions like the AMA are supposed to ensure that their members meet certain standards, so why not let them do that? Or a medical provider can provide credentials which individuals or organizations can verify, and we can base our decisions on that, so some other criteria of our choosing.
How is it unrestrained free enterprise when you agreed with at least some of the restrictions I listed? Government is really good at setting up bureaucracy, wasting lots of money in the process, but really bad at preventing bad things from happening.
I agree that my argument about insurance wasn't the best; I'm not expert enough on the topic to put together a great argument quickly. I will say that the insurance model is there to mitigate risk, so it is not surprising that it does a bad job when it is transmogrified into a system for funding services. If people pay for more of their medical services out of pocket, they will demand that prices be made clear. It is easy to ignore costs when "someone else" is paying (even if you eventually end up paying through premiums.)
The AMA is quite capable of going after anyone claiming to be a member as fraud; it doesn't need a government monopoly to do that.
Quite corrupt, I agree, but that has nothing to do with "unrestrained free enterprise", which we don't have. If we had that, health care provisioning would not be tied to employers and their selection of insurance plans due to government mandates and tax incentives that distort the market. If we had that, I could do proper comparison shopping for medical goods and services based on price and quality. If we had that, I could research what drugs would best treat my condition(s) and buy them without having to go through an agent for a government supported monopoly on medical services. The list goes on. Medicine in the US is about as far from "unrestrained" as you can get without having Single Payer.
Possibly, but the defense has the right to question how the evidence against them was collected. If such a tactic were to prevent such inquiry, it could be grounds to have the evidence tossed out.
Modems are about communication; settops are about control. The primary purpose of the cable box is to control whether you can access the content and what you can do with it. Without that control the network providers would have to pay the content providers more because there is a higher risk of their content leaking out onto the Internet where anyone can get it for free. The network providers aren't happy with leakage, either, because potential customers who can get it for free won't pay their subscription fees. Even ad-funded content is an issue, because the ads injected by the provider are targeted, and the eyeballs of viewers outside of the targeted area are less valuable.
CableCard, as a hardware solution, had a chance of working because the provider could control the card. The fact that it had issues is part technical challenge and part political challenge. It isn't that fun to have a government mandate to forge your own chains, not to mention being forced to work with your competition to make sure their chains will fit your limbs and vice versa. The idea of a software CableCard has been around for a while, but to maintain control you have to be able to trust the software an some random hardware, or have rigid controls on which hardware is certified to run the software, and have the software validate the hardware before allowing access. It isn't easy, it doesn't really make anyone happy, it takes forever, and the market tends to move on before the issues are solved.
The trend is already towards Over The Top (Internet) video, anyway, so I really don't see the point.
FTR, I used to work for Motorola (now ARRIS) as a developer in the Access Control group.
The folks at LiquidPiston seem to think they have a rotary engine that could do the trick. Maybe, or maybe not, but I'm excited to see that there are still folks willing to innovate in engine technology.
Nobody wants to listen. They have other things to worry about. Like lives. And even if we could get them to care, they best they could do within the system is vote for the candidate who is slightly less in favor of the surveillance instead of the candidate who is slightly more in favor of the surveillance.
As to whether the language pays, MUMPS is actually used quite a lot in financial and medical applications. As a language, there isn't much going for it except the installed base; it reminds me a bit of BASIC. However, it does have built-in persistence, and can be made to store and retrieve data reallyreallyfast, to the extent that attempts to switch to something else tend to fail due to reduced performance. So if you can handle the language, there are places that will pay you to program in it, and given the typical application domains, the job would likely be fairly secure.
Full Disclosure: set ^dayjob(me)="MUMPS Implementation Developer"
"Whatever this man has told you is a lie. He lies for a living!" "He's in the Intelligence business." "Exactly." "YOU are in the Intelligence business!"
I can understand if Google wants to force vendors to update to the most recent android. However, from a vendor perspective, what's so hard about backporting this patch to, say, android 4.3 and below? Is there a contract with Google forbidding this? Do they get money from NSA?
Backporting it probably isn't difficult, but getting all the vendors and carriers to patch, build, validate, and deploy their custom Android builds for all the various devices they have supported over the last few years is.
I initially misread that as "... and ancient Ataris".
Which was even scarier than the Doctor Who premise.
As long as you have a decent supply of Epyx 500XJ joysticks, I don't see anything to be afraid of. (You'll need to replace them periodically 'cause the little plastic bit inside holding the guts in place tends to break.)
Slashdot Mirror
Let he who doesn't try to reduce his tax bill cast the first stone.
If consumers have alternatives they can decide to go with a competitor if they don't like a particular policy, and the problem fixes itself. Setting policies which encourage or at least don't hinder competition is much more likely to be effective than setting policies to try to control things, as the supposed bad actors will always find ways around the latter.
Rajant has some serious wireless mesh technology you might want to check out, though it may be overkill for this application. https://www.rajant.com/
Perhaps...
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blo...
It looks like they have a 3.10.0-862 kernel and a 4.14.0-49 kernel-alt.
https://access.redhat.com/docu...
The government regulation catechism is common enough, but that doesn't make it true. And I believe we've already established that we aren't talking about an unfettered free market. I didn't even mention Medicare and Medicaid which are major market distortions.
As long as most of the money goes though insurance, there is little incentive for providers to pay attention to the few demands for pricing information. There are exceptions, of course. Some providers have decided not to accept insurance and either provide fee-for-service or subscription plans. They were put at a serious disadvantage by schemes like the ACA which tried to force everyone into the health insurance pigeon hole.
Trade unions like the AMA are supposed to ensure that their members meet certain standards, so why not let them do that? Or a medical provider can provide credentials which individuals or organizations can verify, and we can base our decisions on that, so some other criteria of our choosing.
How is it unrestrained free enterprise when you agreed with at least some of the restrictions I listed? Government is really good at setting up bureaucracy, wasting lots of money in the process, but really bad at preventing bad things from happening.
I agree that my argument about insurance wasn't the best; I'm not expert enough on the topic to put together a great argument quickly. I will say that the insurance model is there to mitigate risk, so it is not surprising that it does a bad job when it is transmogrified into a system for funding services. If people pay for more of their medical services out of pocket, they will demand that prices be made clear. It is easy to ignore costs when "someone else" is paying (even if you eventually end up paying through premiums.)
The AMA is quite capable of going after anyone claiming to be a member as fraud; it doesn't need a government monopoly to do that.
Quite corrupt, I agree, but that has nothing to do with "unrestrained free enterprise", which we don't have. If we had that, health care provisioning would not be tied to employers and their selection of insurance plans due to government mandates and tax incentives that distort the market. If we had that, I could do proper comparison shopping for medical goods and services based on price and quality. If we had that, I could research what drugs would best treat my condition(s) and buy them without having to go through an agent for a government supported monopoly on medical services. The list goes on. Medicine in the US is about as far from "unrestrained" as you can get without having Single Payer.
The poo one?
You may also want to take a look at btrfs. It sounds like a match for the feature set that interests you, and it is already available on Linux.
And don't forget the scoping, or lack thereof. At least with GT.M you get (mostly) compiled code.
(Disclaimers available on request.)
So... just like the outcome of all popular elections.
Possibly, but the defense has the right to question how the evidence against them was collected. If such a tactic were to prevent such inquiry, it could be grounds to have the evidence tossed out.
Modems are about communication; settops are about control. The primary purpose of the cable box is to control whether you can access the content and what you can do with it. Without that control the network providers would have to pay the content providers more because there is a higher risk of their content leaking out onto the Internet where anyone can get it for free. The network providers aren't happy with leakage, either, because potential customers who can get it for free won't pay their subscription fees. Even ad-funded content is an issue, because the ads injected by the provider are targeted, and the eyeballs of viewers outside of the targeted area are less valuable.
CableCard, as a hardware solution, had a chance of working because the provider could control the card. The fact that it had issues is part technical challenge and part political challenge. It isn't that fun to have a government mandate to forge your own chains, not to mention being forced to work with your competition to make sure their chains will fit your limbs and vice versa. The idea of a software CableCard has been around for a while, but to maintain control you have to be able to trust the software an some random hardware, or have rigid controls on which hardware is certified to run the software, and have the software validate the hardware before allowing access. It isn't easy, it doesn't really make anyone happy, it takes forever, and the market tends to move on before the issues are solved.
The trend is already towards Over The Top (Internet) video, anyway, so I really don't see the point.
FTR, I used to work for Motorola (now ARRIS) as a developer in the Access Control group.
The folks at LiquidPiston seem to think they have a rotary engine that could do the trick. Maybe, or maybe not, but I'm excited to see that there are still folks willing to innovate in engine technology.
http://liquidpiston.com/techno...
It is a lot easier to embrace an "open standard" when you developed it yourself, then donated it to a consortium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
... stop being an enabler and speak up.
Nobody wants to listen. They have other things to worry about. Like lives. And even if we could get them to care, they best they could do within the system is vote for the candidate who is slightly less in favor of the surveillance instead of the candidate who is slightly more in favor of the surveillance.
As to whether the language pays, MUMPS is actually used quite a lot in financial and medical applications. As a language, there isn't much going for it except the installed base; it reminds me a bit of BASIC. However, it does have built-in persistence, and can be made to store and retrieve data reallyreallyfast, to the extent that attempts to switch to something else tend to fail due to reduced performance. So if you can handle the language, there are places that will pay you to program in it, and given the typical application domains, the job would likely be fairly secure.
Full Disclosure: set ^dayjob(me)="MUMPS Implementation Developer"
"Whatever this man has told you is a lie. He lies for a living!"
"He's in the Intelligence business."
"Exactly."
"YOU are in the Intelligence business!"
"There is nothing more useless than a lock with a voice print."
Why is there no "+1 Disturbing"?
I can understand if Google wants to force vendors to update to the most recent android. However, from a vendor perspective, what's so hard about backporting this patch to, say, android 4.3 and below? Is there a contract with Google forbidding this? Do they get money from NSA?
Backporting it probably isn't difficult, but getting all the vendors and carriers to patch, build, validate, and deploy their custom Android builds for all the various devices they have supported over the last few years is.
I still miss Reveal Codes.
These days the best you can hope for are the underlying HTML tags.
Sorry, accidentally modded your post down, when intended to mod it +1 Funny. This post should undo that.
Back to the 70's, and ancient Atlantis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Monster
I initially misread that as "... and ancient Ataris".
Which was even scarier than the Doctor Who premise.
As long as you have a decent supply of Epyx 500XJ joysticks, I don't see anything to be afraid of. (You'll need to replace them periodically 'cause the little plastic bit inside holding the guts in place tends to break.)