Comment Re:Too bad someone didn't figure this all out (Score 4, Informative) 146
It's already well underway: http://openehealth.org/
It's already well underway: http://openehealth.org/
Been trying to warn folks for years that the smokers were the canaries in the coal mine but nobody listened. Look at your history folks, government ALWAYS gets bigger, NEVER smaller. Look at places like NYC telling you how big of a soda you are allowed to have and talks of sugar taxes and fat taxes, all under the "its because of healthcare" bullshit excuse.
This isn't unique to the government. When I was at my previous fortune-100 employer, they penalized smokers as well (actually what they did was raise the rates for everyone, but gave non-smokers a "discount"). It's not that uncommon. Additionally some places will hand out "fitness incentives" (i.e. penalize overweight people).
How about "high value individual"? That make you feel better?
They managed because the kids weren't confined to child seats until they're 13yo (or whatever the new ridiculous age is). On long trips, we'd climb over seats, make faces from the rear-facing trundle seat, read books, play with toys, and sleep laying fully down with only a lap belt (the rear seats had only lap belts).
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.
That's not the point. No one is arguing that better safety is not an improvement over the past. The point is that when you confine a kid they act out more because there is less they can do.
My 20 month old goes stir crazy because she is still stuck in a rear facing car seat. Maybe when she was an infant she could entertain herself staring at the seat upholstery for an hour, but now she sure can't. So after she gets board of her books, toys, and dolls, we'll pass back an iPhone playing Finding Nemo in guided access mode.
So if they ever start putting a device in my car that disables the phone, I'll find out where it's located and take a hammer to it.
I think this is the most fair method of enacting justice in such a situation -- the companies (or individuals) involved are penalized shortly after the actual accident occurs, so there is financial incentive to prevent it in the future, and no possibility of them profiting from it later, but at the same time recognizing that we may not know for a very long time who was actually harmed, or to what degree.
Knowing that the responsible party had a fine levied against them 30 years ago is scant comfort to the individual who ends up with cancer and the family that it bankrupts.
There is a difference between electromagnetic radiation and ionizing radiation.
One is just radio or light waves, and is harmless below certain amplitudes that you don't see in common products. The other is bits of atoms flying off, causing biological changes on a cellular level, and those materials are highly restricted.
UV, X-, and Gama-rays are all all both electromagnetic and ionizing. Those properties are not mutually exclusive and ionizing radiation isn't exclusively "bits of atoms flying off".
Which category do you think a television falls into?
CRT televisions use high speed electrons to excite phosphors to emit light. As a side effect a small amount of X-rays are emitted. For this reason CRT screens are made of leaded glass. This blocks most, but not all, of the X-rays. So for most of the history of television, watching TV meant being irradiated a small but measurable amount.
Haha, totally missed that, whoops!
Who would be stupid enough to check for the OS version that way? It should have been something like:
if ( ( MajorVersion * 10 ) + MinorVersion >= 51 )
{
}
You know it's possible to have a v4.12, right?
Your browser appears to have a misfunctioning spellchecker which has "corrected" HL7 into XML.
HL7v3/CDA, however, *is* XML-based. Having both written HL7 parsers and worked with HAPI, I have to say it's much easier to tune your XML stack once and point it at some XSDs.
Neither one is as bad as X12 though
in a document clearly repudiating the armistice agreement [kcna.co.jp] and claiming that the ongoing exercises are already "an open declaration of a war against the DPRK".
They are insane attention grabbers and that ignoring them (whilst trying to find ways to react to their possibly going even more insane and actually attacking) is the right thing but let's not lie about this please.
Just for a moment imagine that China and and North Korea got together and did some military exercises simulating the invasion of the US off of the California coast. What do you suppose the rhetoric out of Washington would be? I think North Korea's leadership is cruel and evil and totalitarian, but they are not behaving irrationally. They are behaving exactly like any other country would.
This is the way it is in England as my American wife found out when she stood there watching the groceries pile up the first time she went shopping there. To me it makes sense. I have nothing better to do and I have more of an interest in making sure my groceries are stacked properly.
Add managing a screaming kid or two and you will appreciate the convenience and added efficiency a dedicated bagger brings to the equation
Whoops, never mind!
Most places that use a picture aren't using it as a second authentication factor. It's an anti-phishing countermeasure. The idea is that you pick a picture when you set up your account and then every time you log in you should see your picture. If you don't see your picture, then you know you aren't really looking at your bank's (or whatever) web site, but an attack site. Of course it's not an effective countermeasure against attack sites that use your credentials to connect to the real bank site in the background, get the picture from the bank and then show you what you expected to see. But it does prevent some phishing.
Why wouldn't the phishing site just MitM this? Phishing site collects your username, sends your username to bank, gets password screen HTML back with picture and pass phrase, echos picture and pass phrase to you.
Right, but they are utilizing the scientific method to test the quality of published papers, not attempting to verify the utility of the scientific method itself.
The headline should read "Bloggers apply scientific method to validate published findings".
Police can sometimes use illegally obtained evidence if it was obtained by a private citizen whose actions were not directed by the police. That citizen is still liable for the criminal acts they committed to obtain the evidence, but the evidence itself isn't necessarily poison fruit.
"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
