Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:How Much? (Score 1) 232

"Universities, research companies, EMR vendors, and biotech firms using big data analysis to perform studies will consider this granularity a godsend..."

-1 Disagree

It will be a godsend only if you happen to worship a particularly cruel and vengeful god. The data that's collected is going to be absolute s**t outside of a few 1000 commonly used (and reimbursed) codes. (Which is going to vary wildly among providers and insurers.) Everything else is going to be filled with errors and statistical outliers and the real white whales you're searching for are going to be buried invisibly in those commonly used codes.

Comment Re:Sucked into jet engine, subsequent encounter (Score 1) 232

No the real benefit is going to be in scamming the system. A coding system this ridiculous is ripe for abuse. Surely there are many companies right now figuring out exactly how to plausibly code almost any mundane injury so that it generates the maximum reimbursement for the provider. Of course, as insurers get wise to the scam they'll change the rates for the scammed codes forcing the scam to move to another code and screwing the 1:1,000,000 people who actually did fall off their water skis while burning.

It will be a never-ending chase through the 10's of 1000's of useless codes.

And people wonder why health care costs so much.

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 391

The parent post said: "There is no way to prevent 3D printers and CNC mills from being manufactured."

A true but unhelpful statement. My point was to look at how printers, copiers, scanners, and even image editing software have been modified to deter counterfeiting:

It's not a stretch to imagine the same sort of restrictions being mandated for 3D printers and CNC machines.

Comment Re:Rights vs immunity of Fair Use Defense. (Score 1) 172

Then you may find the information at this link helpful:

Interesting excerpts:

"By accessing or using the Instagram website, the Instagram service, or any applications (including mobile applications) made available by Instagram (together, the "Service"), however accessed, you agree to be bound by these terms of use ("Terms of Use"). The Service is owned or controlled by Instagram, LLC ("Instagram"). These Terms of Use affect your legal rights and obligations. If you do not agree to be bound by all of these Terms of Use, do not access or use the Service. ...

1. Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy. ...
5. The Service contains content owned or licensed by Instagram ("Instagram Content"). Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service. You will not remove, alter or conceal any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the Instagram Content and you will not reproduce, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works based on, perform, display, publish, distribute, transmit, broadcast, sell, license or otherwise exploit the Instagram Content."

Comment Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score 1) 538

Agreed. To me this is the most over-looked/under-discussed angle on this story: the extreme lack of judgement displayed in making this decision isn't a good sign for someone coyly begging us to give her more power.

This wasn't an accident; she very clearly and intentionally made a reckless choice in placing her own personal benefit over the welfare of the nation.

In the end, I think her calculation was that she could make this choice with no consequences for herself and, sadly, I think she will be correct.

Comment Re:Well damn (Score 1) 379

Had anyone been interested in solving the problem you describe it could have been done very easily: it's flat out fraud to sell me access to the entire Internet and then go behind my back to the sites I want to visit and demand a ransom for my traffic. If the ISPs were legally liable for that kind of bait-and-switch then the problem would quickly sort itself out.

Instead you've nearly guaranteed that you're going to get traffic prioritized in ways you don't like. The only difference is that now you have absolutely no recourse as the traffic shaping you fear will have been blessed by your well greased and totally captured government regulators. You know, for the children or the terrorists or something.

2 pints = 1 Cavort