Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Buffet vs. A La Carte (Score 1) 341

by bondsbw (#47411081) Attached to: Here Comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies

I'm absolutely positive that if you went up to the cashier and said "I would like to pay 3x as much in order to enjoy it more," he would be glad to oblige.

So, why don't you?

Why is it that you will only pay more if everyone pays more? If you truly believe what you are saying, what does how much I pay have to do with it?

Comment: Buffet vs. A La Carte (Score 2, Insightful) 341

by bondsbw (#47408699) Attached to: Here Comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies

This reminds me of buffet vs. a la carte expenses, just applied to insurance. If eating ice cream were to cost $0.50 extra each time (or I were to "save" 50 cents when I didn't eat ice cream), I might be more conscious about that cost and decide to not eat any than if that cost were figured in and distributed among all users buffet-style.

This may result in a healthier population, I would imagine. But given percentage profit caps due to the ACA (at least in the US), I suspect that profits would go down as a result. So, the plan backfires.

Combined with the negativity associated with charging a "tax" on eating tasty food, I doubt this really goes anywhere.

Comment: Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary (Score 1) 284

by bondsbw (#47397203) Attached to: Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep In Brain

I was under the impression that anesthesia doesn't work like a painkiller. It only reduces consciousness. The patient receives painkillers prior to the anesthesia wearing off in order to manage pain after becoming conscious. Since this would only take place of anesthesia, it would still be reasonable to provide painkillers before waking the patient up.

Comment: Re:Reputational Damage (Score 1) 346

by bondsbw (#47380063) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

True, but at least there are corporate policies in place at most companies to manage such a situation.

Want to keep your job and not be subject to criminal prosecution? Don't share any emails with trade secrets or other private info.

Besides, since we are talking about better systems, let's go ahead and make it more difficult to accidentally send mail to mailing lists. "This message will be sent to 'GS Employees', a mailing list with 32,912 users. Are you sure?"

Comment: Re:Reputational Damage (Score 1) 346

by bondsbw (#47378187) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

But it would be nice to have something like "google circles" for corporate email, and have them enforced on the client -- that is, you cannot send an email to an individual without having first classified their address as having a specific relationship to you, and then you must click through a "send this to everyone with that relationship?" dialog before being able to send to the individual.

Of course, then you get into the issue of list cleaning, but this could also have the benefit of being able to encrypt the message against "group keys" -- something that would be transparent for internal mail, and would involve a one-time setup for external mail. Anything not at least doing key *signing* would be flagged for review prior to release; this would fix a large swathe of data leakage issues currently experienced by pretty much every company with an intranet out there.

All of this was good and I highly agree that this kind of thing would be beneficial to all kinds of messaging protocols including email.

Email clients don't send messages to unknown addresses; the address was obviously known to the sender and had been the recipient of emails from them in the past.

What? This doesn't make sense one bit. I can email practically any email address on the planet.

Comment: Re:Reputational Damage (Score 1) 346

by bondsbw (#47378131) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

*facepalm* I'm not talking about me.

I'm talking about the billions of other email users around the globe who don't understand what PGP means or TLS or SMTP or anything that isn't the Send button. I'm talking about users who, like this guy, make very simple and understandable mistakes that could put many people and their possessions at risk.

Comment: Re:Reputational Damage (Score 1) 346

by bondsbw (#47375849) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

Not that I care a hoot about bad things happening to GS... not that I believe this should have been emailed...

But I wish it weren't so easy to send a message to an unknown address, particularly one on a different server. I'd almost rather have a separate protocol for sending to known/safe addresses than for unknown addresses.

Them as has, gets.

Working...