Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:And what's the problem here? (Score 1) 826 826

Catastrophic insurance is actually worse, because it discourages people from getting that checkup. In the end, it pays the insurance company more to make sure you get that oil change than it does to pay for the engine replacement if you DON'T get that oil change. Most models of public health focus on preemptive medicine, it just pays out better.

Comment: Re:DOOMED I say... DOOMED! (Score 1) 677 677

"Internet Service Providers have argued against being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. The argument of ISPs against common carrier classification has largely conflated "telecommunications carriers" with "common carriers," assuming that if they were labeled as "common carriers," they would be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act by the FCC. This is incorrect; as noted above, a firm can be a common carrier without being a telecommunications carrier. The FCC proceeding that established that Internet networks are not telecommunications carriers is the Computer Inquiries. A later FCC report, IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), reviewed this policy (this report was not an order and did not have the effect of regulatory law - it is however, an excellent capture of FCC policy at that time)." - From the article you linked.

Perhaps you should read it?

Comment: Re:Fair Use? (Score 4, Insightful) 527 527

I'm not saying this detracts from what your going for, but Labeling Theory seems to create a self fulfilling prophecy in the whole thing. I've always considered if an interesting thing. You call them hard criminals, you treat them like hard criminals, they become hard criminals.

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.

Working...