The article also indirectly highlights the ever present "successor issue."
posted by Anonymous @ 11:40 PM
0 comments
Con's Web Soapbox. A bit sci-fi. Sometimes hi-fi.
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Long link title, but a good read. -- The War Room - What Robert Dallek's new biography doesn't tell you about JFK and Vietnam. By Fred Kaplan
The article also indirectly highlights the ever present "successor issue."
The article also indirectly highlights the ever present "successor issue."
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Bookmarking for now. Commentary later -- The Atlantic | April 2003 | The Return of the Pig | Brooks
posted by Anonymous @ 8:20 PM
0 comments
The cheese stands alone - My graph at the The Political Compass
In their listing of various political leaders, there was not one in my quadrant. I am not sure what that means, but I guess I am close enough to the center to pretend it does not matter.
In their listing of various political leaders, there was not one in my quadrant. I am not sure what that means, but I guess I am close enough to the center to pretend it does not matter.
posted by Anonymous @ 8:08 PM
0 comments
I do like this commercial. And I always like 'Ad Report' so here -- Martin Scorsese Makes Fun of Himself . By Rob Walker
posted by Anonymous @ 12:16 PM
0 comments
Monday, May 19, 2003
Long, Dense, but interesting aritcle. Samizdata.net - The Death of Copyright
It is hard to confront the reality of filesharing and reconcile it with breaking laws, and personal ethics. The article does a good, if ordy, job of explaining a position to which I personally am sympathetic -- most users do not feel that the utility of the product is diminished and its creator is punished by file sharing. It is pointless to argue whether it is true or not -- what is important is that enough people feel that way to make it work too well for any specific corporate entity to stop.
I also found the 2nd comment to be well thought out and presented. Read on.
It is hard to confront the reality of filesharing and reconcile it with breaking laws, and personal ethics. The article does a good, if ordy, job of explaining a position to which I personally am sympathetic -- most users do not feel that the utility of the product is diminished and its creator is punished by file sharing. It is pointless to argue whether it is true or not -- what is important is that enough people feel that way to make it work too well for any specific corporate entity to stop.
I also found the 2nd comment to be well thought out and presented. Read on.
posted by Anonymous @ 5:03 PM
0 comments
Saturday, May 17, 2003
I actually read all of his Fandorin books -- A Russian Intellectual Turns to Crime (Fiction)
And I also read his grandson of Fandorin books, and they were not nearly as good. I have yet to see the russian movie based on "Azazel". Anyway, I am glad he got translated into English, and I would not mind seeing how his book does.
And I also read his grandson of Fandorin books, and they were not nearly as good. I have yet to see the russian movie based on "Azazel". Anyway, I am glad he got translated into English, and I would not mind seeing how his book does.
posted by Anonymous @ 7:23 PM
0 comments
Friday, May 16, 2003
There we go. It did not take long to figure out a high-tech way for low-tech vote rigging -- BBC NEWS | Technology | Mafia turns to 3G video phones
I am sure there are still people who think voting over the internet will take off, or at least through voting machines connected to a network... Why would you think people would not hack into that? Do we really need another way for unfair elections to take place?
I am sure there are still people who think voting over the internet will take off, or at least through voting machines connected to a network... Why would you think people would not hack into that? Do we really need another way for unfair elections to take place?
posted by Anonymous @ 12:09 PM
0 comments
Pretty good overview of the Health Insurance woes -- Premium Blend - Why is it so difficult to provide universal health care? By Robert Shapiro
I would like to add to it that I think the author underreports the cost of the drugs and technology-related treatments versus what doctors actually get paid. I was surprised, and somewhat appalled, to find out that an oncologist was billing us $150 for a visit, but was only collecting, including our $20 co-payment about $60-$80. She easily spent an hour or more with us, and had to maintain an office, etc. Every advanced test we had was however running into thousands of dollars for MRI/CAT/etc. It seems to me that the real rising cost of insurance reflects the rise in these prices, and that in fact the use of malpractice suits as a bludgeon drives a lot of doctors to oversubsribe these kinds of treatments and tests.
I keep thinking that if Doctors were allowed to keep more of the total money we would see
1. increase in the number of Drs.
2. increase in their use of traditional doctor-observed diagnosis and less of the uber-reliance on technology.
3. As doctors rely more on themselves, Malpractice suits will regain their relevance, since now a doctor will actually balance his earnings vs. your health, as opposed to just sending you to the most expensive treatment possible since whether it is cheap or not makes no impact on their wallet.
BTW, I still do not see how capping malpractice awards @ 250K will do anyone any good, except very literally limit doctors liability before their patients.
Obviously, this is very rough, but for some reason this is one subject I do not hear much debate on. It is easy to wish for universal health care, but hard to pay for it.
I would like to add to it that I think the author underreports the cost of the drugs and technology-related treatments versus what doctors actually get paid. I was surprised, and somewhat appalled, to find out that an oncologist was billing us $150 for a visit, but was only collecting, including our $20 co-payment about $60-$80. She easily spent an hour or more with us, and had to maintain an office, etc. Every advanced test we had was however running into thousands of dollars for MRI/CAT/etc. It seems to me that the real rising cost of insurance reflects the rise in these prices, and that in fact the use of malpractice suits as a bludgeon drives a lot of doctors to oversubsribe these kinds of treatments and tests.
I keep thinking that if Doctors were allowed to keep more of the total money we would see
1. increase in the number of Drs.
2. increase in their use of traditional doctor-observed diagnosis and less of the uber-reliance on technology.
3. As doctors rely more on themselves, Malpractice suits will regain their relevance, since now a doctor will actually balance his earnings vs. your health, as opposed to just sending you to the most expensive treatment possible since whether it is cheap or not makes no impact on their wallet.
BTW, I still do not see how capping malpractice awards @ 250K will do anyone any good, except very literally limit doctors liability before their patients.
Obviously, this is very rough, but for some reason this is one subject I do not hear much debate on. It is easy to wish for universal health care, but hard to pay for it.
posted by Anonymous @ 11:20 AM
0 comments
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Got to love the title -- Yahoo! News - Suit to Ban Oreos in Calif. Crumbles
posted by Anonymous @ 2:17 PM
0 comments
building a taller soapbox. one entry at a time.
Previous Posts
- Scamming the 419 Scammer
- Keeping an Eye on Internet Health
- Mobile Wi-Fi Hotspots Offer Unusual Opportunities
- Security and the Immune System Metaphor
- The Value of MBA Education
- Birds do it, bees do it
- Long link title, but a good read. -- The War Room ...
- Bookmarking for now. Commentary later -- The Atlan...
- The cheese stands alone - My graph at the The Poli...
- I do like this commercial. And I always like 'Ad R...
Archives
- 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003
- 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- Current Posts
