There has been an ongoing legal battle regarding a blog called "Skanks in NYC". The blog was removed from Google when Google was sued to find out who ran the blog. The Plaintiff won and now the name of the blogger has been released. Story here http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43718/98/
The person who wrote the blog is now in the process of looking at her legal options for suing Google over her invasion of privacy.
Seriously? Can you really claim that you were looking for privacy when you are posting your thoughts for the whole world to see?
I think that what she was looking for was anonymity, not privacy. Anonymity allows you to make comments that you would never make to a person's face. Anonymity allows you to avoid the repercussions of what you say. Is anonymity a right? If it is a right, is it a right you can expect when you are putting yourself out there in the public eye spouting off on topics that would normally expose you to defamation/liable (not a lawyer so sue me) lawsuits if you were to put your name on something?
I believe that what a person does in their own home is their business, but if you step outside it becomes the community's business. Walk around naked in your own house, we have no problems. I don't even care if you don't have the shades drawn because I shouldn't be peeping in your windows. But you step outside (and are not hot) we're going to have a conversation (if you're hot I'm likely to make as little noise as possible).
Privacy may be a right, but is anonymity? As always, your thoughts are welcome.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
MS on the receiving end
Check out the story below. Go ahead. I'll wait.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Step-one-in-the-process-Microsoft-files-appeal-of-Word-injunction/1250694380
Did you read it? If not' it's OK.
Briefly, MS has been issued an injunction, that in a couple months time, they will be unable to sell Word 2003 and Word 2007 (Word 2010 is not affected by this case). The good news is that i4i (eye for eye - funny) says they are not planning on suing anyone other than Microsoft. At least that is what they are saying now. We'll see how this goes if their case holds up.
I have been reading a couple of posts about this topic and I am sad to see that a lot of people are of the opinion that since Microsoft makes so much money on the Office suite that they should get a pass. Wow. How do I even respond to that. I"m sorry, but if they have a valid case, how can you just let it go? Would it suck to not have any updates for Office 2K3 or 2K7? Yes, but you can't just ignore the law because they were making buckets of money off of it.
By the same token, as much as I would find it chuckle worthy if the verdict is not overturned, I can't imagine the wholesale chaos that will envelope the user community from students to IT support staff to deal with the fallout of it. Speaking as an IT guy, you can't necessarily just change your platform on a whim. It took us months of testing to get sign off on moving from Office 2000 to Office 2007. We had to modify some of our apps to use the new file formats and that took time. Where I work is NOT going to adopt an Open Source solution (don't ask me to explain it as I don't understand it myself). That would mean we sit unsupported until Office2010 comes out (hopefully a rush put on my MS, but not TOO much of a rush) and then we scramble to adopt.
It looks to me like MS has a couple of options.
1) Pay some royalty fee and settle the case
2) Issue a patch that prevents the allegedly infringing behavior in Word.
3) Rush 2010 and offer a free upgrade so as not to piss off their customers by leaving them without support
4) Win the appeal
5) Pay the fine and just let the chips fall where they may
MS, as described in the article, is working on the appeal. I am honestly kind of torn as to which way I want this to go. The jealous douche-bag in me wants MS to lose just to take them down a peg or too, but the IT guy in me wants to see MS win because otherwise things could get VERY ugly for me at work.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Step-one-in-the-process-Microsoft-files-appeal-of-Word-injunction/1250694380
Did you read it? If not' it's OK.
Briefly, MS has been issued an injunction, that in a couple months time, they will be unable to sell Word 2003 and Word 2007 (Word 2010 is not affected by this case). The good news is that i4i (eye for eye - funny) says they are not planning on suing anyone other than Microsoft. At least that is what they are saying now. We'll see how this goes if their case holds up.
I have been reading a couple of posts about this topic and I am sad to see that a lot of people are of the opinion that since Microsoft makes so much money on the Office suite that they should get a pass. Wow. How do I even respond to that. I"m sorry, but if they have a valid case, how can you just let it go? Would it suck to not have any updates for Office 2K3 or 2K7? Yes, but you can't just ignore the law because they were making buckets of money off of it.
By the same token, as much as I would find it chuckle worthy if the verdict is not overturned, I can't imagine the wholesale chaos that will envelope the user community from students to IT support staff to deal with the fallout of it. Speaking as an IT guy, you can't necessarily just change your platform on a whim. It took us months of testing to get sign off on moving from Office 2000 to Office 2007. We had to modify some of our apps to use the new file formats and that took time. Where I work is NOT going to adopt an Open Source solution (don't ask me to explain it as I don't understand it myself). That would mean we sit unsupported until Office2010 comes out (hopefully a rush put on my MS, but not TOO much of a rush) and then we scramble to adopt.
It looks to me like MS has a couple of options.
1) Pay some royalty fee and settle the case
2) Issue a patch that prevents the allegedly infringing behavior in Word.
3) Rush 2010 and offer a free upgrade so as not to piss off their customers by leaving them without support
4) Win the appeal
5) Pay the fine and just let the chips fall where they may
MS, as described in the article, is working on the appeal. I am honestly kind of torn as to which way I want this to go. The jealous douche-bag in me wants MS to lose just to take them down a peg or too, but the IT guy in me wants to see MS win because otherwise things could get VERY ugly for me at work.
Monday, August 17, 2009
In Fairness
Below is a link to a transcript of one of the town hall's conducted by President Obama. In it he sort of answers the question of how a private insurer is supposed to compete with a "public option." He acknowledges that if it is a government organization he can see where there would be significant difficulty, but points out that Blue Cross/Blue Shield are non-profits as well and that for profits are still doing well. There are plenty in the insurance industry, my wife included, that would say otherwise with regards to both BC/BS being non-profit and with the assertion that the for-profits are doing well, but I can't say as I have no information. He also mentions an example of private businesses that compete with the government and are kinda beating its pants off (UPS/FedEx vs. USPS). It's food for thought but really light on specifics. It kinda boils down to "We need to be really careful in how we structure this thing."
I have not finished reading it, but plan to tonight.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/obamas_health_care_town_hall_i.html
I have not finished reading it, but plan to tonight.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/obamas_health_care_town_hall_i.html
Thursday, August 13, 2009
It's my way or the highway.
It seems like civil discourse in the modern era is a relegated to what I used to do on the playground in the first grade.
"Blue is pretty."
"Pink is pretty."
"You're a big stupid head."
"You're a bigger stupid head."
If you disagree with me you are obviously an uninformed flame-troll put here by the (insert opposition)'s lobbyists to fear monger and scare the other poor unintelligent people out there who are not as intelligent as I obviously am because I cannot possibly be wrong and if you're disagreeing with me in any small way, then your opinion cannot possibly have any merit.
Should say that I am conservative by nature. Don't like the government telling me what to do. Think people should take personal responsibility for their own situation.
That being said, both sides do this. Of course Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do. So does Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So does the President and every member of Congress. Obama and most other Democrats have said that they believe that if people just had all of the facts they would fall in line. Republicans say if you knew all the information you would run screaming for the hills. It's just an extension of the same I'm right and you're stupid argument you had in grade school. The difference now is that instead of a stupid head, you are "uninformed" or "un-American." We're all Americans. We all have the right to disagree with each other. We have the right to voice our opinions. You also have the right to ignore my opinions, but if you are an elected official, you ignore them at your political peril. I remember someone mentioning that "We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable." Where did that go?
Compounding the problem is that nobody seems to have the ability to compromise. There is no give and take anymore. Almost everything that has been done on this legislation has been along strict party lines. Now with a Deomcratic majority, the thought is if we can't get the Republican side to vote for this package, instead of compromising we will enact a procedure that was intended to deal with the federal budget and only require a simple majority to get it through. Sad.
Sadly, politics as usual. This is why people don't want to vote.
It is with great pleasure that I can say that I have a friend that while I tend to disagree with on a significant number of issues, we can still meet up and have a good time together and not let the fact that we have differences of opinion prevent us from enjoying each others company. I hope he enjoys the spirited debates as much as I do. :P You should check out his site sometime.
http://mofyc.blogspot.com/
Pat A.
"Blue is pretty."
"Pink is pretty."
"You're a big stupid head."
"You're a bigger stupid head."
If you disagree with me you are obviously an uninformed flame-troll put here by the (insert opposition)'s lobbyists to fear monger and scare the other poor unintelligent people out there who are not as intelligent as I obviously am because I cannot possibly be wrong and if you're disagreeing with me in any small way, then your opinion cannot possibly have any merit.
Should say that I am conservative by nature. Don't like the government telling me what to do. Think people should take personal responsibility for their own situation.
That being said, both sides do this. Of course Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do. So does Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So does the President and every member of Congress. Obama and most other Democrats have said that they believe that if people just had all of the facts they would fall in line. Republicans say if you knew all the information you would run screaming for the hills. It's just an extension of the same I'm right and you're stupid argument you had in grade school. The difference now is that instead of a stupid head, you are "uninformed" or "un-American." We're all Americans. We all have the right to disagree with each other. We have the right to voice our opinions. You also have the right to ignore my opinions, but if you are an elected official, you ignore them at your political peril. I remember someone mentioning that "We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable." Where did that go?
Compounding the problem is that nobody seems to have the ability to compromise. There is no give and take anymore. Almost everything that has been done on this legislation has been along strict party lines. Now with a Deomcratic majority, the thought is if we can't get the Republican side to vote for this package, instead of compromising we will enact a procedure that was intended to deal with the federal budget and only require a simple majority to get it through. Sad.
Sadly, politics as usual. This is why people don't want to vote.
It is with great pleasure that I can say that I have a friend that while I tend to disagree with on a significant number of issues, we can still meet up and have a good time together and not let the fact that we have differences of opinion prevent us from enjoying each others company. I hope he enjoys the spirited debates as much as I do. :P You should check out his site sometime.
http://mofyc.blogspot.com/
Pat A.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Competition on health care (or insurance if you didn't read my last post)
Can someone explain to me how it is that a corporation that has shareholders and must pay employees an above govt grade salary to retain talent and compete with each other are supposed to compete with a health insurance provider that is managed and backed by the federal government? How do you, as a for-profit company, compete with someone on price when they have no profit motive? And let's face it. People will choose their insurance based on price because for the most part, people are short-sighted.
I realize that the health plan that is being proposed is SUPPOSED to be sustained by the premiums that are being forced into it by the mandated insurance coverage that will be forced upon us, but that is the same argument that was made for the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. We all say how that turned out when it looked like the might become insolvent. First of the bailouts. Yay.
Why is it again that businesses are being forced to provide health care to their employees? What was wrong with the tax credit idea? Go out and get your own insurance. Lose your job? Get another one? Want to change your plan? Do whatever you want. You don't have to go through an HR department during specific times of the year and only make changes once a year. It's your plan. You can do it whenever you want to.
Why punish businesses when their employees don't want coverage? If you should punish anyone it should be the employee. How do you determine who gets punished if you insist on punishing businesses? My understanding is that they want full AND part-time employees covered by businesses. What about the people who have multiple part-time jobs? Do each of those businesses get punished if the person instead chooses to opt out of an insurance plan? Wouldn't that be double-dipping?
Why can't people be charged more by a Health INSURANCE company (notice the emphasis on insurance - see my previous post) for a history of risky behavior like, I don't know, say... being fat? If I go out for Auto Insurance and I have a crappy driving history, or I go out to get a loan and I have a horrific credit history, I would pay more for the service being requested because I have demonstrated that I have trouble "behaving." Why should this be different for Medical INSURANCE? If you are talking health CARE, then it is a different issue. You are going to use the service and are not gambling like an insurance situation. Likely means you care about your health and are willing to live a healthier lifestyle than someone who just wants insurance.
At this point in my life, I would rather have health CARE than health INSURANCE. That is my choice. I am interested in not dying for another couple of dozen years. I plan to live long enough to torture my children, by being the best grandpa that ever there was. Just like my parents. Unfortunately my dad passed away with a lot of torture left undone. My mom is working diligently to take up his workload. Had my dad been more into preventative care, or not just manning up and dealing with the pain, he might still be here today. I don't know that either insurance OR care would have helped in his situation. He believed that his pain was just a sign of his getting older. No routine testing would have seen it.
In the end whether we as Americans are healthy or not is in a lot of ways up to us. It is our choices to over-eat, over-drink, smoke, over-medicate and ignore warning signs that make us healthy or sick. I would love it if in this debate a little less vilifying the health insurers, malpractice insurers, malpractice lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospital administration and government officials and a little more talk about the personal responsibility that we should all be taking for the situation.
I think that the reason we have skyrocketing health care costs is because we as a society are under the impression that we should be able to take a pill that fixes what is wrong or have a surgery or some other quick fix instead of living our lives in a way that prevents us from getting sick in the first place. I am pretty sure that at no point in my dad's VERY BRIEF (less than a week) battle with cancer did he at any point, for one second blame the insurance company, the hospital or his doctor. I think that he realized that if he had just seen someone about the excruciating pain he was in sooner, he could have had a fighting chance. But by the time he did, it was too late.
How about we stop blaiming everyone but ourselves (which is par for the course) and start to take some responsibility for our own health problems. I was recently diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Doctor told me if I didn't get my shit straightened out, I would probably end up stabbing myself with needles multiple times a day. Now that is motivation. He gave me some drugs and I worked on modifying my diet. To my surprise, and my doctor's surprise, I became really active in fixing the situation. I took responsibilty for being the raging fat-ass that I am and with my blood sugar so high I immediately took the Atkins approach and drastically cut carbs. Found out from some reading materials that you actually DO need carbs. Apparently if you blood sugar frops too loe you pass out and never wake up again. That idea sucked, so I started eating some. I asked him to refer me to a dietitian and, voila, she said I needed to eat more. She helped me to make better choices. I can still have some of the crap I would normally eat, but I try to avoid most anything deep fried. It hurts, but the other choice is popping handfuls of pills. I am not a pill person. I don't like the idea that I need a pill to live, and that the only reason I do is because I can't control myself. It's not my thing. Longer than I planned on story short, I have dropped my Blood Glucose Levels from 350 down to a reasonable 100. I have dropped nearly 35 ponds. That's just with the diet change. I haven't really added exercise to the equation yet. that is proving a tougher nut to crack.
This is what America needs to do. Probably 70% (I made this number up, it is not based on any fact or evidence) of the "diseases" out there are a result of being a raging fat-ass. Drop some pounds as a nation and watch your spending on health care drop as well.
I think that everyone should take responsibility for their own health. I guess that it boils down to the fact that I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions. About health care, health insurance, being healthy, how to be healthy. But if you have the freedom to make the choice, then you have to also take responsibility when the choices you make, put your health in jeopardy. I guess the thing I don't like the most about the concept of universal health care, or a public option, or whatever you want to call it, is that I don't like that a government run option will eventually take away my CHOICE. First they mandate you have to have coverage, then they impose the "sin taxes" like they have on smoking. They first apply it to sugar drinks because they cause diabetes. Then they apply it to fatty foods because they cause heart disease. And it goes on from there. Eventually you will be told that you will eat X for breakfast, Y for lunch, and if you deviate from these prescriptions you will be a penalty. And it will all be done in the name of saving on health care costs.
Wow. That was kind of all over the damn place.
My name is Pat Aurience and I am a fat-bastard. But, I am working on it.
I realize that the health plan that is being proposed is SUPPOSED to be sustained by the premiums that are being forced into it by the mandated insurance coverage that will be forced upon us, but that is the same argument that was made for the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. We all say how that turned out when it looked like the might become insolvent. First of the bailouts. Yay.
Why is it again that businesses are being forced to provide health care to their employees? What was wrong with the tax credit idea? Go out and get your own insurance. Lose your job? Get another one? Want to change your plan? Do whatever you want. You don't have to go through an HR department during specific times of the year and only make changes once a year. It's your plan. You can do it whenever you want to.
Why punish businesses when their employees don't want coverage? If you should punish anyone it should be the employee. How do you determine who gets punished if you insist on punishing businesses? My understanding is that they want full AND part-time employees covered by businesses. What about the people who have multiple part-time jobs? Do each of those businesses get punished if the person instead chooses to opt out of an insurance plan? Wouldn't that be double-dipping?
Why can't people be charged more by a Health INSURANCE company (notice the emphasis on insurance - see my previous post) for a history of risky behavior like, I don't know, say... being fat? If I go out for Auto Insurance and I have a crappy driving history, or I go out to get a loan and I have a horrific credit history, I would pay more for the service being requested because I have demonstrated that I have trouble "behaving." Why should this be different for Medical INSURANCE? If you are talking health CARE, then it is a different issue. You are going to use the service and are not gambling like an insurance situation. Likely means you care about your health and are willing to live a healthier lifestyle than someone who just wants insurance.
At this point in my life, I would rather have health CARE than health INSURANCE. That is my choice. I am interested in not dying for another couple of dozen years. I plan to live long enough to torture my children, by being the best grandpa that ever there was. Just like my parents. Unfortunately my dad passed away with a lot of torture left undone. My mom is working diligently to take up his workload. Had my dad been more into preventative care, or not just manning up and dealing with the pain, he might still be here today. I don't know that either insurance OR care would have helped in his situation. He believed that his pain was just a sign of his getting older. No routine testing would have seen it.
In the end whether we as Americans are healthy or not is in a lot of ways up to us. It is our choices to over-eat, over-drink, smoke, over-medicate and ignore warning signs that make us healthy or sick. I would love it if in this debate a little less vilifying the health insurers, malpractice insurers, malpractice lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospital administration and government officials and a little more talk about the personal responsibility that we should all be taking for the situation.
I think that the reason we have skyrocketing health care costs is because we as a society are under the impression that we should be able to take a pill that fixes what is wrong or have a surgery or some other quick fix instead of living our lives in a way that prevents us from getting sick in the first place. I am pretty sure that at no point in my dad's VERY BRIEF (less than a week) battle with cancer did he at any point, for one second blame the insurance company, the hospital or his doctor. I think that he realized that if he had just seen someone about the excruciating pain he was in sooner, he could have had a fighting chance. But by the time he did, it was too late.
How about we stop blaiming everyone but ourselves (which is par for the course) and start to take some responsibility for our own health problems. I was recently diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Doctor told me if I didn't get my shit straightened out, I would probably end up stabbing myself with needles multiple times a day. Now that is motivation. He gave me some drugs and I worked on modifying my diet. To my surprise, and my doctor's surprise, I became really active in fixing the situation. I took responsibilty for being the raging fat-ass that I am and with my blood sugar so high I immediately took the Atkins approach and drastically cut carbs. Found out from some reading materials that you actually DO need carbs. Apparently if you blood sugar frops too loe you pass out and never wake up again. That idea sucked, so I started eating some. I asked him to refer me to a dietitian and, voila, she said I needed to eat more. She helped me to make better choices. I can still have some of the crap I would normally eat, but I try to avoid most anything deep fried. It hurts, but the other choice is popping handfuls of pills. I am not a pill person. I don't like the idea that I need a pill to live, and that the only reason I do is because I can't control myself. It's not my thing. Longer than I planned on story short, I have dropped my Blood Glucose Levels from 350 down to a reasonable 100. I have dropped nearly 35 ponds. That's just with the diet change. I haven't really added exercise to the equation yet. that is proving a tougher nut to crack.
This is what America needs to do. Probably 70% (I made this number up, it is not based on any fact or evidence) of the "diseases" out there are a result of being a raging fat-ass. Drop some pounds as a nation and watch your spending on health care drop as well.
I think that everyone should take responsibility for their own health. I guess that it boils down to the fact that I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions. About health care, health insurance, being healthy, how to be healthy. But if you have the freedom to make the choice, then you have to also take responsibility when the choices you make, put your health in jeopardy. I guess the thing I don't like the most about the concept of universal health care, or a public option, or whatever you want to call it, is that I don't like that a government run option will eventually take away my CHOICE. First they mandate you have to have coverage, then they impose the "sin taxes" like they have on smoking. They first apply it to sugar drinks because they cause diabetes. Then they apply it to fatty foods because they cause heart disease. And it goes on from there. Eventually you will be told that you will eat X for breakfast, Y for lunch, and if you deviate from these prescriptions you will be a penalty. And it will all be done in the name of saving on health care costs.
Wow. That was kind of all over the damn place.
My name is Pat Aurience and I am a fat-bastard. But, I am working on it.
Health INSURANCE vs. Health CARE
I am getting really tired of people spouting off about health INSURANCE when they mean health CARE.
People have this bizarre delusion that getting your drugs for $10 and spending $20 on a visit to your doctor is health insurance. This is not health insurance. This is health care. If you think it is insurance, you have no idea what insurance actually is. This is pretty sad as a lot of us have insurance and we only expect it to provide for us a benefit in the manner that insurance is supposed to. Insurance is gambling. You are betting that you will need help with a situation, the insurer is betting that you will not.
I have home owners insurance. I pay a very reasonable amount of money every month to a company who is betting that my house will not burn down, or be destroyed in a tornado or some other such CATASTROPHIC event. I do not expect for my premium that someone will come and mow my lawn, remove my snow, paint my house and landscape my lawn. They have organizations to do that. It's called a home owners association. You pay a fee and they come and do those things for you and the other folks in your community. That is not insurance.
I have life insurance. I pay a fee and in the event that I meet an untimely end, my wife and children have a shot at keeping the house and being comfortable. They don't send me money once a month to help pay my mortgage. That's not life insurance. That's an annuity. You can buy them, but they are kind of stupid unless you are retiring. They are kind of like reverse insurance. You spend a large lump sum to get a bunch of small payments instead of a bunch of small payments to get a large lump sum.
I have auto insurance. I don't get my car repaired for free, or regular maintenance for free, but if I wreck my car in an accident, it gets repaired or replaced.
Health insurance is to protect against catastrophic problems. What we are being asked to provide is preventative medicine which is the essence of an HMO. The thing I can't figure out is why is it that what everyone is gunning for when nobody seemed to like them.
I guess I am just too stupid to get it.
Pat.
People have this bizarre delusion that getting your drugs for $10 and spending $20 on a visit to your doctor is health insurance. This is not health insurance. This is health care. If you think it is insurance, you have no idea what insurance actually is. This is pretty sad as a lot of us have insurance and we only expect it to provide for us a benefit in the manner that insurance is supposed to. Insurance is gambling. You are betting that you will need help with a situation, the insurer is betting that you will not.
I have home owners insurance. I pay a very reasonable amount of money every month to a company who is betting that my house will not burn down, or be destroyed in a tornado or some other such CATASTROPHIC event. I do not expect for my premium that someone will come and mow my lawn, remove my snow, paint my house and landscape my lawn. They have organizations to do that. It's called a home owners association. You pay a fee and they come and do those things for you and the other folks in your community. That is not insurance.
I have life insurance. I pay a fee and in the event that I meet an untimely end, my wife and children have a shot at keeping the house and being comfortable. They don't send me money once a month to help pay my mortgage. That's not life insurance. That's an annuity. You can buy them, but they are kind of stupid unless you are retiring. They are kind of like reverse insurance. You spend a large lump sum to get a bunch of small payments instead of a bunch of small payments to get a large lump sum.
I have auto insurance. I don't get my car repaired for free, or regular maintenance for free, but if I wreck my car in an accident, it gets repaired or replaced.
Health insurance is to protect against catastrophic problems. What we are being asked to provide is preventative medicine which is the essence of an HMO. The thing I can't figure out is why is it that what everyone is gunning for when nobody seemed to like them.
I guess I am just too stupid to get it.
Pat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
