Keith David

Yeah, I also can’t stand it when words are used to convey meanings they’ve had for roughly five hundred years.

Etymology of "ouster’

Thought I recognized your name, LARPer.

Aren’t you the sad sack who gets off thinking about killing your father-in-law and blowing up your local ISP?

Fucking gross, you ghoul.

I almost feel like I’m being contrarian by asking this, though it isn’t my intent: your alternatives sound great at first blush, but how do you intend that those alternatives are enforced? Does that lead into your estimated >1% of offenders?

Is that supposed to be the strange insult?

Damn, did I touch a nerve?

Neither does “sexy”.

Sounds like a case of the crayon-eater calling the mouth-breather stupid…

You can also 68 something if it becomes available again, like a reverse 86. For instance: the kitchen runs out of Brussels sprouts and 86’s them, but someone completes an emergency produce run to the local market and preps enough for the rest of the night, so now they’re 68.

You can’t tell the SovCits anything. Maybe we’re supposed to have a sheriff inform the human being while we simultaneously address the straw man and thusly create joinder… then I think they have to listen to us based on Admirality Law or something… right?

So when Lord Carnarvon sent Howard Carter into the Valley of the Kings with his team…

…that was the Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

You’d need to limit the capacity to vote on credibility to people who are members of the community. If you haven’t joined, you can’t make a judgment about what is or isn’t a good faith post, but your own post can be voted by members. Rather than being attached to just the user, it would probably be better if it were referenced to the user per community. Even so, it’s essentially karma, and could probably be gamed.

Otherwise, you’ve just reinvented upvotes.

Do you often look out your window and see everything you dream about and wish you had?

I view this as a checklist of brand names that require additional assistance in falling off of the trademark cliff and crashing down onto the rocks of common usage below.

Which one of your .ml buddies got banned from a community or instance, why did it inspire you to post such a contrived “question” in this community, and how clever did you convince yourself that your little pet hypothetical was when you hit “send?”

Point of fact, I’m not bobs_monkey, the originator of the rhetorical tone. Fax in healthcare continues to survive well past its prime because there is an inherent loophole: analog data transfer is functionally unsuited to encryption. This allows fax to be operated at a “best effort” level of security. There are handling protocols that are meant to keep traditional fax transmissions as private as possible, but these are layer 8 processes with limited enforceability. Beyond that, traditional fax represents a pathway around requirements on encryption while still meeting HIPAA compliance standards.

FOIP is an improvement, but it still allows for interoperability with a traditional fax machine connected to a POTS line in some GP’s office that they’re unwilling to part with. That means the FOIP user can only be confident of the transmission being secure on their side. I can’t speak to the overall adaptation of FOIP in hospital systems, but I do know that there are non-isolated instances of hospitals still relying on traditional fax as opposed to adopting a cloud-fax solution. Hell, there are still major hospitals using SL-100s as their primary phone switches.

I don’t even want to get into codec mismatches, because that falls out of scope when it comes to a privacy discussion.

Long story short, achieving HIPAA compliance is a low bar with regards to fax, and if that were to change I believe we’d see fax disappear (finally!) shortly thereafter.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but the fax loophole does need to be closed.

By now I should know better
Your queen is never free

So tell me about your little
Gambit on file c

Chesse you can always sell
En passant to me