Slashdot Mirror

Here are links to relevant sites:

Appendix A: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm

Appendix B: The Belmont Report

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm

Here are links to relevant sites:

Appendix A: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm

Appendix B: The Belmont Report

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm

HIPPA is useless for dictating real life data security situations. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY USELESS.

Absolutely. That's what HIPAA is for.

WRONGFUL DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH INFORMATION

SEC. 1177. (a) OFFENSE.--A person who knowingly and in violation of this part--

(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;

(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or

(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) PENALTIES.--A person described in subsection (a) shall--

(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;

(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and

(3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

The actual HIPAA regs appear quite stringent, but you'll find that they don't make the data more secure.

For example, Use is well-defined in many cases, but actual security mechanisms are not. This kind of programming is right up Microsoft's alley. Not only is the security model pretty weak, there's limited interoperability requirements.

Please, read the standard. It's not fun reading, but the average /.'er will probably discover it addresses some basic stuff, but leaves the door wide open for familiar and massive compromises.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

If Essent Healthcare has reason to believe that a violation of HIPAA regulations has occurred, they are obligated to report the crime to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services who will investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. The Feds will use search warrants as necessary, not subpoenas. The action will be a criminal investigation, not the discovery phase of a civil lawsuit. It will be carried out by policemen, FBI agents, not by lawyers in Essent Healthcare's pay.

That's just silly. Here is this guy who is an anonymous coward saying that some other guy showed him some stuff from some third guy's medical record, and Essent Healthcare is saying that this is sufficient reason for demanding that an ISP release the identity of this anonymous coward? That's like a bad knock-off of an Abbot and Costello routine.

Again, if Essent Healthcare has reason to believe that a violation of HIPAA has occurred, they are obligated to report it and the Feds will pursue it as a crime. They have no basis for pursuing it in a civil court proceeding.

FTFA: Fox said Essent's biggest concern is that the blogger has said some hospital employees have given him patient records. Even though they have not been posted on the blog, Fox said this represents a violation of federal law and the company needs to find the employees who are doing it. IF that is true, then there absolutely needs to be an investigation. I'm all for allowing folks to honestly criticize care and use medical documentation that was authorized by the patient, but getting it without patient authorization?! I would have a problem with the employees that gave it to him. If the blogger is on to something, then he should approach the patients involved and ask them for the information. In this day of litigation, I'm sure most patients would jump on board for the chance of suing for $$$.

I also think the best defense to anything said by an anonymous blogger about a corporation is for the corporation to post their own statements, not to sue for defamation, at least not until other avenues have been exhausted. Open dialog and fight bad speech with more speech, not with actions that could be interpreted as an attempt to silence whistle-blowers or retaliate against what might be valid criticism. This is likely to call more attention to the claims (compounding the damage if they are false) and lead even more area residents to question the hospital's reputation.

You'll be happy to know there are already people with natural resistance to HIV virus, see http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/1996pres/960926.html for more detail.

1/3 in poverty? more like 1/8. It's a debateble whether the official measure of poverty overstates or understates the problem. I lean towards overstatement, due to everyone being materially better off. The official poverty rates were formed with an assumption about food being about 30% of expenses, which explicitly has changed. The standards are increased by the Urban consumer price index, but they have not actually gone back and recalculated things from the beginning, and the original assumptions aren't as good as you might hope.

Incidentally, the earth is NOT a closed system. Economics is NOT a zero sum game. Two people engaging in trade can both be better off because of it.

What's your problem with Bush, exactly? You are just too upset that America does great without your kooky elitist self-hating hippie-dyke liberal ways.

1. We are the safest we have ever been.
2. The terr'rists are on the run everywhere, or tied up in Iraq (as crass at it sounds, 2000 dead is indeed 'peanuts' compared to any other wars in World history).
3. Our energy security is assured for decades.
4. Our military and nuclear capabilities are at an all-time high. Or relations with China made our potential competitor into our slave and a servant.
5. The taxes are at an all-time low. The school achievement is at an all-time high.
6. Over 3/4 of currently living scientists work for the United States. And yes, you can stop slandering the President and thank him for doubling the NIH budget. 2002.01.26:President Fulfills Commitment to Doubling NIH Funding: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020126.ht ml

No matter how much rage and venom you liberals spit up, this President has delivered a Mission well Accomplished! Just go back to smoking your pot and leave the Government to those with a clue!

Actually, the problem is that SKU has two definitions, only one of which is included in the article you linked to. The one being used here is the original one; the meaning of a number to identify a product came later. Think about it. It's a Stock Keeping Unit, right? In what way is the number a unit? It isn't. An SKU is a product. The name makes no sense if you're talking about a code for a product, and this sense (which is, admittedly, now more common than the original) is a corruption of the meaning of the term. See definitions here and here among others.

"Should universities (or groups within universities) be allowed to hold patents and intellectual property while at the same time gaining donations and grants as an educational institution -- or for that matter government funds?"

until it is affordable by people who are living below the poverty line is a ridiculous one

buy an HDTV->Standard Def converter

Where do you assume this is physically hardwired?

That is specious and presumptious at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

As far as I know there have existed a number of socieities that have been quite permissive of pedophiles and in some cases made it socially expected.

This hardly indicates a hard-wired aversion.

It IS social conditioning of the strongest kind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but you are inventing science to support your moral argument, which is disingenuous.

Ok, now lets actually address what you SAID.

statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise.

The only thing that is "obvious" is that media reports of these charges are on the rise.

Please cite statistics that show charges and convictions are on the rise. Or you can simple let me illustrated that you are ignorant of the facts and are simply pontificating on moral grounds with your "epidemic" "on the rise" claims

Here, let me do it for you

Statistics show a decline in child abuse and neglect
The decline in child sex abuse cases
national child abuse and neglect statistics continued to decline
Child-Abuse and Neglect Cases Decline for Fifth Year, HHS Says ...
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
Statistics Show Decline in Child Abuse
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
total decline of 39% in identified sexual abuse cases over a 7-year period
New Child Maltreatment Statistics Show Continuing Decline
Department of Justice: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES FALL 31 PERCENT OVER SIX YEARS
he hotline has seen a 24 percent annual decline in child abuse reports

I'm sorry, that's just the first two pages out of about 40 in my google search.

Speaking of head in the sand...

Stewed

Where do you assume this is physically hardwired?

That is specious and presumptious at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

As far as I know there have existed a number of socieities that have been quite permissive of pedophiles and in some cases made it socially expected.

This hardly indicates a hard-wired aversion.

It IS social conditioning of the strongest kind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but you are inventing science to support your moral argument, which is disingenuous.

Ok, now lets actually address what you SAID.

statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise.

The only thing that is "obvious" is that media reports of these charges are on the rise.

Please cite statistics that show charges and convictions are on the rise. Or you can simple let me illustrated that you are ignorant of the facts and are simply pontificating on moral grounds with your "epidemic" "on the rise" claims

Here, let me do it for you

Statistics show a decline in child abuse and neglect
The decline in child sex abuse cases
national child abuse and neglect statistics continued to decline
Child-Abuse and Neglect Cases Decline for Fifth Year, HHS Says ...
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
Statistics Show Decline in Child Abuse
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
total decline of 39% in identified sexual abuse cases over a 7-year period
New Child Maltreatment Statistics Show Continuing Decline
Department of Justice: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES FALL 31 PERCENT OVER SIX YEARS
he hotline has seen a 24 percent annual decline in child abuse reports

I'm sorry, that's just the first two pages out of about 40 in my google search.

Speaking of head in the sand...

Stewed

Where do you assume this is physically hardwired?

That is specious and presumptious at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

As far as I know there have existed a number of socieities that have been quite permissive of pedophiles and in some cases made it socially expected.

This hardly indicates a hard-wired aversion.

It IS social conditioning of the strongest kind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but you are inventing science to support your moral argument, which is disingenuous.

Ok, now lets actually address what you SAID.

statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise.

The only thing that is "obvious" is that media reports of these charges are on the rise.

Please cite statistics that show charges and convictions are on the rise. Or you can simple let me illustrated that you are ignorant of the facts and are simply pontificating on moral grounds with your "epidemic" "on the rise" claims

Here, let me do it for you

Statistics show a decline in child abuse and neglect
The decline in child sex abuse cases
national child abuse and neglect statistics continued to decline
Child-Abuse and Neglect Cases Decline for Fifth Year, HHS Says ...
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
Statistics Show Decline in Child Abuse
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
total decline of 39% in identified sexual abuse cases over a 7-year period
New Child Maltreatment Statistics Show Continuing Decline
Department of Justice: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES FALL 31 PERCENT OVER SIX YEARS
he hotline has seen a 24 percent annual decline in child abuse reports

I'm sorry, that's just the first two pages out of about 40 in my google search.

Speaking of head in the sand...

Stewed

Your spastic adjectives do little to sway other's opinions. "pillage unwitting embryos" - pffft, you paint a picture of someone walking in, stealing some embryos and sucking the stem cells from them through a straw. Your arguments possess very intellect and far too much emotion.

So non-viable life froms like an embryo deserve advocacy, but people with diseases don't?! Ridiculous.

Parkinson's disease is not an "exotic afflication". 500,000 Americans suffer from it. From this article:

The costs of this treatment and disability are believed to reach $6 billion annually in the United States, making both treatment and prevention high research priorities.

And while we're at it, why don't we increase funding to help children that are already born to get them better nutrition, education and housing. Stop wasting resources on headline-grabbing issue like this one and do something that's actually useful.

You obviously don't use a coporate intranet at work, or you'd know that in most workplaces IE is the standard and if CSS is broken or a site requires ActiveX and FireFox won't load it right nobody cares. I work for a government contractor that designs a web-based system for filing HIPPA complaints. I came on this project after it was "done" only to discover that many things on this site only function in IE due to poor CSS. I am now the only programmer on the project, and I have informed my project manager that the site (which is intended to be used by the public) needs to have serious reviosions or be redone from scratch. The system isn't that big so a complete rewrite would only take a month or so, however CMS, the agency that hired us only cares about IE compatablity. I attempeted to push for this by saying that IE 7 may break under the current code, although this route isn't getting me too far either. Go check it out

You obviously don't use a coporate intranet at work, or you'd know that in most workplaces IE is the standard and if CSS is broken or a site requires ActiveX and FireFox won't load it right nobody cares. I work for a government contractor that designs a web-based system for filing HIPPA complaints. I came on this project after it was "done" only to discover that many things on this site only function in IE due to poor CSS. I am now the only programmer on the project, and I have informed my project manager that the site (which is intended to be used by the public) needs to have serious reviosions or be redone from scratch. The system isn't that big so a complete rewrite would only take a month or so, however CMS, the agency that hired us only cares about IE compatablity. I attempeted to push for this by saying that IE 7 may break under the current code, although this route isn't getting me too far either. Go check it out

If a bottle of asprin results in her passing away but the bypass gives her 20 years more life, then (adjusting for inflation, etc) she merely has to generate $1,000 more wealth each year than she consumes for the operation to be "worth it".

Except for the fact that, more often than not, bypass surgery kills the patient. I clipped an article about a newspaper guy who died three weeks after his bypass surgery. One medical researcher says that bypass surgery belongs in the medical archives. Bypass surgery is so common not because it's effective, but because it's flashy (a real power trip to hold someone's beating heart in your hands), financially rewarding for the surgeon, and the patient doesn't have to pick up the tab (uninsured people don't have bypass surgery).

We're human beings; we take care of each other because we sympathize and empathize.

When my grandmother had cancer, I helped take care of her... Which included regular visits to the clinic for "treatment". By that time, my 87-year old Grandmother had lived her life, and was simply "going through the motions", pretending that she was trying to get better for the sake of her husband and children. Of course, Grandma didn't care what her treatment cost because Medicare and her supplemental insurance were paying for it. Mayo Clinic didn't care what their services cost either, because the federal government was picking up most of the tab.

Grandma's stint with conventional (pharmaceutical) cancer treatment lasted six months, exactly the time that her doctor said she would survive without his therapies. Perhaps the treatment gave her a few extra months, perhaps it killed her off even quicker (by destroying her immune system). Since I was around so much, I know she was miserable for most that time. Never heard a final figure, but it was probably between $50k and $100k - quite a bill for no benefit whatsoever.

Medicare picking up the tab was not compassionate, sympathetic, or empathetic. These are personal qualities, of families caring for each other. I argue that, because Medicare pays for high-tech medicine, and not "proper nutrition", the suffering of my grandmother was increased. (Grandma's doctor sent her to a nutritionist at the outset. "She wanted me to eat five servings of vegetables a day. She's CRAZY!").

My grandfather's in a similar situation: had a seizure/"heart attack" of some sort three years ago. Doctors decided he'd benefit from a defibrillator. His bill for that episode totaled around $100k... Three years later he's still alive, but now that Grandma's gone he's just waiting to die. His heart would've given out, if not for the artificial pacemaking functionality. He's anxiously waiting for the day that the defibrillator's battery is depleted.

Compassion is caring for your own familiy member when they're sick, or volunteering at a charity hospital for the poor. Charity took care of the poor's medical needs before the government stepped to the plate with Medicaid, otherwise known as "wellfare for doctors and medical equipment manufacturers" (an MRI machine costs $1-4 million).

Medicare is cruel to old people, and has made medical services for the rest of us exhorbitantly expensive. The high prices won't last forever, the healthcare system will collapse soon enough of its own accord, and we will return to a system that is affordable for most. Robert Zieve, M.D., has written some books on this coming transition to effective, affordable care.

You mean like this?

Your personal info is supposed to be safe in the hands of certain people. Perhaps there need to be more that are held accountable?

Still...maybe it's not enough. You didn't mention this act. Did you even know it existed?

If the populace doesn't know big laws like this there's no way that anyone is going to worry about enforcing them.

Did you even read the title there? Illegal to refuse to decrypt.

Not illegal to have encrypted partitions. A non-issue if you give the police your password when they ask you for it.

On the other side of the ocean, it's a potential starter for when HIPAA-level security is required.

Even if your physical location can't be secured you can still keep the data private.

Hey Baldur!

Isn't interesting how some people think just by naming us Paedophiles we should have no voices whatsoever? There is none so blind nor deaf as those who will not listen or look because they need no distractions from what they've already decided the truth to be! One of the biggest benefits of anonymity is the ability to speak what one has to say without worrying that someone will attempt to silence you permanently...

Too bad the Rind report could have been released anonymously, perhaps if it had been the Congress who did not actually READ the report would have wasted their time searching for the author's idenities rather than censuring the report for discovering politically unpalatable truths? Perhaps while the hunt was on in search of anonymous scientists, people would have actually decided to read and test the science of the work submitted instead of condemning the study for not having already predetermined its outcome? Maybe we'd be discussing ways to help each other and children instead of simply feuling the Paedophile hysteria?

Nah...that'd be too easy! Why waste your time attempting to combat the 78.5% of all child sex abusers when we can instead target only the 3.9% stranger danger cases? In fact, despite knowing since-- like forever --the real abuse is almost predominately coming from dear old Dad and Mummy, let's focus entirely on people who look at pictures over the internet. Or those who like to read sexy stories.... after all "the potential that the written word may encourage someone to act out what they've read" is there! Or we could perhaps focus our attentions on those sick sick people who like to make pseudo-photographs, and put them away for up to 15 years for what ammounts to a thoughtcrime?!? Or how about those who'd like to push for a constitutional amendment taking away the fundamental right of being able to confront one's accusers?

Nope, I don't see any reason why people like us would want to be anonymous. Even those who break no laws but have 'come out of the toy box' as being Paederotic in orientation face all kinds of death threats by people who assume the worst sight unseen! What's worse is they feel no need to do even the most basic of research either, because they already know they're right....

--I*LoveGreen*Olives

PS: I too am a Paedosexual. This should come as no surprise to anyone who clicks on my webpage link to read my blog. Being Paedosexual does not in any way negate any of what I've said above. Nor should anyone see my sexual orientation as being an excuse to attack, defame or otherwise limit my right to exist as a human being-- the laws they create to 'deal' with me and other Paedophiles are the same laws they'll use on you later....

Hey Baldur!

Isn't interesting how some people think just by naming us Paedophiles we should have no voices whatsoever? There is none so blind nor deaf as those who will not listen or look because they need no distractions from what they've already decided the truth to be! One of the biggest benefits of anonymity is the ability to speak what one has to say without worrying that someone will attempt to silence you permanently...

Too bad the Rind report could have been released anonymously, perhaps if it had been the Congress who did not actually READ the report would have wasted their time searching for the author's idenities rather than censuring the report for discovering politically unpalatable truths? Perhaps while the hunt was on in search of anonymous scientists, people would have actually decided to read and test the science of the work submitted instead of condemning the study for not having already predetermined its outcome? Maybe we'd be discussing ways to help each other and children instead of simply feuling the Paedophile hysteria?

Nah...that'd be too easy! Why waste your time attempting to combat the 78.5% of all child sex abusers when we can instead target only the 3.9% stranger danger cases? In fact, despite knowing since-- like forever --the real abuse is almost predominately coming from dear old Dad and Mummy, let's focus entirely on people who look at pictures over the internet. Or those who like to read sexy stories.... after all "the potential that the written word may encourage someone to act out what they've read" is there! Or we could perhaps focus our attentions on those sick sick people who like to make pseudo-photographs, and put them away for up to 15 years for what ammounts to a thoughtcrime?!? Or how about those who'd like to push for a constitutional amendment taking away the fundamental right of being able to confront one's accusers?

Nope, I don't see any reason why people like us would want to be anonymous. Even those who break no laws but have 'come out of the toy box' as being Paederotic in orientation face all kinds of death threats by people who assume the worst sight unseen! What's worse is they feel no need to do even the most basic of research either, because they already know they're right....

--I*LoveGreen*Olives

PS: I too am a Paedosexual. This should come as no surprise to anyone who clicks on my webpage link to read my blog. Being Paedosexual does not in any way negate any of what I've said above. Nor should anyone see my sexual orientation as being an excuse to attack, defame or otherwise limit my right to exist as a human being-- the laws they create to 'deal' with me and other Paedophiles are the same laws they'll use on you later....

RTFP. That's why I said "...GWB was attempting to place a ban..."

I construed the strong restrictions placed on the availability of funding as a ban.

Bush has appropriated very, very little money (relatively speaking, as far as high-tech research is concerned) towards embryonic stem cell research. He has provided much stronger funding for alternative methods to obtaining stem cells.

(I do HIPAA for a major medical center for a living, so I have to comment here anonymously)

You've been given bad advice. It's true that a name, combined with the fact that a person is a patient at your wife's office, is protected health information under HIPAA. (This is because it tells something about the person's health care -- that she sees your wife for it).

However, HHS has specifically stated that it is okay to call out names in waiting rooms:

LINK TO HHS FAQ HERE

Your wife might want to cruise through that FAQ. Some things might surprise her.

It sounds like they're exposed to serious risks from EMTALA and database compromises (I question whether HIPAA covers it). It would be heartless to let them remain in ignorance.

If you were to post the name and phone number of the head of their Risk Management department, someone here who's public-spirited might do some pro bono work to educate them. I'm sure there's such a person here on Slashdot.

At least one...

I used HIPPA to make them tell me without a visit.

Did you mean HIPAA?
http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/pl104191.htm

HIPAA is focused on patient confidentiality. Just how did you "use HIPAA" to force a healthcare provider to do something?

In America you can be seen quickly as long as you're willing to pay. Fine if you can afford it or if your employer gives you health insurance, but if not you're screwed.

O RLY

I'm curious what ramifications this will have on HIPAA? http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/finalreg.html

Currently, telecommunications falls under one of the electronic mediums where the healthcare information obtained via said service must be protected. If the goverment goes and records all the telecommunications going between say a hospital and a pharmacy, would that be a violation of HIPAA?

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Your friendly government is already ahead of your paranoia.

1. If a woman in active labor enters a hospital, her baby is getting delivered without regard to money or insurance. Did you think we kick women in labor to the curb if she doesn't carry an American Express card?
2. Most hospitals are required to treat anyone in an emergency situation without regard to money or insurance. If you walk into one of these US hospitals bleeding out your eyes, you will get treatment. Did you think that we kick people bleeding out there eyes to the curb?
3. We have this program for poor people called Medicaid. It provides medical care for those who cannot afford it.
4. We also have a program called SSI which gives disabled people money each month to live off of.

Your grim picture of people in the US with no access to health care is totally inaccurate. Perhaps you watch too much TV.

Medical records are supposed to be protected in the U.S. (cf. HIPAA), and any employer who tried to obtain your medical records illegally would be in pretty big trouble if they got caught.

Court records are another matter. If your psychiatrist made a report to the court concerning your progress in a shoplifting matter, that might be part of public record if the judge didn't have it sealed. But in that case, your criminal record is going to be a much bigger deal than the psychiatrist report.

While I do agree with your point that Americans are much richer and better off than much of the world, I do disagree with this statement:
There is no dictionary-definition poverty in the US. Period.
Please see here for Federal Government definitions:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml

Well yeah, if you deeduck Medicarez & Medicades. :-)

From TFA:
"The tapes and disks were taken home by the employee as part of a backup protocol that sent them off-site to protect them against loss from fires or other disasters. That practice, which was only used by the home health care division of the hospital system, has since been stopped, said health system spokesman Gary Walker."

This was part of the company's protocol? An employee taking the shit home and leaving it in his car? Personal/medical/financial data for umpteen hundreds of thousands of people? What happened to HIPAA?

Whomever came up with this "protocol, as well as the empoyee, should be fired and prosecuted.

Perhaps if this finally happens to a children's hospital someone in this "WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!??!?!?11!!~~!!tilde!!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!" culture we've got will actually do something about it.

Cripes... people were fired up over Janet Jackson's tits, but not over this?

HIPAA is going to get cash from this???? Don't you mean U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services.

Anyone wanting to file a violation complaint can do so at- http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacyhowtofile.htm

"Why give a computer to a child that has no pure water to drink?"

"Corruption, not lack of computers, is the true cause of poverty!"

"They should give books, not computers, to poor children!"

And a few more similar banalities, usually rewarded by a few "interesting" or "insightful" mod points.

There are some very poor people living in Inglewood, CA, or Harlem, NY that do have access to drinking water and books. By your logic, these people are living in perfectly acceptable conditions. So, why does the USA spend money in Medicare or Medicaid, for example? Wouldn't that money be better spent on people who need it more? Giving computers to poor people who need computers doesn't preclude giving water purifiers to people who need them.

Look, some of the people who will receive these computers live in conditions similar to 13th century Europe. What you are saying is that we should try to get them to a situation like 18th century Europe. Bullshit. If you are truly committed to helping people, help them all the way. Put hand cranks in the computers, because there was no electric power in the 13th century, but bring those people into the 21st century.

I think the point is not that the risk with regard to strangers is an acceptable one -the fact that there is any possibility of it occurring is detestable- but that it's silly to make a big fuss about random strangers when 90% of child abuse is perpetrated (see perpetrators) by people living in the home, and the majority of the rest is most likely perpetrated by people close within the victim's social circle that you trust (camp counselor, priest, school employee, etc.) It's probably just as likely that your child will get hit by a stray bullet as it is they will get abducted out of nowhere by a complete stranger. So it doesn't make sense to be paying much attention to the attack vector which has probably a less than 1:1,000,000 chance of happening when there is a much more likely threat nearby.

Accept the fact that there is an extremely remote chance that something awful could happen to your child (just like you) at any time, and try to mitigate the greatest risks. Complete strangers abducting/abusing your children is not a high enough risk to merit devoting your attention to, as a parent. Given that your attention is a finite resource, there are far more pressing threats to be dealt with. Watch your kids closely and pay attention to where they go and who they spend time with. Abuse, like most things that threaten your child, is best dealt with by teaching the child how to act in the situation- Teach them not to talk to strangers, what kind of touching is appropriate and what is not, and how to respond to various situations with people they know as well as strangers. There's not much else you can do to mitigate the risk that is worth the time you'll spend doing it. That's the point.

I think where all of the confusion is coming from is : abuse overall-all types being lumped together lumped together. Child abuse (all types combined) is more often committed by a family member, but when you start breaking it down into the varios types of abuse, then things start getting tricky to define easily. here is the statistics ( they have MANY beakdowns of the data!) page for US Dept. of Health and Human Services (child abuse is part of their domain) from a quick google:(http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/stats/i ndex.cfm)

Half of the people on earth live on less then $2 a day
The HHS says that in the U.S., $19,350 is the poverty line for a family of four - over $13 per day per person
$9,570 is the poverty line for one person - $26 a day
Keep in mind that this doesn't count the welfare, medicare/medicade, emergency police/ambulance/fire service, other free services, child support, charity, etc that you might get in the U.S. but not in Sub-saharan Africa

Blue collar life may seem bad in the U.S., but it beats the heck out of subsistance agriculture during a decade-long civil war, like in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Based on HHS figures for 2005 a single person is in poverty if he earns less than $9570/yr.

$5.15/hr * 40 hr/wk * 48 wk/yr = $9888/yr (assume 2 weeks unpaid vacation, 2 weeks unpaid holiday/sick)

For an average family of 2 adults, 2 children, the poverty level is $19,350/yr.

2 ppl * $5.15/hr * 40 hr/wk * 48 wk/yr = =$19776/yr.

I suppose you could argue that not all families have both parents working. But if they're in poverty and they want to get out, they both pretty much should be working.

US Census poverty thresholds are very close to the figures the Dept. HHS gives. Mind you, personally I think the minimum wage should be increased; but the above back-of-the-envelope calcuation does not support your assertion. The real problem seems to be that people in poverty are only able to find/hold part-time jobs, and thus aren't able to rack up 40 hrs/wk, 48 wks/yr. But it seems to me that's more likely to be the fault of the individual (can't find extra work, don't want to work so many hours) than of businesses.

I would just tell you to Google yourself, but you're being annoying, so here:

It was actually smallpox.

Whenever a large population of non-immunes exists, epidemics happen.

The model does not aim to predict the emergence of new strains of influenza, but it does suggest that a short-lived general immunity to the virus might affect the virus's evolution.

The model takes into account the effects of specific immunization against viral strains, but also infectivity randomness and the presence of a short lived strain-transcending immunity recently suggested in the literature.

A pandemic is possible when an influenza A virus makes a dramatic change (i.e., "shift") and acquires a new H or H+N. This shift results in a new or "novel" virus to which the general population has no immunity... Since, by definition, a novel virus is a virus that has never previously infected humans, or hasn't infected humans for a long time, it's likely that almost no one will have immunity, or antibody to protect them against the novel virus. If the novel virus is related to a virus that circulated long ago, older people might have some level of immunity.

Most of this seems really obvious to me, but what the hell do I know...

Maybe using something like Vista since this city is heavy on the medical community. e.g. hospitals, doctors offices, even universities (UIPUI, Butler). Any advice on getting started?

The medical community is very difficult to break into (and becoming increasingly so), due to regulatory factors that impact IT vendor selection like HIPAA. IT sales to publically-traded companies are becoming more difficult due to Sarbanes Oxley audit and compliance requirements that get applied to the vendor. You will be expected to have healthy financials, bear the cost of having them audited, and may be expected to have undergone a recent SAS-70 audit to qualify as a technology service provider.

Over the past dozen years, the tech industry has quickly raised barriers to entry to keep startups out and the most effective approach is to limit qualification to only established and financially healthy vendors. Sadly, it just isn't realistic to break out with a better mousetrap in healthcare, banking or most major corporations for this reason. Then again, some would argue that healthcare or banking are terrible places for the experimentation of untested, bleeding edge IT products. Better to prove them out in markets that are tolerant of their rough edges, get them worked out and then move up into more risk-averse markets.

That said, I'd suggest you look for markets that don't have these regulatory requirements if your startup is to have a chance. I'd also avoid markets that suffer from buyers that expect a ton of perks like free training at exotic vacation destinations (e.g. the week-long Disney World trip with about 4 hours of real training), tons of free ancillary software and other expensive bribes to swing the buyer's decision your way. You'll have difficulty as a startup competing in this kind of market, where your competition will wow the customer with three times the useless sales critters, send the customer's techies to an exotic location for training for a week, and stick the customer with an outrageous bill for an outdated solution. You'd think people would make rational decisions and buy your better product, but at least half the buyers I've encountered probably would take the personal gifts (they're probably looking for another job anyway and a free Disney trip would be a nice way to conclude their career at the company).

If you want more ideas or have any aspirations of launching a tech startup, get your hands on Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution - this is a must read (and a good start to his books).

*scoove*

From the article: "IChat may not always provide the best video-quality images, depending on the network bandwidth available, but it's cheap and easy to use in comparison with the alternatives."

Just what I want to hear from my doctor: this isn't the best, but it's cheap!

And using Apple's .Mac for MEDICAL DATA BACKUP?! If this were done in the U.S., the HIPAA laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) would slap him down very, very fast. And sure, $100/yr gets him 80gb of data... but why not talk to the hospital IT department and spend $1000 one time to get a cheap, secure Linux server with many times that capacity?! Oh wait, Linux servers don't come with nifty earbuds that let you listen to your own music while on-the-go....

It sounds like Blue Cross is at fault here. You can ask them about their HIPAA policy especially regarding 'data retension'. You can also file a complaint with the hhs. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Yup. I think that NIH (National Institutes of Health (US Gov)) has a budget in the neighborhood of 28.6 Billion dollars this year. Yes that is billion with a 'b'. That is double what it was ~12 years ago. The jump started under Clinton and has continued under Bush. see http://www.hhs.gov/budget/testify/b20040421.html for more info.

Surely you've heard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which mandates privacy and security of healthcare information, and provides punitive measures, including fines and prison terms?

Surely you've heard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which mandates privacy and security of healthcare information, and provides punitive measures, including fines and prison terms?

Surely you've heard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which mandates privacy and security of healthcare information, and provides punitive measures, including fines and prison terms?