Yes, I am sure they will. But I also think there is a huge grey area here, in part because intent can be hard to show, but also because sometimes intent matters a lot, sometimes it does not.
For example: I own an automobile dealership. My prices tend to be high. When I meet people, I tell them "Buy my cars!" I'm not even suggesting; I tell them outright. They (being reasonable people) think about it and check my prices. Then if they buy at all they buy from somebody else.
In common and U.S. law there is something called the "reasonable man" principle. Today they probably call it "reasonable person", and that is not unreasonable.:o) But it means that laws are to be interpreted such that the people to whom they apply are assumed to be reasonable.
So... again, I own an automobile dealership. My prices tend to be high. Without making any kind of "deal" or "agreement", I tell Joe to sell his gun to Sam (a convicted felon), and tell Sam to kill Bob. Would "reasonable people" do either of these things? If there is discernable profit or motive for me, I don't think conspiracy applies here.
But that's probably straying from the point. I think in that court case, there was a demonstrable profit motive for "suggesting" that someone else infringe. But at the same time: would a reasonable, informed person, do it? I don't know, I never visited the web site.
Apologize, I'm rambling a bit, but there is still that other point: sometimes intent can be very hard to establish. That is why many conspiracy laws require that an overt, physical act to carry out the conspiracy must occur before conspiracy can actually be charged. Because: we have freedom of speech. I have a right to speak speculatively about killing some politician if I want. I can even form a club with that (satirical) theme, and have meetings in which we play games related to creative ways to kill that politician, and even publish the minutes of those meetings. There is nothing illegal about that. It is protected under the 1st Amendment.
So how do you distinguish that (a satirical game) from an actual conspiracy? You require that some actual ACT must be made to carry out that conspiracy. That is the only way you can really do it, without trying to legislate "thought crime".
"No, I use to play like you, then I learned to just walk away from stupid fights."
I understand, and I sympathize... I would not have been so flippant if I hadn't thought you were taking sides in someone else's fight.
I used to take the "walking away" route, too. Many years. And I felt I was doing the right thing. It took something of an epiphany for me to realize that right or wrong somehow, directly or indirectly, I nearly always seemed to end up getting punished for doing that. Karma is not the right word... call it whatever you want, but it was pretty consistent, once I looked back on it all.
So anymore, if I believe I am right, and the facts are on my side, I stand up and say so. I do listen and I am willing to change my position if shown convincing evidence. But I have been constantly amazed at some of the weird sh*t some people think is "evidence".
Yes, and that in itself CAN be justification... but keep in mind that this is a startup without much of a real product yet. It's hard to apply old-school measures like "what the market will bear" over something that is still mostly speculative... considering what bald (and blind) speculation did to our economy twice in less than 10 years.
"You must be thinking of parts of Canada that aren't serviced by Bell, Rogers, or Telus."
Well, I could be wrong about Canada. But that's what I seemed to recall reading in an Ars Technica article. But Europe, definitely.
Certainly, the U.S. does have infrastructure issues that much of Europe does not (particularly "last mile" costs in sparsely populated areas), but I don't think it's enough to make the difference, and it doesn't explain the high costs in areas that are not sparsely populated.
"Then why are you bothering posting on here at all?"
Because she was being rude and insulting, with no real knowledge or justification to back it up. So I took pleasure in proving that she did not know what she was talking about.
"You know a guy. So what? I know someone who was a police officer for 15 years. That does not make me qualified to offer advice on police procedure or the law."
Also, just as an aside... if you really want to have a rational argument, you should not attempt to distort what other people say.
I did not say "I know a guy". I didn't even say it was a guy, for that matter. I wrote that I have a close relative -- very close, in fact -- who was in the business for over 20 years. And during some of that time I actually lived in the same place (to anticipate a smartass remark, no it was not my mother), and that place was where the ambulance was actually parked and dispatched from. I was around it a lot, and yes, I know a lot about what the job entails and how it is done. I was even asked to stand in for the driver if it became necessary, more than once.
"You're playing the "I'm in control because I have secret inside information you could never possibly know" card."
Bullshit. I stated that I have a close relative who was in the business for 20 years, I have been around it much of that time, and I am very familiar with what the job entails. I have seen it in action, more than just once or twice.
It was other people who accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Let them present their evidence, and then maybe I will present some of my own. It is whoever makes the accusation that bears the burden of presenting evidence of it. They haven't done so. Therefore, there is no obligation on my end.
In fact, one of them (see just above) proved beyond any doubt that she knows next to nothing about what she was talking about.
"My low opinion of your comments is not a reflection on my reading ability; It's a reflection of your diminished critical thinking skills. You're fixated on internet access...
It most certainly *IS* provably tied to your reading ability, or lack thereof, because I have at least twice now explained to you that I was referring to upcoming technologies, like the ability to access a medical history database. But that is just one of example. I also stated explicitly that I was not referring to things like Google. However, you keep writing here as though you insist that I am talking about doing Web searches or some damned thing.
"... but there's nothing on the internet that can't be accessed just as readily as a radio, or simply kept in the vehicle."
Haha. That's funny. Once again: there may be little on the Internet today, but there certainly will be tomorrow. Try accessing a medical history over the radio. You will be tied up with back-and-forth queries, the party on the other end will answer your questions wrong sometimes, etc. No, it is not as easy to access it over the radio as it is to have it available to read the way you want, right in front of you.
"Once upon a time, there was a point someone was trying to make."
Way back above *I* was making the point that internet connection can be valuable to first responders. It has been you and that other person who have been raising all the hell about it. I haven't wavered from that single position. So again you demonstrate apparent reading difficulties. Or maybe it's comprehension or memory. How should I know?
"You're the one advocating internet access, yet you've failed to come up with a single concrete example of how having internet access could improve any aspect of an EMTs primary job function."
Yes, I have. I have already given you once concrete example. And it wasn't even my own idea... there have been whole medical conferences on the topic. There are experimental systems in the works. Why don't you know about them? Hell, they've been on the Discovery channel. And that was just the one thing. There are more.
"Why don't you step back from this a moment, and then look at this from the perspective of a manager who has asked you to provide a business proposal? Because you might know a shit ton about IT and maybe you're even Dr. House himself as well, and can diagnose people just by looking at them crossways, but you clearly don't have a clue about business. In business, you need justifications beyond "Well, I think it would be nice."
You don't argue very well, and you obviously don't feel the need to, for example, bother to research the stuff you argue about. It took me no more than 30 seconds with a web search to find those companies, who obviously think it has valid business justification, or they would not be doing it. Granted, they are at an early stage, but they are doing it today. And not the only three, but just three out of the big list that I found.
I remember reading that a single member is worth about $1.21 in revenue to Facebook.
If Facebook thinks it can stay afloat with that kind of revenue, how can App.net justify such an outrageous price? Even if each member was worth ten times that to Facebook... how can App.net justify a $50 fee?
"In the future when the infrastructure can match the demand..."
Why do you assume the infrastructure can't match the demand? The fact that it doesn't does not mean that it can't.
Let's look at some facts:
(1) Bandwidth has continued to get cheaper for the providers, every year, while price / MB for consumers has actually been going up.
(2) Provider profits have never been better.
(3) Other countries (Canada, much of Europe, many others) manage to deliver superior bandwidth at much lower rates.
And these up, and the logical conclusion is: the providers are deliberately creating an artificial shortage to keep prices high.
They could easily take some of their record profits and turn them into bandwidth. The fact that they haven't been doing enough of that to meet demand pretty much gives them away. Others haven't had that problem.
"That could probably still result in conspiracy charges."
That's true. It could be considered conspiracy. But only under certain circumstances. In this case, you aren't making agreements with the other parties, you are only suggesting to them what to do. So it probably isn't conspiracy, but IANAL.
"Yes. Poster would like you to experiment with configuring a wifi mesh instead of saving his life. He'll understand because he wants people who care for him medically to be "forward-looking", not "prudent.""
Knock it off. My comment was about internet access, not even anything remotely like fiddling with or "configuring" a mesh network. Please READ the comments you are replying to.
"An EMTs job is to stabilize your vitals, not to diagnose and treat your condition."
No shit, Sherlock.
"They don't need to be prepared for anything except keeping you breathing, your heart beating, and, since you're unconscious in the above scenario, not much else."
Depending on the circumstances, it can be QUITE A BIT "else". As mentioned before, a close relative of mine was an EMT+Paramedic in a remote location. For over 20 years. I might not have been one myself but I am VERY familiar with what it entails, thank you very much. And sometimes it does involve a lot more than just what you have listed here.
Let me tell you: my relative would have killed for the kind of access I am talking about... which (as I have already stated) has nothing to do with "configuring a mesh network".
"He's fixated on the only thing that matters: Keeping the patient alive."
He's fixated on keeping the patient alive with what he currently has in his toolbox to work with. I was talking about expanding his toolbox when the currently developing technology is mature enough. But he talks like somebody who would have questioned the utility of portable defribrillators, before they were available. "Hey... I can do CPR for 30 minutes straight. I don't want to have to 'fiddle' with one of those! It's a waste of time!"
"I don't want someone googling "bleeding to death" or trying to skype "
I already explained that those were not the kinds of things I was talking about. Seriously: do you really READ the things you are replying to?
"You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who's spent too many years in technical support"
Again, bullshit. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who is FAMILIAR with the job being discussed, and also familiar with upcoming technologies that can transform how effectively that job can be done. And by the way: I am not in "technical support". Been there, done that... and well. For a short period of time. But it's a shitty job and I got beyond that level many, many years ago.
"treat the EMT like he's some kind of moron or puppet, to be directed about by the guy on the other end of the line"
I did nothing of the sort. But he certainly tried to do that to me. He ASSUMED too much about what I meant. Maybe I did not explain as clearly as I could have but his assumptions are still not my responsibility.
"Medicine isn't like that. They work as an integrated team, and they depend on their training and experience, not their google-fu, to do the job."
And for the last time, "google" is about the farthest thing from what I was talking about. If you really thought I was, then I could understand your criticism... but since I already explained that I wasn't, well before you replied, then I can't honestly give you that much credit.
"As an expert, you're supposed to keep quiet and let others figure out that the poster's vision of EMTs fiddling with web cams and wifi settings..."
Thanks for the sarcastic "defense", but that isn't even remotely the kind of thing I was talking about anyway. I might not have made it clear, but I was referring to developing technology, not what they have in their trucks today.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said "faster horses". -- Henry Ford
I know few places have such things now, but it's happening, gradually. Try to be forward-looking.
"Either the patient can tell me their medical history, or we've got much bigger problems."
BS. If you could have at your fingertips their recent medical history, current medications, etc. on the way to the site, you would be much better prepared even if they aren't responsive. Are they taking codeine? Adderall? Nitroglycerine? Do they have known drug allergies? Known recent drug addictions? Some of the things it could tell you might be life-saving information.
"As for conferencing with doctors - that's crazy. We already have medical directors (physicians) we can call on the phone or over the radio, and it works fine when we need it."
Sure... but why use two systems when one could do the job?
"I don't much want to fidget with Skype and a webcam when we're supposed to be deciding on a course of action."
Who said anything about Skype or a webcam? That isn't what I meant at all. But if you COULD have a doctor there, without messing with Skype or a webcam, would you think that's a bad idea?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to future uses of the technology, not a hodgepodge of smartphones and laptops.
"That's pretty cool, but it's about the limit of what we've ever felt like we needed."
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're being shortsighted. You are fixated on what the current systems do for you, but you don't seem to be very receptive to what improvements in the technology COULD do for you.
"If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances)."
I don't dispute this. Our revolving-door, cronyist government needs fixing. I would argue that it is the reason for that SCOTUS ruling in the first place. As James Madison (among others) warned us -- see his Report of 1800 -- even the Supreme Court is not immune from outside influence and corruption.
"Well, on the "can't be taken away" part, the SCOTUS has ruled "Not so much", if the government believes it can make more in revenue by taking your property away from you and giving your property to someone else."
True, that is one of the many questionable rulings that have come out of the recent Court. But the ruling that they can't take your property without fair compensation still holds. Theoretically, you should be able to get a comparable piece of property with that compensation.
"But you're right; For most emergency responders, internet access isn't needed or warranted."
If you think so, you've never been an emergency responder. The potential usefulness of network access is enormous: access to medical history databases, realtime conferencing with doctors or planners, etc.
"Should that ever change, you want a network under your administrative control; not relying on routers that may or may not be present in theatre."
Most civilian responders don't have to worry much about network availability "in theater". Although there are times it can be a problem; a relative of mine was EMT and Paramedic (both) in a remote area with little access other than radio.
I did. But I think I read it a bit more thoroughly than you did.
The first sentence of paragraph 2 says:
"Although laws and concepts behind copyright and patents are not new, the term intellectual property is relatively recent, dating from the 19th century."
Which is pretty much what I stated earlier, in another post. Further, the reference [2] given at the end of that sentence is this paper, which discusses why "intellectual property" is not actually property.
"You don't actually think that you have exclusive, unfettered control over your house or your car, do you?"
If they're paid off, essentially yes. There might be some minor exceptions in the way of environmental laws or taxes, but yes it is my property and I wasn't granted the rights to it by government, as patents and copyrights are. I have property rights via common law and the Constitution, and even the Supreme Court says those can't be taken away. But Congress could nearly (not entirely, but nearly) wipe out patents and copyrights in any session, if they really wanted to.
"hmmm - judging from the two cases linked in the summary, it would be more like you choosing the gun, buying it, asking the seller to load it, and then killing someone with it - and claiming that you can't be done for murder because someone else performed one of the 'steps' (loading the gun)"
No, if you want to get particular: in the Akamai case, it is as though you sold someone a loaded gun, with the knowledge that he was going to kill someone with it, and then he did. That might in fact be actionable... you might be considered an accessory or even an accomplice.
In the other case, it is as though you talked Joe into loading the gun, and selling it to Sam, then talked Sam into going to meet Bob and kill him. It that case, you did not actually perform any of the actions. And if you did not hold some kind of unusual persuasive power over them (e.g., they were "brainwashed" in some sort of highly unlikely manner) or hold some kind of coercive power over them (you kidnapped their children), then you probably did not break the law. You simply made suggestions, and the other guys should have known better.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't count, if it contradicts demonstrable fact. :o)
Typo. I meant to write "UNLESS there is discernable profit or motive for me, I don't think conspiracy applies here."
"But I think the court will look at intent."
Yes, I am sure they will. But I also think there is a huge grey area here, in part because intent can be hard to show, but also because sometimes intent matters a lot, sometimes it does not.
:o) But it means that laws are to be interpreted such that the people to whom they apply are assumed to be reasonable.
For example: I own an automobile dealership. My prices tend to be high. When I meet people, I tell them "Buy my cars!" I'm not even suggesting; I tell them outright. They (being reasonable people) think about it and check my prices. Then if they buy at all they buy from somebody else.
In common and U.S. law there is something called the "reasonable man" principle. Today they probably call it "reasonable person", and that is not unreasonable.
So... again, I own an automobile dealership. My prices tend to be high. Without making any kind of "deal" or "agreement", I tell Joe to sell his gun to Sam (a convicted felon), and tell Sam to kill Bob. Would "reasonable people" do either of these things? If there is discernable profit or motive for me, I don't think conspiracy applies here.
But that's probably straying from the point. I think in that court case, there was a demonstrable profit motive for "suggesting" that someone else infringe. But at the same time: would a reasonable, informed person, do it? I don't know, I never visited the web site.
Apologize, I'm rambling a bit, but there is still that other point: sometimes intent can be very hard to establish. That is why many conspiracy laws require that an overt, physical act to carry out the conspiracy must occur before conspiracy can actually be charged. Because: we have freedom of speech. I have a right to speak speculatively about killing some politician if I want. I can even form a club with that (satirical) theme, and have meetings in which we play games related to creative ways to kill that politician, and even publish the minutes of those meetings. There is nothing illegal about that. It is protected under the 1st Amendment.
So how do you distinguish that (a satirical game) from an actual conspiracy? You require that some actual ACT must be made to carry out that conspiracy. That is the only way you can really do it, without trying to legislate "thought crime".
"No, I use to play like you, then I learned to just walk away from stupid fights."
I understand, and I sympathize... I would not have been so flippant if I hadn't thought you were taking sides in someone else's fight.
I used to take the "walking away" route, too. Many years. And I felt I was doing the right thing. It took something of an epiphany for me to realize that right or wrong somehow, directly or indirectly, I nearly always seemed to end up getting punished for doing that. Karma is not the right word... call it whatever you want, but it was pretty consistent, once I looked back on it all.
So anymore, if I believe I am right, and the facts are on my side, I stand up and say so. I do listen and I am willing to change my position if shown convincing evidence. But I have been constantly amazed at some of the weird sh*t some people think is "evidence".
It used to be called "what the market will bear."
Yes, and that in itself CAN be justification... but keep in mind that this is a startup without much of a real product yet. It's hard to apply old-school measures like "what the market will bear" over something that is still mostly speculative... considering what bald (and blind) speculation did to our economy twice in less than 10 years.
"It's justified by people actually paying it."
You make a good point. I probably should have asked, "How can App.net justify a $50 fee, other than just money-grubbing?"
"You must be thinking of parts of Canada that aren't serviced by Bell, Rogers, or Telus."
Well, I could be wrong about Canada. But that's what I seemed to recall reading in an Ars Technica article. But Europe, definitely.
Certainly, the U.S. does have infrastructure issues that much of Europe does not (particularly "last mile" costs in sparsely populated areas), but I don't think it's enough to make the difference, and it doesn't explain the high costs in areas that are not sparsely populated.
"Then why are you bothering posting on here at all?"
Because she was being rude and insulting, with no real knowledge or justification to back it up. So I took pleasure in proving that she did not know what she was talking about.
Care to try me out yourself?
"You know a guy. So what? I know someone who was a police officer for 15 years. That does not make me qualified to offer advice on police procedure or the law."
Also, just as an aside... if you really want to have a rational argument, you should not attempt to distort what other people say.
I did not say "I know a guy". I didn't even say it was a guy, for that matter. I wrote that I have a close relative -- very close, in fact -- who was in the business for over 20 years. And during some of that time I actually lived in the same place (to anticipate a smartass remark, no it was not my mother), and that place was where the ambulance was actually parked and dispatched from. I was around it a lot, and yes, I know a lot about what the job entails and how it is done. I was even asked to stand in for the driver if it became necessary, more than once.
"You're playing the "I'm in control because I have secret inside information you could never possibly know" card."
Bullshit. I stated that I have a close relative who was in the business for 20 years, I have been around it much of that time, and I am very familiar with what the job entails. I have seen it in action, more than just once or twice.
It was other people who accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Let them present their evidence, and then maybe I will present some of my own. It is whoever makes the accusation that bears the burden of presenting evidence of it. They haven't done so. Therefore, there is no obligation on my end.
In fact, one of them (see just above) proved beyond any doubt that she knows next to nothing about what she was talking about.
"My low opinion of your comments is not a reflection on my reading ability; It's a reflection of your diminished critical thinking skills. You're fixated on internet access ...
It most certainly *IS* provably tied to your reading ability, or lack thereof, because I have at least twice now explained to you that I was referring to upcoming technologies, like the ability to access a medical history database. But that is just one of example. I also stated explicitly that I was not referring to things like Google. However, you keep writing here as though you insist that I am talking about doing Web searches or some damned thing.
"... but there's nothing on the internet that can't be accessed just as readily as a radio, or simply kept in the vehicle."
Haha. That's funny. Once again: there may be little on the Internet today, but there certainly will be tomorrow. Try accessing a medical history over the radio. You will be tied up with back-and-forth queries, the party on the other end will answer your questions wrong sometimes, etc. No, it is not as easy to access it over the radio as it is to have it available to read the way you want, right in front of you.
"Once upon a time, there was a point someone was trying to make."
Way back above *I* was making the point that internet connection can be valuable to first responders. It has been you and that other person who have been raising all the hell about it. I haven't wavered from that single position. So again you demonstrate apparent reading difficulties. Or maybe it's comprehension or memory. How should I know?
"You're the one advocating internet access, yet you've failed to come up with a single concrete example of how having internet access could improve any aspect of an EMTs primary job function."
Yes, I have. I have already given you once concrete example. And it wasn't even my own idea... there have been whole medical conferences on the topic. There are experimental systems in the works. Why don't you know about them? Hell, they've been on the Discovery channel. And that was just the one thing. There are more.
"Why don't you step back from this a moment, and then look at this from the perspective of a manager who has asked you to provide a business proposal? Because you might know a shit ton about IT and maybe you're even Dr. House himself as well, and can diagnose people just by looking at them crossways, but you clearly don't have a clue about business. In business, you need justifications beyond "Well, I think it would be nice."
Hahaha. You painted yourself into a corner.
Tell you what: why don't you ask a company that's doing it?
Or maybe you could ask this one.
Or maybe you could ask this company that is also doing it.
You don't argue very well, and you obviously don't feel the need to, for example, bother to research the stuff you argue about. It took me no more than 30 seconds with a web search to find those companies, who obviously think it has valid business justification, or they would not be doing it. Granted, they are at an early stage, but they are doing it today. And not the only three, but just three out of the big list that I found.
I remember reading that a single member is worth about $1.21 in revenue to Facebook.
If Facebook thinks it can stay afloat with that kind of revenue, how can App.net justify such an outrageous price? Even if each member was worth ten times that to Facebook... how can App.net justify a $50 fee?
s / And these up / Add these up ...
"In the future when the infrastructure can match the demand..."
Why do you assume the infrastructure can't match the demand? The fact that it doesn't does not mean that it can't.
Let's look at some facts:
(1) Bandwidth has continued to get cheaper for the providers, every year, while price / MB for consumers has actually been going up.
(2) Provider profits have never been better.
(3) Other countries (Canada, much of Europe, many others) manage to deliver superior bandwidth at much lower rates.
And these up, and the logical conclusion is: the providers are deliberately creating an artificial shortage to keep prices high.
They could easily take some of their record profits and turn them into bandwidth. The fact that they haven't been doing enough of that to meet demand pretty much gives them away. Others haven't had that problem.
"That could probably still result in conspiracy charges."
That's true. It could be considered conspiracy. But only under certain circumstances. In this case, you aren't making agreements with the other parties, you are only suggesting to them what to do. So it probably isn't conspiracy, but IANAL.
"Yes. Poster would like you to experiment with configuring a wifi mesh instead of saving his life. He'll understand because he wants people who care for him medically to be "forward-looking", not "prudent.""
Knock it off. My comment was about internet access, not even anything remotely like fiddling with or "configuring" a mesh network. Please READ the comments you are replying to.
"An EMTs job is to stabilize your vitals, not to diagnose and treat your condition."
No shit, Sherlock.
"They don't need to be prepared for anything except keeping you breathing, your heart beating, and, since you're unconscious in the above scenario, not much else."
Depending on the circumstances, it can be QUITE A BIT "else". As mentioned before, a close relative of mine was an EMT+Paramedic in a remote location. For over 20 years. I might not have been one myself but I am VERY familiar with what it entails, thank you very much. And sometimes it does involve a lot more than just what you have listed here.
Let me tell you: my relative would have killed for the kind of access I am talking about... which (as I have already stated) has nothing to do with "configuring a mesh network".
"He's fixated on the only thing that matters: Keeping the patient alive."
He's fixated on keeping the patient alive with what he currently has in his toolbox to work with. I was talking about expanding his toolbox when the currently developing technology is mature enough. But he talks like somebody who would have questioned the utility of portable defribrillators, before they were available. "Hey... I can do CPR for 30 minutes straight. I don't want to have to 'fiddle' with one of those! It's a waste of time!"
"I don't want someone googling "bleeding to death" or trying to skype "
I already explained that those were not the kinds of things I was talking about. Seriously: do you really READ the things you are replying to?
"You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who's spent too many years in technical support"
Again, bullshit. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who is FAMILIAR with the job being discussed, and also familiar with upcoming technologies that can transform how effectively that job can be done. And by the way: I am not in "technical support". Been there, done that... and well. For a short period of time. But it's a shitty job and I got beyond that level many, many years ago.
"treat the EMT like he's some kind of moron or puppet, to be directed about by the guy on the other end of the line"
I did nothing of the sort. But he certainly tried to do that to me. He ASSUMED too much about what I meant. Maybe I did not explain as clearly as I could have but his assumptions are still not my responsibility.
"Medicine isn't like that. They work as an integrated team, and they depend on their training and experience, not their google-fu, to do the job."
And for the last time, "google" is about the farthest thing from what I was talking about. If you really thought I was, then I could understand your criticism... but since I already explained that I wasn't, well before you replied, then I can't honestly give you that much credit.
"As an expert, you're supposed to keep quiet and let others figure out that the poster's vision of EMTs fiddling with web cams and wifi settings ..."
Thanks for the sarcastic "defense", but that isn't even remotely the kind of thing I was talking about anyway. I might not have made it clear, but I was referring to developing technology, not what they have in their trucks today.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said "faster horses". -- Henry Ford
"Medical history databases? Like what?"
I know few places have such things now, but it's happening, gradually. Try to be forward-looking.
"Either the patient can tell me their medical history, or we've got much bigger problems."
BS. If you could have at your fingertips their recent medical history, current medications, etc. on the way to the site, you would be much better prepared even if they aren't responsive. Are they taking codeine? Adderall? Nitroglycerine? Do they have known drug allergies? Known recent drug addictions? Some of the things it could tell you might be life-saving information.
"As for conferencing with doctors - that's crazy. We already have medical directors (physicians) we can call on the phone or over the radio, and it works fine when we need it."
Sure... but why use two systems when one could do the job?
"I don't much want to fidget with Skype and a webcam when we're supposed to be deciding on a course of action."
Who said anything about Skype or a webcam? That isn't what I meant at all. But if you COULD have a doctor there, without messing with Skype or a webcam, would you think that's a bad idea?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to future uses of the technology, not a hodgepodge of smartphones and laptops.
"That's pretty cool, but it's about the limit of what we've ever felt like we needed."
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're being shortsighted. You are fixated on what the current systems do for you, but you don't seem to be very receptive to what improvements in the technology COULD do for you.
"If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances)."
I don't dispute this. Our revolving-door, cronyist government needs fixing. I would argue that it is the reason for that SCOTUS ruling in the first place. As James Madison (among others) warned us -- see his Report of 1800 -- even the Supreme Court is not immune from outside influence and corruption.
"Well, on the "can't be taken away" part, the SCOTUS has ruled "Not so much", if the government believes it can make more in revenue by taking your property away from you and giving your property to someone else."
True, that is one of the many questionable rulings that have come out of the recent Court. But the ruling that they can't take your property without fair compensation still holds. Theoretically, you should be able to get a comparable piece of property with that compensation.
"But you're right; For most emergency responders, internet access isn't needed or warranted."
If you think so, you've never been an emergency responder. The potential usefulness of network access is enormous: access to medical history databases, realtime conferencing with doctors or planners, etc.
"Should that ever change, you want a network under your administrative control; not relying on routers that may or may not be present in theatre."
Most civilian responders don't have to worry much about network availability "in theater". Although there are times it can be a problem; a relative of mine was EMT and Paramedic (both) in a remote area with little access other than radio.
"Read about it here:"
I did. But I think I read it a bit more thoroughly than you did.
The first sentence of paragraph 2 says:
"Although laws and concepts behind copyright and patents are not new, the term intellectual property is relatively recent, dating from the 19th century."
Which is pretty much what I stated earlier, in another post. Further, the reference [2] given at the end of that sentence is this paper, which discusses why "intellectual property" is not actually property.
"Um, that's exactly what property means."
No, it isn't.
"You don't actually think that you have exclusive, unfettered control over your house or your car, do you?"
If they're paid off, essentially yes. There might be some minor exceptions in the way of environmental laws or taxes, but yes it is my property and I wasn't granted the rights to it by government, as patents and copyrights are. I have property rights via common law and the Constitution, and even the Supreme Court says those can't be taken away. But Congress could nearly (not entirely, but nearly) wipe out patents and copyrights in any session, if they really wanted to.
"hmmm - judging from the two cases linked in the summary, it would be more like you choosing the gun, buying it, asking the seller to load it, and then killing someone with it - and claiming that you can't be done for murder because someone else performed one of the 'steps' (loading the gun)"
No, if you want to get particular: in the Akamai case, it is as though you sold someone a loaded gun, with the knowledge that he was going to kill someone with it, and then he did. That might in fact be actionable... you might be considered an accessory or even an accomplice.
In the other case, it is as though you talked Joe into loading the gun, and selling it to Sam, then talked Sam into going to meet Bob and kill him. It that case, you did not actually perform any of the actions. And if you did not hold some kind of unusual persuasive power over them (e.g., they were "brainwashed" in some sort of highly unlikely manner) or hold some kind of coercive power over them (you kidnapped their children), then you probably did not break the law. You simply made suggestions, and the other guys should have known better.
"They are both legal monopolies, and the Constitutional purpose of both systems are to promote progress."
In those senses, yes. But in the other sense given by someone else above, no.