Not necessarily. Some patients die for lack of diagnostic equipment. Others die due to lack of historical information.
I don't have the figures, but it's possible that spending x dollars on always accessible medical records will save more lives than saving the same amount on diagnostic equipment.
Our government is slow and inefficient. In takes it 14-15 years to move from buzzword initiation to actual planning.
That is not a bug, BTW. It's a design feature. The constitution was written by a bunch of rebels who fought with the previous government and won. They were not inclined to want to fight again.
The universities can make sure my degree from "New Delhi online school of IT" (NDOSOIT) is not accredited in the US. But in most cases I don't need it to be accredited - I just need it to be respected by employers.
If employers can go to a reliable verification source and see that NDOSOIT is as good as the universities in the US, they won't care if the universities consider it accredited or not.
Electronic media can't replace human interaction. It can, however, intermediate it. If you were in Austin, TX I could have told you that in person. But even if you're not, I can still say it.
The classroom discussions will probably be replaced by blogs, chats, etc.
No. If trains could replace flights, that would be great.
But trains aren't fast enough for that. When my options are a three hour flight or a nine hour train ride, with equal car rental hassle at the end, I'm likely to go for the flight.
If my options are a one hour flight, a three hour train, or a four hour drive, I'm a lot more likely to drive so I won't have to spend 20 minutes renting a car and another 20 returning it.
It's not - it would work as a replacement for flying, if it is fast enough. But we're talking here about 3 hours Austin to Chicago, not 3 hours Austin to Dallas. I'm not sure trains can do that.
For the less dense areas, I can see myself driving to the train station, parking my car, and then taking the train somewhere densely populated if I had to do it - but rarely, because I don't need to get to them that often. I suspect most people are in that situation.
High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
You're missing something. SSL is for data that is in transit. The poster wants the data to be encrypted on the server. That's easy - any encryption program can do it. But then s/he also wants to search it. That is harder.
You believe the selfishness comes from specific social structures (kingdoms, religions, corporations) and can be fixed by changing the structures. I believe it comes from the way humans are, so every structure will be abused - the best we can do is get things out in the open.
but we need to use the non-profit business model to replace the major players in insurance and healthcare, transportation and construction, and energy, and other forms of production and especially entertainment.
You can't start small in insurance, and healthcare is regulated to a fare thee well. But you're welcome to start your own entertainment company, for example, and run it as a co-op. Make good products, and I'll even buy them.
cause they'd all be controlled instead by the people who use what they produce, as well as the strict rules for how a non-profit can operate;
I buy a few books from Barnes & Noble every month. That doesn't mean I have time to learn how to run a book store so my vote would be any use.
their business charters wouldn't allow them to function as selfish entities!
Non for profits can be selfish, they just aren't designated as such. For example, they can't pay their shareholders dividends. But they can pay their managers a huge salary.
it also allows for the easy adoption of sustainable practices throughout our world society...
Imagine you work in a co-op that manufactures cars, and you figure a way to make cars that is more sustainable, but would drive income down. Do you and your co-workers vote and decide to drive income down and take less money home every month, or do you vote to keep things as they are? Remember, you still want to be able to buy stuff.
I'm not saying co-ops can't work. They obviously work very well for certain things. But the reason we don't see co-ops everywhere is that customers often don't have the time and energy to manage their suppliers. I don't see how you get rid of that issue. Workers co-ops could work better, because workers know more about the company - but it office politics would be even worse than it is now.
You're welcome to prove me wrong. Whatever work you do, you could do it in a co-op. I'll be happy to be a customer if it is something I need to buy, and it is better than what for profit companies make.
If in most cultures killing is not ethically accepted, should not everything celebrating wars be truly immoral?
Countries that don't celebrate the sacrifices of their soldiers tend to have problems recruiting soldiers in following generations. They tend to get conquered by countries that can actually fight and win wars.
If I am not mistaken (IANAL), you cannot do something a law does not forbid if you go against the law's intent (at least in my country - Brazil - that's the way it works).
In the US it is the wording that counts. The intent is even easier for a court to manipulate than the interpretation of the wording.
If the government does not explicitly forbid something, it is permitted.
You mean the kind of deregulation where a central entity whose management is appointed by the president determines the money supply and a lot of the interest rates?
We haven't had deregulated banking since 1913. All we did was change one regulatory regime to another, which arguably allowed more abuse.
call me jaded, don't i don't see lawyers not advising legal action.
I call you jaded. Goldman Sachs is probably a long term customer of Chadbourne & Parke. It is in the law office's best interest to give good advice to such a client - even if it means forgoing the fees from one specific case.
Goldman Sachs probably has a PR department. It's the job of the PR department to weigh in and say this is not worth doing.
Lawyers are experts on how things would appear to a judge and a jury - not how the rest of the world would perceive them. Often the best legal course is a really bad PR course.
You're right, Saddam's trial was not up to US standards. We could have brought him to the US, and tried him in front of a US judge with US attorneys.
Instead, we let the Iraqis do it. You know, the people in whose country he committed the crimes. They used Iraqi law and Iraqi standards, and finally hanged him in accordance with their laws, not ours.
Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
You mean, use arguments that work in the west, based on western culture, to convince Iraqis it is a bad idea to back Saddam and his Baath party?
In Arab culture a ruler is not rendered legitimate by being elected, but by being so strong nobody could topple him. To tell Iraqis that Saddam is an unelected strongman would be as effective as telling people in the US that they should no longer listen to President Obama because he lost the Mandate of Heaven.
Showing that the US is stronger than Saddam was a necessary first step in giving the democratically elected government the legitimacy it needs to rule. The second was handing Saddam over to an Iraqi court to be tried under Iraqi law and be executed by an Iraqi executioner.
Debtor's prison has been abolished. Having a civil judgment against me doesn't mean I can get arrested and go to jail. It only means my assets can be seized.
I spelled cheque the way it would be spelled in a letter from the UK requiring me to pay up.
Speaking as British citizen with no assets in the US; I'd consider myself royally screwed if I prevented myself from visiting, working with or ever having any assets based in any of the worlds top 10 economies.
Would a court order like that prevent you from visiting or working with the foreign country? I'd rather give up on ever owning British assets (highly unlikely I'll ever do) than be censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. Some patients die for lack of diagnostic equipment. Others die due to lack of historical information.
I don't have the figures, but it's possible that spending x dollars on always accessible medical records will save more lives than saving the same amount on diagnostic equipment.
Our government is slow and inefficient. In takes it 14-15 years to move from buzzword initiation to actual planning.
That is not a bug, BTW. It's a design feature. The constitution was written by a bunch of rebels who fought with the previous government and won. They were not inclined to want to fight again.
The universities can make sure my degree from "New Delhi online school of IT" (NDOSOIT) is not accredited in the US. But in most cases I don't need it to be accredited - I just need it to be respected by employers.
If employers can go to a reliable verification source and see that NDOSOIT is as good as the universities in the US, they won't care if the universities consider it accredited or not.
Electronic media can't replace human interaction. It can, however, intermediate it. If you were in Austin, TX I could have told you that in person. But even if you're not, I can still say it.
The classroom discussions will probably be replaced by blogs, chats, etc.
No. If trains could replace flights, that would be great.
But trains aren't fast enough for that. When my options are a three hour flight or a nine hour train ride, with equal car rental hassle at the end, I'm likely to go for the flight.
If my options are a one hour flight, a three hour train, or a four hour drive, I'm a lot more likely to drive so I won't have to spend 20 minutes renting a car and another 20 returning it.
It's not - it would work as a replacement for flying, if it is fast enough. But we're talking here about 3 hours Austin to Chicago, not 3 hours Austin to Dallas. I'm not sure trains can do that.
In densely populated areas, I agree.
For the less dense areas, I can see myself driving to the train station, parking my car, and then taking the train somewhere densely populated if I had to do it - but rarely, because I don't need to get to them that often. I suspect most people are in that situation.
The US is sadly way behind on the times when it comes to rail.
It's because any form of public transportation requires a certain population density. Most of the US isn't densely populated enough.
If a plague killed six in seven Britons, they'd have the same population density the US has now.
High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
You're missing something. SSL is for data that is in transit. The poster wants the data to be encrypted on the server. That's easy - any encryption program can do it. But then s/he also wants to search it. That is harder.
I think the argument is deeper than that.
You believe the selfishness comes from specific social structures (kingdoms, religions, corporations) and can be fixed by changing the structures. I believe it comes from the way humans are, so every structure will be abused - the best we can do is get things out in the open.
There's a good book about this, called Conflict of Visions.
but we need to use the non-profit business model to replace the major players in insurance and healthcare, transportation and construction, and energy, and other forms of production and especially entertainment.
You can't start small in insurance, and healthcare is regulated to a fare thee well. But you're welcome to start your own entertainment company, for example, and run it as a co-op. Make good products, and I'll even buy them.
cause they'd all be controlled instead by the people who use what they produce, as well as the strict rules for how a non-profit can operate;
I buy a few books from Barnes & Noble every month. That doesn't mean I have time to learn how to run a book store so my vote would be any use.
their business charters wouldn't allow them to function as selfish entities!
Non for profits can be selfish, they just aren't designated as such. For example, they can't pay their shareholders dividends. But they can pay their managers a huge salary.
it also allows for the easy adoption of sustainable practices throughout our world society...
Imagine you work in a co-op that manufactures cars, and you figure a way to make cars that is more sustainable, but would drive income down. Do you and your co-workers vote and decide to drive income down and take less money home every month, or do you vote to keep things as they are? Remember, you still want to be able to buy stuff.
I'm not saying co-ops can't work. They obviously work very well for certain things. But the reason we don't see co-ops everywhere is that customers often don't have the time and energy to manage their suppliers. I don't see how you get rid of that issue. Workers co-ops could work better, because workers know more about the company - but it office politics would be even worse than it is now.
You're welcome to prove me wrong. Whatever work you do, you could do it in a co-op. I'll be happy to be a customer if it is something I need to buy, and it is better than what for profit companies make.
If in most cultures killing is not ethically accepted, should not everything celebrating wars be truly immoral?
Countries that don't celebrate the sacrifices of their soldiers tend to have problems recruiting soldiers in following generations. They tend to get conquered by countries that can actually fight and win wars.
If they are lucky, they are conquered by nice countries and get their independence back eventually. If not, they are conquered by somebody who keeps them.
Winning a war sucks. It's just that losing a war sucks a lot worse.
How? Set up a central entity to judge which businesses are responsible, and staff it with incorruptible angels?
If I am not mistaken (IANAL), you cannot do something a law does not forbid if you go against the law's intent (at least in my country - Brazil - that's the way it works).
In the US it is the wording that counts. The intent is even easier for a court to manipulate than the interpretation of the wording.
If the government does not explicitly forbid something, it is permitted.
You mean the kind of deregulation where a central entity whose management is appointed by the president determines the money supply and a lot of the interest rates?
We haven't had deregulated banking since 1913. All we did was change one regulatory regime to another, which arguably allowed more abuse.
Do you really think "-1 I disagree with you" is good?
call me jaded, don't i don't see lawyers not advising legal action.
I call you jaded. Goldman Sachs is probably a long term customer of Chadbourne & Parke. It is in the law office's best interest to give good advice to such a client - even if it means forgoing the fees from one specific case.
Goldman Sachs probably has a PR department. It's the job of the PR department to weigh in and say this is not worth doing.
Lawyers are experts on how things would appear to a judge and a jury - not how the rest of the world would perceive them. Often the best legal course is a really bad PR course.
You're right, Saddam's trial was not up to US standards. We could have brought him to the US, and tried him in front of a US judge with US attorneys.
Instead, we let the Iraqis do it. You know, the people in whose country he committed the crimes. They used Iraqi law and Iraqi standards, and finally hanged him in accordance with their laws, not ours.
Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
You mean, use arguments that work in the west, based on western culture, to convince Iraqis it is a bad idea to back Saddam and his Baath party?
In Arab culture a ruler is not rendered legitimate by being elected, but by being so strong nobody could topple him. To tell Iraqis that Saddam is an unelected strongman would be as effective as telling people in the US that they should no longer listen to President Obama because he lost the Mandate of Heaven.
Showing that the US is stronger than Saddam was a necessary first step in giving the democratically elected government the legitimacy it needs to rule. The second was handing Saddam over to an Iraqi court to be tried under Iraqi law and be executed by an Iraqi executioner.
Any company they buy ends up dieing horribly.
You mean like Tivoli?
Debtor's prison has been abolished. Having a civil judgment against me doesn't mean I can get arrested and go to jail. It only means my assets can be seized.
I spelled cheque the way it would be spelled in a letter from the UK requiring me to pay up.
Speaking as British citizen with no assets in the US; I'd consider myself royally screwed if I prevented myself from visiting, working with or ever having any assets based in any of the worlds top 10 economies.
Would a court order like that prevent you from visiting or working with the foreign country? I'd rather give up on ever owning British assets (highly unlikely I'll ever do) than be censored.
Information answer with important information.