STOPPED clocks are. A broken clock, even sticking to the traditional analog clock with a face and arms, can be broken in many ways that results in it never displaying a correct time. Perhaps the arms have been removed.
They are preventing a small child (not toddler, he can't toddle, having never been conscious in his life), in a vegetative state, from being kept permanently in that vegetative state, after two years of legal wranglings with the parents, where NO OTHER REPUTABLE DOCTOR in the world has been able to suggest anything but palliative care (one tried, was thrown out of court for being an absolute quack - heard much of him recently?), and who has been on life-support his entire life, FOR FREE, WITHOUT CHARGE, EVER. Taken to court, the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Supreme Court, and ALL said "Nope, he has no chance of a life, we need to end his life-support" despite multiple appeals.
Being held in a hospital ON LIFE SUPPORT that fucking morons are trying to storm to "free" the child, against the parent's wishes and legal orders, disturbing other patients (including children and parents in worse situations), harassing and threatening medical staff (who are nothing to do with it) and generally running up the fucking costs to the taxpayer.
P.S. Learn your fucking country's procedures. NOT ONE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE has any say whatsoever in if the child is treated or not (without life-long, free and constant permanent treatment the child dies, with it he merely never gains consciousness, and there's not a reputable doctor in the world that disagrees). The courts have decided. Many of them. Several times. More times than even people who seek legal euthanasia in another country require.
So... BOLLOCKS to your spin. Because it's utter shite and keeping a boy who could be in constant pain and suffering alive to keep his parents happy, at ENORMOUS medical, policing and legal cost... FOR FREE. He's vegetative. Brain-dead. Never seen the light of day. A brain destroyed from birth by a neurological condition that's entirely untreatable and will only worsen. And an army of doctors kept him alive by default without question for two years while the legal wranglings go on, and they may be ordered by a court of law to "cease treatment" (i.e allow him to die naturally, rather than sustain him artificially for his entire life).
It's almost like it has nothing to do with expense, but what's right for the boy, isn't it?
P.S. Look up the Bambino Jesu hospital the parents want to send him to. It's a fucking Vatican-funded profit center, scam-host and shithole.
Before you comment on that as a statement against the NHS, go work in one of their hospitals and see the doctors and nurses crying and fighting all day to save the child, and then being threatened, attacked and harassed in their own homes for doing so (My girlfriend worked in Great Ormond Street... same thing, about six months ago, similar case, the people "protesting" were fucking cunts just out to spoil for a fight, and even the parents were pleading them to go away. I think the child's name in that instance was Charlie Gard or similar?).
"P.S. Learn your fucking country's procedures. NOT ONE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE has any say whatsoever in if the child is treated or not"
Yet you follow that with "The courts have decided. Many of them. Several times."
???????? Are the courts not filled with government officials supplying arguments, citing law, serving as expert witnesses, etc.?
"go work in one of their hospitals and see the doctors and nurses crying and fighting all day to save the child, and then being threatened, attacked and harassed in their own homes for doing so"
Again, ????????
I thought you said the child couldn't be saved. In fact, you twice mentioned "there's not a reputable doctor in the world that disagrees". Of course, you also sidestepped the fact that at least one doctor did disagree, and you did so by saying the courts threw him out, as if that were evidence against him. You may as well say someone doesn't have a valid argument, because you already rejected their argument.
I don't know anything about this case, but it seems you're emotionally involved to the point where you're tripping over yourself with contradiction after contradiction.
Okay, clown, I'll entertain your shit for about 4 seconds.
It's funny that the same people who believe it's too much regulation to require banks to disclose information about rates and fees are going to celebrate requiring hospitals to do the same thing.
Show me who is against branks disclosing rates and fees. Show me who is for hospitals doing the same. Show the overlap.
I live under the same sky, but can turn my head to see in all directions instead of just nose turned up.
What if you're on opposite sides of the planet? The extent that you can be "under" the sky is the extent to which it can be the same sky. The sky above you may be the sky below him. When you're both talking about being under it while standing on a spheroid surrounded by sky, there must be at least 2 distinct skies divided by some great circle. Otherwise you're simply within the one and only sky.
Mine is plugged in all the time and I know it's not doing anything when it shouldn't be because if it were I'd see the power usage. The most offensive thing it does when "off" is allow wakeup over the LAN. This is a user-controlled option.
Theater presentation? Nearly every theater screen in the US is digital projection now, capable of 24 FPS, 48 FPS, 60 FPS or more.
30 FPS looks fine. How the fuck are you going to say 30 FPS looks bad, then say 48 FPS is ok? Major theaters didn't show the Hobbit in 24 FPS. They showed it at 48 FPS. The problem with the Hobbit wasn't the special effects looking sharp (they looked fake and awful in general, especially anything with water). The problem was it was another boring grand adventure stretched out across 3 movies that each ran way too long and no one gave a shit about.
There's no technical merit to 48 FPS that isn't true of 30 FPS or 60 FPS. Further, there's nothing to be "proficient" about. You run the film at double the speed, doubling your cost. Or you run the video at twice the frame rate, doubling your VFX render cost and not much else. Your nonsense about rolling shutters is absurd. You're still doing the VFX afterward and you're still working with the same fucking issues matching the digital effects to the motion blur, color, noise, etc. of the film. If it looks like ass at 48 FPS it'll look like ass at 24 FPS.
48 FPS films can fuck off. Either stay with 24 or move to 60. You could even move to 30 for a middle ground if you wanted. But none of this 48 bullshit. We're all digital projection and mastering now anyway, and 3D is dead so we don't have to worry about that eating half the framerate.
Thankfully, the only 48 FPS films that I know of have been pure trash. TVs should start adopting adaptive framerate (Thanks to AMD / Freesync) soon, so this won't really matter as long as the content and the player are competent. You'll be able to run your big TV at 96 Hz if you're dumb enough to watch a Hobbit movie and are dumb enough to buy whatever re-release has it at 48 FPS.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 4K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
It might eventually become mainstream simply due to manufacturing ease of only supporting a single resolution, similar to how almost all new TVs are 1080p, even small ones. But I'm still not certain 4K will really ever take hold. I think 1080p may end up becoming that ubiquitous "good enough" point beyond which remains only niche products.
I'm pretty much the same, except that my 4K OLED kicks the shit out of my 1080p IPS for all other aspects of image quality, not just resolution. So even when I'm half asleep at the back of the room lying on the couch without glasses, the 4K OLED is miles better.
The fact that you said "do science" makes me think you don't actually "do science".
I bet you think the Mythbusters were great scientists! Sure, maybe their shitty explosions and lack of science were bad, but they got people INTERESTED in shitty explosions and lack of science!!
No, identifying it as "John Doe" does not work since if the EPA doesn't like the political implications of the study, they'll ask how they can verify that "John Doe" did in fact have this problem, given they can't verify the account even took place!
Wrong.
If the EPA were to ask such an asinine thing, the researchers could say "We have the original dataset, and you can audit it if you like. Your auditors need to be HIPAA compliant, though, by signing a document stating they won't spread this information in a way that can identify patients. How's Tuesday at 1 PM?" They don't even need to release the original dataset to the auditors, the auditors can go to them and have controlled, view-only access in a conference room while they check as many records as they want.
Have you never seen an audit in any sort of business capacity?
Patient confidentiality has little to do with the "confidential data" referred to. They're referring to data that is kept from other researchers not for patient confidentiality, but for trade secret, fuck you I'm not sharing my research, etc. type bullshit. They may claim patient confidentiality as the reason, but it's trivial to anonymize data or allow an audit or even just give them all of the data as long as they say they'll protect it.
Here's how you comply with HIPAA:
1) Get the other party to say they're HIPAA compliant. You can then give them everything.
-OR-
1) Take your relevant data and cut out the patient's name, address, ID number, etc. 2) Assign new, random IDs to your anonymized dataset. 3) Optional - give a 3rd party a map that includes the new random IDs and the original unique identifier(s), but no medical data.
The anonymized dataset from step 2 can be shared and used by all researchers. If you keep this confidential and don't let other researchers see it to reproduce / question your results, you're a piece of shit.
The optional step 3 is useful in case you find something of note in your research and want to further explore it using something that potentially partially deanonymizes patients. Address, age, race, sex, etc. For example, maybe your first anonymized set included State, but you then want to narrow by zip code. Or maybe your first set included age ranges of 0-25, 26-50, 51-75, 75+ and you want to explore an anomaly you found in the 0-25 group, so you further break it down. You could create a new set with ranges of 0-4, 5-9, etc, perhaps without other information your first pass deemed to be uncorrelated (such as sex or weight) to offset the deanonymization caused by the refinement of age.
Creating a mapping is also useful if you later increase the size of your dataset but you want to specifically exclude (or include) people you've already selected and studied, or if you get a separate dataset and you want to prevent duplicates/overlaps. You'd get your new / combined dataset, give only the unique identifiers to the third party, have them use your previous map and kick you back a new list of those unique identifiers with whatever criteria you want (people excluded/included/deduped). You then take their set and inner join it to your full set and create a new anonymized set. Again, you have the option of giving them a new mapping for this new set.
The strongest argument could be that agreements isn't valid because they didn't understand it. However if contracts can be thrown out because one party didn't understand, we have trouble.
What trouble, exactly? Trouble for corporations, insurers, employers, etc. who write one-sided, non-negotiable contracts that shit all over the slaves? If a party enters into a contract without understanding it, then there's no meeting of the minds. If the other party was the one who wrote it, and you can show they knew or should have known that the first party didn't understand it, they fucking lose.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they aren't.
STOPPED clocks are. A broken clock, even sticking to the traditional analog clock with a face and arms, can be broken in many ways that results in it never displaying a correct time. Perhaps the arms have been removed.
Hey, nice spin.
They are preventing a small child (not toddler, he can't toddle, having never been conscious in his life), in a vegetative state, from being kept permanently in that vegetative state, after two years of legal wranglings with the parents, where NO OTHER REPUTABLE DOCTOR in the world has been able to suggest anything but palliative care (one tried, was thrown out of court for being an absolute quack - heard much of him recently?), and who has been on life-support his entire life, FOR FREE, WITHOUT CHARGE, EVER. Taken to court, the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Supreme Court, and ALL said "Nope, he has no chance of a life, we need to end his life-support" despite multiple appeals.
Being held in a hospital ON LIFE SUPPORT that fucking morons are trying to storm to "free" the child, against the parent's wishes and legal orders, disturbing other patients (including children and parents in worse situations), harassing and threatening medical staff (who are nothing to do with it) and generally running up the fucking costs to the taxpayer.
P.S. Learn your fucking country's procedures. NOT ONE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE has any say whatsoever in if the child is treated or not (without life-long, free and constant permanent treatment the child dies, with it he merely never gains consciousness, and there's not a reputable doctor in the world that disagrees). The courts have decided. Many of them. Several times. More times than even people who seek legal euthanasia in another country require.
So... BOLLOCKS to your spin. Because it's utter shite and keeping a boy who could be in constant pain and suffering alive to keep his parents happy, at ENORMOUS medical, policing and legal cost... FOR FREE. He's vegetative. Brain-dead. Never seen the light of day. A brain destroyed from birth by a neurological condition that's entirely untreatable and will only worsen. And an army of doctors kept him alive by default without question for two years while the legal wranglings go on, and they may be ordered by a court of law to "cease treatment" (i.e allow him to die naturally, rather than sustain him artificially for his entire life).
It's almost like it has nothing to do with expense, but what's right for the boy, isn't it?
P.S. Look up the Bambino Jesu hospital the parents want to send him to. It's a fucking Vatican-funded profit center, scam-host and shithole.
Before you comment on that as a statement against the NHS, go work in one of their hospitals and see the doctors and nurses crying and fighting all day to save the child, and then being threatened, attacked and harassed in their own homes for doing so (My girlfriend worked in Great Ormond Street... same thing, about six months ago, similar case, the people "protesting" were fucking cunts just out to spoil for a fight, and even the parents were pleading them to go away. I think the child's name in that instance was Charlie Gard or similar?).
"P.S. Learn your fucking country's procedures. NOT ONE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE has any say whatsoever in if the child is treated or not"
Yet you follow that with "The courts have decided. Many of them. Several times."
???????? Are the courts not filled with government officials supplying arguments, citing law, serving as expert witnesses, etc.?
"go work in one of their hospitals and see the doctors and nurses crying and fighting all day to save the child, and then being threatened, attacked and harassed in their own homes for doing so"
Again, ????????
I thought you said the child couldn't be saved. In fact, you twice mentioned "there's not a reputable doctor in the world that disagrees". Of course, you also sidestepped the fact that at least one doctor did disagree, and you did so by saying the courts threw him out, as if that were evidence against him. You may as well say someone doesn't have a valid argument, because you already rejected their argument.
I don't know anything about this case, but it seems you're emotionally involved to the point where you're tripping over yourself with contradiction after contradiction.
Nothing is black and white except in propaganda.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes, you propagandist Sith!
2. Or SCOTUS could decide it needs more/less justices. We're not pegged to a fixed magic number.
Okay, clown, I'll entertain your shit for about 4 seconds.
It's funny that the same people who believe it's too much regulation to require banks to disclose information about rates and fees are going to celebrate requiring hospitals to do the same thing.
Show me who is against branks disclosing rates and fees.
Show me who is for hospitals doing the same.
Show the overlap.
The JYT is fake news. As is CNN. As is "WaPo" and most other outlets that like to identify as something-Po.
I live under the same sky, but can turn my head to see in all directions instead of just nose turned up.
What if you're on opposite sides of the planet? The extent that you can be "under" the sky is the extent to which it can be the same sky. The sky above you may be the sky below him. When you're both talking about being under it while standing on a spheroid surrounded by sky, there must be at least 2 distinct skies divided by some great circle. Otherwise you're simply within the one and only sky.
Most fake news is about Trump. Most news about Trump is fake news. Most news from Trump comes directly from Trump. Coincidence?
Hell, I'd go as far as to say ALL news from Trump comes directly from Trump!
He also seems to be instrumental in getting progress towards an actual peace treaty between North & South Korea.
But hey, let's focus on a hooker he may or may not have fucked years ago!
He's 71? He doesn't look it. I'd say he looks closer to 61. Not that I've paid attention to that much or think it's relevant either way.
As for cheeseburgers, they're delicious. If that becomes a partisan issue I'm on the cheeseburger pounding side.
Mine is plugged in all the time and I know it's not doing anything when it shouldn't be because if it were I'd see the power usage.
The most offensive thing it does when "off" is allow wakeup over the LAN. This is a user-controlled option.
Theater presentation? Nearly every theater screen in the US is digital projection now, capable of 24 FPS, 48 FPS, 60 FPS or more.
30 FPS looks fine. How the fuck are you going to say 30 FPS looks bad, then say 48 FPS is ok? Major theaters didn't show the Hobbit in 24 FPS. They showed it at 48 FPS. The problem with the Hobbit wasn't the special effects looking sharp (they looked fake and awful in general, especially anything with water). The problem was it was another boring grand adventure stretched out across 3 movies that each ran way too long and no one gave a shit about.
There's no technical merit to 48 FPS that isn't true of 30 FPS or 60 FPS. Further, there's nothing to be "proficient" about. You run the film at double the speed, doubling your cost. Or you run the video at twice the frame rate, doubling your VFX render cost and not much else. Your nonsense about rolling shutters is absurd. You're still doing the VFX afterward and you're still working with the same fucking issues matching the digital effects to the motion blur, color, noise, etc. of the film. If it looks like ass at 48 FPS it'll look like ass at 24 FPS.
120 Hz is the correct choice.
48 FPS films can fuck off. Either stay with 24 or move to 60. You could even move to 30 for a middle ground if you wanted. But none of this 48 bullshit. We're all digital projection and mastering now anyway, and 3D is dead so we don't have to worry about that eating half the framerate.
Thankfully, the only 48 FPS films that I know of have been pure trash. TVs should start adopting adaptive framerate (Thanks to AMD / Freesync) soon, so this won't really matter as long as the content and the player are competent. You'll be able to run your big TV at 96 Hz if you're dumb enough to watch a Hobbit movie and are dumb enough to buy whatever re-release has it at 48 FPS.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 4K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
It might eventually become mainstream simply due to manufacturing ease of only supporting a single resolution, similar to how almost all new TVs are 1080p, even small ones. But I'm still not certain 4K will really ever take hold. I think 1080p may end up becoming that ubiquitous "good enough" point beyond which remains only niche products.
You were saying?
I'm pretty much the same, except that my 4K OLED kicks the shit out of my 1080p IPS for all other aspects of image quality, not just resolution. So even when I'm half asleep at the back of the room lying on the couch without glasses, the 4K OLED is miles better.
Relevant Futurama:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's also the one with the tattoo that we can't see because of our low resolution.
What if I pull the battery?
You bought a product on Amazon last week and the 3rd party merchant has asked you 4 times to leave a review!
NUDGENUDGENUDGENUDGENUDGENUDGENUDGE
The fact that you said "do science" makes me think you don't actually "do science".
I bet you think the Mythbusters were great scientists! Sure, maybe their shitty explosions and lack of science were bad, but they got people INTERESTED in shitty explosions and lack of science!!
No, identifying it as "John Doe" does not work since if the EPA doesn't like the political implications of the study, they'll ask how they can verify that "John Doe" did in fact have this problem, given they can't verify the account even took place!
Wrong.
If the EPA were to ask such an asinine thing, the researchers could say "We have the original dataset, and you can audit it if you like. Your auditors need to be HIPAA compliant, though, by signing a document stating they won't spread this information in a way that can identify patients. How's Tuesday at 1 PM?" They don't even need to release the original dataset to the auditors, the auditors can go to them and have controlled, view-only access in a conference room while they check as many records as they want.
Have you never seen an audit in any sort of business capacity?
No it doesn't.
Please cite the text that you think forbids basic anonymization.
Patient confidentiality has little to do with the "confidential data" referred to. They're referring to data that is kept from other researchers not for patient confidentiality, but for trade secret, fuck you I'm not sharing my research, etc. type bullshit. They may claim patient confidentiality as the reason, but it's trivial to anonymize data or allow an audit or even just give them all of the data as long as they say they'll protect it.
Here's how you comply with HIPAA:
1) Get the other party to say they're HIPAA compliant. You can then give them everything.
-OR-
1) Take your relevant data and cut out the patient's name, address, ID number, etc.
2) Assign new, random IDs to your anonymized dataset.
3) Optional - give a 3rd party a map that includes the new random IDs and the original unique identifier(s), but no medical data.
The anonymized dataset from step 2 can be shared and used by all researchers. If you keep this confidential and don't let other researchers see it to reproduce / question your results, you're a piece of shit.
The optional step 3 is useful in case you find something of note in your research and want to further explore it using something that potentially partially deanonymizes patients. Address, age, race, sex, etc.
For example, maybe your first anonymized set included State, but you then want to narrow by zip code. Or maybe your first set included age ranges of 0-25, 26-50, 51-75, 75+ and you want to explore an anomaly you found in the 0-25 group, so you further break it down. You could create a new set with ranges of 0-4, 5-9, etc, perhaps without other information your first pass deemed to be uncorrelated (such as sex or weight) to offset the deanonymization caused by the refinement of age.
Creating a mapping is also useful if you later increase the size of your dataset but you want to specifically exclude (or include) people you've already selected and studied, or if you get a separate dataset and you want to prevent duplicates/overlaps. You'd get your new / combined dataset, give only the unique identifiers to the third party, have them use your previous map and kick you back a new list of those unique identifiers with whatever criteria you want (people excluded/included/deduped). You then take their set and inner join it to your full set and create a new anonymized set. Again, you have the option of giving them a new mapping for this new set.
You're modded -1: Absolutely Correct.
Actually they were asked, and agreed.
The strongest argument could be that agreements isn't valid because they didn't understand it. However if contracts can be thrown out because one party didn't understand, we have trouble.
What trouble, exactly? Trouble for corporations, insurers, employers, etc. who write one-sided, non-negotiable contracts that shit all over the slaves?
If a party enters into a contract without understanding it, then there's no meeting of the minds. If the other party was the one who wrote it, and you can show they knew or should have known that the first party didn't understand it, they fucking lose.
In what way is anyone deterred from doing it in the future?
Are any of the people involved imprisoned? Are we taking their money/property away?