You can go even further, by using advanced techiniques, you can even combine several drugs to best treat certain conditions without giving the patient one larger dose of one medicine. For example if medicine X was found to react in a certain way with the insulin, and Y the fat cells in the body, while Z can catalyse the reaction of some hormone in the blood that will help. Instead of giving this person one large does of medicine A, he can be given small doses of these 4 things, and keep the harm at a minimum.
What kind of statistical analysis methods they use in these studies? For example we use a lot of Likelihood functions, BDT, and neural networks to get the maximum number of information out of our data. Do they use these kind of methods in there analysis ?
ps, my field is astrophysics and astroparticles.
There is something that always bothered me, how in the hell does the attacker knows if I am using words for my password or not?
Second consider the following password where at one point was on my laptop: "A happy worker is mindless worker, so shut up and do your job!"
I fail to see how this password is not safe just because I used actual words, wouldn't it take million of years(even with dictionary attack) to gess it ?
What is unethical is to change a system so that it benefits somebody at the cost of greater suffering of others.
Are you sure offering a pill for a poor sick person will have that much of a cataclysmic effect ? Plus I like how you phrased it as "somebody" against "others"!
But it is not just somebody, it's a lot of people! And this greater suffering is reduced profits ? I am sorry but it seem to be what is wrong with the world is "profit"!
I digress, I am not arguing that all medical services needs to be free, only that some can't be ethically run for profit pure and pure.
Stopping the invasion of other countries for the oil they have is unethical because this will bring greater suffering for people who works for oil companies, military contractors and any company that produce weapons for the military!
Now, maybe governments themselves should be doing the development instead of for-profit companies, maybe the drug company profits are too high
My argument is simple: There is something inherently wrong and morally decadent with a person dying because the drug that can save him is too expensive for him.
Now I wasn't offering a solution, harsh may I was with my words. But I know how the world run in a specific way, but that doesn't mean I critique it, or can't wish it was different. And just because we can't think of a specific way to offer a pill for free that doesn't mean there is none!
And finally I did say:
I'm sorry but some medicine shouldn't be for profit! I understand a pill for ED costing a lot, I understand my aspirin costing money. But cancer drug, or AIDS should be fucking free, any drug for any disease that robs you of your humanity should be provided for free. I don't care whether I will be perceived out of this world, but for some things ( like this) it is highly immoral to ask money ( and profit ) in return!
I agree, If I have a 10Mb/s connection my theoretical limit is 25Tb per month. I don't think I will ever reach that limit. But the issue is that if my company offered me an unlimited connection, then it is not logical for them to say I used to much if it was more than 100Gb in one month. The problem is not with the limitation with the network, the problem is with the naming of the service.
There is something inhertly wrong with an unlimited plan that is not unlimited. It's not about what is enough and what's not enough for most customers, it is simply that in this cases some customers are beind decieved ( because they expected to recieve something they were offered), to remedy this issue is to just don't call it unlimited. No one is forcing them to offer unlimited plans!
The whole point is that this is isn't murder, theft or something like that. Someone gave me confidential data, I am under no obligation to honor to the confidentiality of said data, point over! That's why he can't be extradited, because he committed no guilt. It is the equivalent of being guilty of thought crime!
You still don't make sense. He Doesn't live or was living in the US when he obtained these files! US law doesn't apply to him!
ex: It is legal here for me to be nude when I buy groceries, can you tell me how as US court can prosecute me for that if I buy from an American owned chain in Italy ?
Not any kind of legislation can make this man guilty. His intents, the objectivity and fairness of the American justice system are irrelevant, there is no case to start with.
As far as I remember, Australia did look into this matter and they found out that he can't be prosecuted. Now if what you say is true, then this shit is getting out of hand. I mean how far they are willing to go with this? At one point they will transform him into a living 'martyr' and then they would have accomplished nothing by bringing him down. You do not eliminate your enemies by taking them down this way, you eliminate them by making them irrelevant.
He is not american, nor lives there. He is not bound by American law! The only thing I can think of is terrorism, but I wonder how would that apply to him ( aiding the enemy perhaps ?).
He did not steal the files! He is not an american citizen! And when he did obtain the files, he was not on American soil! And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files, and certainly not under any NDA. So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
That's why I corrected myself in a self-reply. However, there is two things to keep in mind, one is futuristic technology ( is beyond what we can think of), and second of all, no weapon is perfect... Find me a 1000 round/s concrete piercing, self-correcting sniper with Gamma ray scopers and I'll bend over...
Highly unlikely! reflecting materials can defeat it.
Most likely MASER's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser , kinetic weapons for fast attacks, and nuclear weapons for more destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
You can go even further, by using advanced techiniques, you can even combine several drugs to best treat certain conditions without giving the patient one larger dose of one medicine. For example if medicine X was found to react in a certain way with the insulin, and Y the fat cells in the body, while Z can catalyse the reaction of some hormone in the blood that will help. Instead of giving this person one large does of medicine A, he can be given small doses of these 4 things, and keep the harm at a minimum.
What kind of statistical analysis methods they use in these studies? For example we use a lot of Likelihood functions, BDT, and neural networks to get the maximum number of information out of our data. Do they use these kind of methods in there analysis ? ps, my field is astrophysics and astroparticles.
There is something that always bothered me, how in the hell does the attacker knows if I am using words for my password or not? Second consider the following password where at one point was on my laptop: "A happy worker is mindless worker, so shut up and do your job!" I fail to see how this password is not safe just because I used actual words, wouldn't it take million of years(even with dictionary attack) to gess it ?
What is unethical is to change a system so that it benefits somebody at the cost of greater suffering of others.
Are you sure offering a pill for a poor sick person will have that much of a cataclysmic effect ? Plus I like how you phrased it as "somebody" against "others"! But it is not just somebody, it's a lot of people! And this greater suffering is reduced profits ? I am sorry but it seem to be what is wrong with the world is "profit"! I digress, I am not arguing that all medical services needs to be free, only that some can't be ethically run for profit pure and pure. Stopping the invasion of other countries for the oil they have is unethical because this will bring greater suffering for people who works for oil companies, military contractors and any company that produce weapons for the military!
Now, maybe governments themselves should be doing the development instead of for-profit companies, maybe the drug company profits are too high
My argument is simple: There is something inherently wrong and morally decadent with a person dying because the drug that can save him is too expensive for him. Now I wasn't offering a solution, harsh may I was with my words. But I know how the world run in a specific way, but that doesn't mean I critique it, or can't wish it was different. And just because we can't think of a specific way to offer a pill for free that doesn't mean there is none! And finally I did say:
( and profit )
.
I'm sorry but some medicine shouldn't be for profit! I understand a pill for ED costing a lot, I understand my aspirin costing money. But cancer drug, or AIDS should be fucking free, any drug for any disease that robs you of your humanity should be provided for free. I don't care whether I will be perceived out of this world, but for some things ( like this) it is highly immoral to ask money ( and profit ) in return!
Thank you so much! That is the whole point! please mod parent up.
I agree, If I have a 10Mb/s connection my theoretical limit is 25Tb per month. I don't think I will ever reach that limit. But the issue is that if my company offered me an unlimited connection, then it is not logical for them to say I used to much if it was more than 100Gb in one month. The problem is not with the limitation with the network, the problem is with the naming of the service.
There is something inhertly wrong with an unlimited plan that is not unlimited. It's not about what is enough and what's not enough for most customers, it is simply that in this cases some customers are beind decieved ( because they expected to recieve something they were offered), to remedy this issue is to just don't call it unlimited. No one is forcing them to offer unlimited plans!
Hypocrisy thy name is "insert your choise company here" ?
I agree with all what you said. However you can't go to Israel if your passport has a Syrian stamp on it either!
Haha! you fool I was willing to sell my vote for a sandwich!
The whole point is that this is isn't murder, theft or something like that. Someone gave me confidential data, I am under no obligation to honor to the confidentiality of said data, point over! That's why he can't be extradited, because he committed no guilt. It is the equivalent of being guilty of thought crime!
You still don't make sense. He Doesn't live or was living in the US when he obtained these files! US law doesn't apply to him! ex: It is legal here for me to be nude when I buy groceries, can you tell me how as US court can prosecute me for that if I buy from an American owned chain in Italy ? Not any kind of legislation can make this man guilty. His intents, the objectivity and fairness of the American justice system are irrelevant, there is no case to start with.
Joking aside, I am not American, nor do I live in the US. Shockingly I have an Arabic nationality and lives in Europe.
As far as I remember, Australia did look into this matter and they found out that he can't be prosecuted. Now if what you say is true, then this shit is getting out of hand. I mean how far they are willing to go with this? At one point they will transform him into a living 'martyr' and then they would have accomplished nothing by bringing him down. You do not eliminate your enemies by taking them down this way, you eliminate them by making them irrelevant.
He is not american, nor lives there. He is not bound by American law! The only thing I can think of is terrorism, but I wonder how would that apply to him ( aiding the enemy perhaps ?).
And you forgot that we geeks have girlfriends!
He did not steal the files! He is not an american citizen! And when he did obtain the files, he was not on American soil! And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files, and certainly not under any NDA. So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
My name is I believe I should leave you the fuck alone.
I guess this is my cue, I don't mind taking control for a while!
That's why I corrected myself in a self-reply. However, there is two things to keep in mind, one is futuristic technology ( is beyond what we can think of), and second of all, no weapon is perfect... Find me a 1000 round/s concrete piercing, self-correcting sniper with Gamma ray scopers and I'll bend over...
Wait Masers wasn't what I was looking for... I was going for charged particles, like a super LHC beam or something.
Highly unlikely! reflecting materials can defeat it. Most likely MASER's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser , kinetic weapons for fast attacks, and nuclear weapons for more destruction.
Quantum torpedoes, tetryon beam weapons, metaphasic shields and some neutronium hull plating... Wait a second, I thought this was a Star trek episode!