They should, but they don't, and they know they won't. They buy supplies because they need them and the state won't buy them. Maybe because they spend so much on cell phones.:)
I can recall there was a day when people didn't all have cell phones, people had these things called pagers, or just home telephones/answering machines. If someone needed to reach us they'd call, and we'd get back to them. If something was time critical you had to carry a pager.
You constantly see people that claim they're libertarians while preaching that the free market will fix 'everything'. On another forum I saw a person claim that "All" regulation is "Evil", no exceptions
You also constantly see people on the left claim that all corporations are "Evil" and that the free market never works.
The truth is that some of the time the free market works best when left alone, and some of the time it works best when regulated. The trick is in figuring out which is which, and not under-regulating nor over-regulating.
Corporations are pretty much evil by definition, and without soul or conscience. The free market works great, as long as corporations are banned.
Well, typically people who don't think they should have to follow the rules ruin it for everyone who does. I expect it to be true for everything eventually. Either nobody will be able to do it profitably, except mega corps who will just steal from each other, or everyone will have to undergo TSAesque scrutiny.
Someone with a really big telescope should swing it over that way and see if there is a BSOD, too bad they don't have a remote power cycle switch; it would save someone from having to drive out and reboot the thing.
Well, any info that is available through a web application should only be available to the person it pertains to, if external access is allowed. i.e. my data would be on my computer, thus my responsibility. Internal access should be via a more controlled client, you can lock down web clients specific to an application and force certain settings. You make circumventing a punishable offense.
In the military we had (most) machines marked 'Unclassified processing only' meaning you were not to access or store any classified material on that machine, ever. The ones marked as allowed usually specified exactly what was allowed, they were monitored and checked.
Again, as far as disk encryption is concerned, you still are not protecting the data in any case but physical theft of the hardware, and then only if the thief can't get logged in.
From a deniability standpoint it makes some sense, but most of the time it's just a money/time sink. The only time data is actually protected is when the machine is stolen and the thief doesn't have any login credentials. Anyone who gains access to the machine through the windows login will have access to all of the data that user did. (on a windoze box, anyway) Some of the disk encryption software will require another password to boot or otherwise access the system, but that just means most users will write the info down. It is ultimately ineffective to ignore how users use the system, when designing a security system.
It sounds like rather than try to figure out HIPPA and other confidentiality issues someone decreed a blanket "solution" as a CYA without understanding any of the issues. Confidential and patient information should not be in emails. If an electronic system is used to transmit protected data, it should not be directly accessible to the rest of the network, it should be protected. (i.e. private network) Encrypting hard drives is useful when sensitive data is supposed to be stored on the machine, and there is a risk of the machine being stolen. (like a laptop with patient data on it) The best protection is not to have any sensitive data on most machines; data can be made accessible without being stored locally. Confidential and patient information should not be in emails. They need to learn what PHI is and be able to identify it correctly, so it can be protected; you can't protect all data on the whole network, should not even try. Most people I have seen that use disk encryption don't use it right anyway, "'cause it's too hard to log in every time" and they let windows auto log them in, and it never times out to require a password; or use other login circumvents, like a post-it with the username/password on the laptop.
I saw the word "malvertising" and thought it was redundant. I have always considered ALL advertising to be malware. Including print and TV advertising. They are all an attempt to force me to view their message, which I neither want nor asked for, and block or delay me viewing what I want to see.
Since the blood bank was on one side of the street and the hospital was on the other, the tube meant the people didn't have to cross the street with samples or bags.
But... Didn't that reduce the number of readily available organ donors?
Nah, most drivers swerve to avoid hitting the stainless steel carts.:)
Most of the organ donor jokes I hear are about people who ride motorcycles without helmets. They call those donorcycles, kind of morbid.
As someone who worked in a place that had a pneumatic system for transporting blood that they used for decades I can say a few things.:) Never heard of a clog, it was a two station system. One opening at each end. I supposed the ones that branch would have more clogs/stuckies. The most likely failure was a blood bag or tube bursting on arrival, usually do to over pressure making capsule go too fast. That only contaminates the one end, huge mess but the whole tube system isn't contaminated. Critical samples sometimes get lost broken or whatever when they are handled by people, the pneumatic system really doesn't affect the odds of it happening. So would say it decreases the odds. Since the blood bank was on one side of the street and the hospital was on the other, the tube meant the people didn't have to cross the street with samples or bags.
"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is all you need to know about statistics.
This is right up there with "'click on the big blue e' is all you need to know about the internet."
Speaking as both a statistician and a computer scientist, I've seen the statistics-vs.-CS argument play out many times before, and the lack of knowledge on both sides is really striking, but not all that surprising -- both are hard subjects which take a lot of work to master. The lack of mutual respect is both infuriating and pathetic, and there's no excuse for it.
Statistics are important; it is highly unlikely that anyone with an MBA will know how or why, but they want them. At least not as they relate to CS. So in most cases the person you replied to is essentially correct. Lies, damn lies and statistics. But I know a lot of research depends on people being able to accurately utilize statistical methods. I also understand that people who are good at it are rare.
Firstly, I smoked for 12 years, I quit more than 10 years ago. Smoking is not a disease, there is no bacteria or virus to combat, only the desire of the smoker to smoke. What ever the drug they want people to take IT IS NOT A VACCINE, it's a drug; they just want to call it a vaccine to sound cooler. The only way to get someone to quit, is to get them to WANT to quit. If they don't want to quit, honestly, no number of patches or drugs or brainwashing will make them. (well maybe the brainwashing)
I know this article is probably past most people still reading it, but I have to respond a little.
A friend of mine once said "criminals are dumb, if they were smart they wouldn't be criminals"
While I agree in general, it's a bit naive.
The prisons are, indeed overflowing with dumb criminals.
The issue is that only the dumb assume everything will go according to plan, criminal or non-criminal activities. Anyone planning an activity will make plans for contingencies, Murphy's law applies everywhere at all times. If you don't plan for some of the possible problems you deserve what you get.
The problem I was trying to point out is that if someone PLANs to commit a crime AND thinks about what happens if they get caught, they are at an advantage over someone who DOESN'T commit a crime but is caught in a bad circumstance where it could appear that they have. Fortunately our courts are typically slow enough that most innocent people can come up with something anyway.
As for the first part of my statement
The guilty know they are guilty and the ones that walk on technicalities do so because they plan for the eventuality, or pay someone to.
and your response
But we don't KNOW they are guilty. And evidence which may lead to one person being guilty may be misleading
I'm not talking about lawyerspeak guilt or not guilt, I'm talking about actual guilt. The facts, or lack thereof, in possession of the court isn't meaningful. The guilty typically know they are guilty, maybe they don't think it's wrong, but that's another discussion. They know they broke the law, if they choose to plan in advance for the possibility that they will get caught they can work the system in their favor from the very beginning.
In fact I seem to recall a story about (fiction?) a certain crime being committed with the criminal purposely getting caught and charged with evidence being rather easily found then being barred through some technicality, and thus the person walked and could not be charged again if/when later evidence was found. Ingenious if it can actually be pulled off, but not all that likely.
I knew if I kept posting I too would eventually encounter the (-1 disagree) moderation.
I thought I should post a trollish comment, so that my being modded a troll wouldn't be wasted.
Besides the retard (or whatever the PC phrase is now) might still have mod points and come back with a second helping of stupid.
eh, only three days still right? for mod points.
There is a huge difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the actions of "the law". If their action was sufficient in trying to contact them, then your action should have been sufficient in mailing the correct information in. The judge probably knew that and was trying to cover his a$$, if you had appealed he could have been in trouble. ... unless you live in California, were all rulings are in favor of whatever makes the state money.:)
The guilty know they are guilty and the ones that walk on technicalities do so because they plan for the eventuality, or pay someone to. The innocent don't have the luxury of planning in advance to beat the wrap for a crime they didn't commit. So the system is broken both in that the guilty walk, and that the innocent do not.
I don't know about you guys, but here in the US it seems like we are sliding in the direction of high school being more like elementary school, and the first couple of years of university being what high school used to be. Parents blame the schools if their kids are stupid, and insist everyone "who tries" gets a 4.0 GPA, so nobody's feeling get hurt. <sarcasm> Since, as everyone knows 3.5 GPA might as well be an 'F' the whole GPA thing is meaningless.</sarcasm> Even in university, GPA is far more important than actual learning, at undergrad level anyway.
(for those that don't know US nomenclature highschool = last 3 or 4 years before university, elementary school is first 4-6 years after finger-painting 101.)
Yeah, this is why when I hand the kid behind the counter a penny with the bills he has to go get a manager to make change.
(fictionalized to protect the stupid)
kid: $3.76
me: hands $4... then a penny.
kid: I already put in $4... tries to change it... thinks... fails... stares. Hey can you help me with this.
manager: hands me $0.25
And of course now it's getting hard to find managers that can help, because the people who couldn't do the math before, are now the managers of the new crop of kids who can't do simple math.
I have difficulty understanding how one can get out of high school without a basic understanding of algebra (was required for graduation at my school) but there are kids out there who can't do addition or subtraction. How do you get IN to high school without that? I guess the same way you get in to HS without being able to read.
Slashdot Mirror
They should, but they don't, and they know they won't. They buy supplies because they need them and the state won't buy them. :)
Maybe because they spend so much on cell phones.
I can recall there was a day when people didn't all have cell phones, people had these things called pagers, or just home telephones/answering machines.
If someone needed to reach us they'd call, and we'd get back to them.
If something was time critical you had to carry a pager.
(yeah yeah, get off my lawn)
You also constantly see people on the left claim that all corporations are "Evil" and that the free market never works.
The truth is that some of the time the free market works best when left alone, and some of the time it works best when regulated. The trick is in figuring out which is which, and not under-regulating nor over-regulating.
Corporations are pretty much evil by definition, and without soul or conscience.
The free market works great, as long as corporations are banned.
Well, typically people who don't think they should have to follow the rules ruin it for everyone who does. I expect it to be true for everything eventually.
Either nobody will be able to do it profitably, except mega corps who will just steal from each other, or everyone will have to undergo TSAesque scrutiny.
Someone with a really big telescope should swing it over that way and see if there is a BSOD, too bad they don't have a remote power cycle switch; it would save someone from having to drive out and reboot the thing.
Like dipping your car in acid... oh wait.
rofl, good answer!
it a programming thing. :)
Well, any info that is available through a web application should only be available to the person it pertains to, if external access is allowed. i.e. my data would be on my computer, thus my responsibility.
Internal access should be via a more controlled client, you can lock down web clients specific to an application and force certain settings. You make circumventing a punishable offense.
In the military we had (most) machines marked 'Unclassified processing only' meaning you were not to access or store any classified material on that machine, ever. The ones marked as allowed usually specified exactly what was allowed, they were monitored and checked.
Again, as far as disk encryption is concerned, you still are not protecting the data in any case but physical theft of the hardware, and then only if the thief can't get logged in.
From a deniability standpoint it makes some sense, but most of the time it's just a money/time sink. The only time data is actually protected is when the machine is stolen and the thief doesn't have any login credentials. Anyone who gains access to the machine through the windows login will have access to all of the data that user did. (on a windoze box, anyway)
Some of the disk encryption software will require another password to boot or otherwise access the system, but that just means most users will write the info down.
It is ultimately ineffective to ignore how users use the system, when designing a security system.
It sounds like rather than try to figure out HIPPA and other confidentiality issues someone decreed a blanket "solution" as a CYA without understanding any of the issues.
Confidential and patient information should not be in emails.
If an electronic system is used to transmit protected data, it should not be directly accessible to the rest of the network, it should be protected. (i.e. private network)
Encrypting hard drives is useful when sensitive data is supposed to be stored on the machine, and there is a risk of the machine being stolen.
(like a laptop with patient data on it)
The best protection is not to have any sensitive data on most machines; data can be made accessible without being stored locally.
Confidential and patient information should not be in emails.
They need to learn what PHI is and be able to identify it correctly, so it can be protected; you can't protect all data on the whole network, should not even try.
Most people I have seen that use disk encryption don't use it right anyway, "'cause it's too hard to log in every time" and they let windows auto log them in, and it never times out to require a password; or use other login circumvents, like a post-it with the username/password on the laptop.
Seems to be the worst of both worlds.
... A corporation cannot commit a crime and be jailed, for instance.
which is why corporations feel free to commit crimes whenever it suits them.
I saw the word "malvertising" and thought it was redundant. I have always considered ALL advertising to be malware. Including print and TV advertising. They are all an attempt to force me to view their message, which I neither want nor asked for, and block or delay me viewing what I want to see.
But... Didn't that reduce the number of readily available organ donors?
Nah, most drivers swerve to avoid hitting the stainless steel carts. :)
Most of the organ donor jokes I hear are about people who ride motorcycles without helmets.
They call those donorcycles, kind of morbid.
What happens when something goes wrong?
Tubes get clogged... (lack of QoS)
Capsule is damaged before being inserted in tube
Capsule gets stuck...
Breaking fails, sample gets smashed..
Tubes get contaminated.
Critical sample gets stuck, or destroyed....
As someone who worked in a place that had a pneumatic system for transporting blood that they used for decades I can say a few things. :)
Never heard of a clog, it was a two station system. One opening at each end. I supposed the ones that branch would have more clogs/stuckies.
The most likely failure was a blood bag or tube bursting on arrival, usually do to over pressure making capsule go too fast.
That only contaminates the one end, huge mess but the whole tube system isn't contaminated.
Critical samples sometimes get lost broken or whatever when they are handled by people, the pneumatic system really doesn't affect the odds of it happening.
So would say it decreases the odds.
Since the blood bank was on one side of the street and the hospital was on the other, the tube meant the people didn't have to cross the street with samples or bags.
"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is all you need to know about statistics.
This is right up there with "'click on the big blue e' is all you need to know about the internet."
Speaking as both a statistician and a computer scientist, I've seen the statistics-vs.-CS argument play out many times before, and the lack of knowledge on both sides is really striking, but not all that surprising -- both are hard subjects which take a lot of work to master. The lack of mutual respect is both infuriating and pathetic, and there's no excuse for it.
Statistics are important; it is highly unlikely that anyone with an MBA will know how or why, but they want them. At least not as they relate to CS.
So in most cases the person you replied to is essentially correct. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
But I know a lot of research depends on people being able to accurately utilize statistical methods.
I also understand that people who are good at it are rare.
Firstly, I smoked for 12 years, I quit more than 10 years ago.
Smoking is not a disease, there is no bacteria or virus to combat, only the desire of the smoker to smoke.
What ever the drug they want people to take IT IS NOT A VACCINE, it's a drug; they just want to call it a vaccine to sound cooler.
The only way to get someone to quit, is to get them to WANT to quit.
If they don't want to quit, honestly, no number of patches or drugs or brainwashing will make them.
(well maybe the brainwashing)
The guilty know they are guilty and the ones that walk on technicalities do so because they plan for the eventuality, or pay someone to.
and your response
But we don't KNOW they are guilty. And evidence which may lead to one person being guilty may be misleading
I'm not talking about lawyerspeak guilt or not guilt, I'm talking about actual guilt. The facts, or lack thereof, in possession of the court isn't meaningful. The guilty typically know they are guilty, maybe they don't think it's wrong, but that's another discussion. They know they broke the law, if they choose to plan in advance for the possibility that they will get caught they can work the system in their favor from the very beginning. In fact I seem to recall a story about (fiction?) a certain crime being committed with the criminal purposely getting caught and charged with evidence being rather easily found then being barred through some technicality, and thus the person walked and could not be charged again if/when later evidence was found. Ingenious if it can actually be pulled off, but not all that likely.
I knew if I kept posting I too would eventually encounter the (-1 disagree) moderation. I thought I should post a trollish comment, so that my being modded a troll wouldn't be wasted. Besides the retard (or whatever the PC phrase is now) might still have mod points and come back with a second helping of stupid. eh, only three days still right? for mod points.
Ok now I'm going to have to drink myself into unconsciousness to get that pun out of my head...
Thanks a lot
oh wait, I was going to do that anyway.
There is a huge difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the actions of "the law". If their action was sufficient in trying to contact them, then your action should have been sufficient in mailing the correct information in. The judge probably knew that and was trying to cover his a$$, if you had appealed he could have been in trouble.
... unless you live in California, were all rulings are in favor of whatever makes the state money. :)
The guilty know they are guilty and the ones that walk on technicalities do so because they plan for the eventuality, or pay someone to. The innocent don't have the luxury of planning in advance to beat the wrap for a crime they didn't commit. So the system is broken both in that the guilty walk, and that the innocent do not.
I don't know about you guys, but here in the US it seems like we are sliding in the direction of high school being more like elementary school, and the first couple of years of university being what high school used to be. Parents blame the schools if their kids are stupid, and insist everyone "who tries" gets a 4.0 GPA, so nobody's feeling get hurt.
<sarcasm> Since, as everyone knows 3.5 GPA might as well be an 'F' the whole GPA thing is meaningless.</sarcasm>
Even in university, GPA is far more important than actual learning, at undergrad level anyway.
(for those that don't know US nomenclature highschool = last 3 or 4 years before university, elementary school is first 4-6 years after finger-painting 101.)
Yeah, this is why when I hand the kid behind the counter a penny with the bills he has to go get a manager to make change. (fictionalized to protect the stupid) kid: $3.76 me: hands $4... then a penny. kid: I already put in $4 ... tries to change it ... thinks ... fails ... stares. Hey can you help me with this.
manager: hands me $0.25
And of course now it's getting hard to find managers that can help, because the people who couldn't do the math before, are now the managers of the new crop of kids who can't do simple math.
I have difficulty understanding how one can get out of high school without a basic understanding of algebra (was required for graduation at my school) but there are kids out there who can't do addition or subtraction. How do you get IN to high school without that? I guess the same way you get in to HS without being able to read.
cf. Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End