Germany has "strict" privacy laws, but they largely apply to organizations that don't pose a big threat to privacy in the first place. Police, courts, financial institutions, businesses, tax authorities, secret service, "state police", health insurers, and employers can have a field day with your private data in Germany.
The US has strict privacy laws too (more specifically the Bill of Rights), and those laws apply to everyone. The problem in the US isn't the absence of such laws, it's the absence of oversight and enforcement of those laws.
Strong passwords are not mandatory because it's the responsibility of the user to read the instructions and secure the device. If they don't, they have no reason to complain. It was their choice to disregard the instructions.
So everyone should be an expert on everything they use? That's bullshit. I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a design flaw, but it's definitely a part of the design that could be improved and still be useful by people with no computer expertise. For example, the particular router I have has no default password. It has a random password that is printed on a label on the side of the device. Users have the option of changing it, and can reset the password using the printed password, but no default password is necessary and the cost is only a minor inconvenience that you have to take an extra 30 seconds to read the label and type in the password when you're setting it up. Of course, the hole there is if somebody has physical access, but I think it can be assumed that if somebody has physical access you have bigger problems, and physical access is still a problem with routers with default passwords because then you can just reset them and use the default password.
When more than a small minority of police start behaving like criminals, I'l worry about your concerns.
A small minority of police is still enough to really screw up a lot of people's lives. Cops are humans and like any other profession, some will be good, some will be bad, and some will be in the spectrum in-between. However, while an asshole waiter has the power to mess up your dinner, an asshole cop has the power to mess up your life.
the surprise is that they built a town there in the first place. now we're supposed to spend our tax dollars on this *emergency*
First off, lava hasn't flowed there since humans have lived there (at least thousands of years), but we shouldn't spend tax dollars on disaster assistance there? What about Miami, where hurricanes hit regularly, or areas of CA where huge earthquakes hit regularly? What about Portland, where a volcano erupted a few decades ago? Should we not spend tax dollars for disaster relief those places? And I suppose if a tsunami hits any coastal city or town that we shouldn't spend tax dollars helping them out?
It's poorly worded, but if you read TFA carefully, they did use the treatment in live mice. They surgically removed the tumor, then put the stem cells at the site of where the tumor had been and they killed the remaining cancer cells. The article also contradicts itself in first saying that the next step is testing on humans, and later saying the next step is testing a number of different techniques with it on mice with glioblastoma. Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a paywall.
Most people won't have any technical knowhow to understand why their device bricked, just that it bricked. Bricked devices will be blamed on the device manufacturer not the chip supplier.
And if the devices brick immediately following a Windows update, then Windows will be blamed for it, "it was working just fine until Windows updated!" In part, rightly so...MS should not include an update that bricks their customers' devices.
If he can show a working prototype, and show that it works, he can get a patent. That seems to be what he's aiming at here.
No, you can't. One of the key ingredients in a patent application is that you have to describe how to make your invention, and it has to be described clearly and with enough information that somebody else skilled in the art would be able to reproduce it. If his patent application doesn't include that, then it doesn't matter if he has a working prototype or not.
The FBI is a federal law enforcement agency. Their mission is to enforce federal law.
Not anymore. They changed it recently. The first part is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foresight intelligence threats. The criminal justice part comes second.
So what kind of people are they going to get? Any twenty-something who hasn't illegally downloaded music or movies probably fits into one of the following categories: 1. Computer illiterate. 2. Spoiled brat because their parents kept their iTunes gift card loaded all the way through high school and college. 3. Too poor growing up to have a computer and went straight into the military. 4. Able to defeat a polygraph.
Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The 2nd specifies that it applies to a well regulated militia, so it doesn't actually apply literally to gun control, the question is if control violates the intent of it. The 1st, on the other hand, has the qualification of "congress shall make no law..." So any law granting authority for NSLs violates the constitution. In same cases the argument is made that something other than congress passing a law violates the intent of the 1st, but in the case of NSLs, the FBI uses various laws passed by congress as it's rationale, therefore any portions of those laws that do grant the FBI authority for NSLs is unconstitutional whether the 1st is taken literally or on its intent. Of course, that just applies to the disclosure portion. The purpose of the NSL is to force a search and/or seizure without a warrant, which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Nowhere in the text of either the 1st or 4th amendments does it specify exceptions for suspected terrorism. This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.
According to the reward committee, Obama's achievement was not being Bush.
No, his biggest achievement was defeating John McCain (and Romney but that didn't happen until after the peace prize was awarded). Although Obama has proven that he doesn't give a shit about peace, McCain would have made Obama look like Ghandi by comparison. At minimum, we'd be in a full-scale war with Iran. So, by winning the elections, he really did contribute to world peace significantly, not that he even comes close to deserving a peace prize, but it really is his biggest achievement in contributing to the good of the US and the world.
but the duration driving necessary by a fleet of garbage trucks isn't there unless you have a bunch of "tender" vehicles running them fresh batteries all day long.
Except garbage trucks don't actually drive that many miles. Time, yes, miles, no. That makes them perfect candidates for electric. As far as the "tender" vehicles, it mentions having an onboard turbine so this is essentially a plug-in hybrid, where the key is efficiency.
When I worked for a major medical practice software company we spent a lot of time insuring HL7 support for hospitals...
It was the point of HL7, but is a fail in a lot of circumstances. Saying "HL7" is a bit like saying "XML" combined with "TCP." That's great to be able to exchange XML over TCP, but without all the details being included it doesn't mean any two systems that can exchange XML over TCP and have it be meaningful.
Most EMR systems are flaming piles of crap, especially the big players like Epic. That's because they are designed to satisfy bureaucrats who have a checklist of features. Unfortunately, being usable is not a checklist feature. It is not in Epic's best interest to make their system usable, because the less usable it is the more money they make on "implementation," which really means making stuff sorta kinda work the way it should have in the first place, but still be a PITA for the users.
I wonder if this will help me 3D print a drone? I was originally going to use Raspberry Pi, but might use a graphene based product instead. I would like to start a delivery service which accepts bitcoin as payment for Apple products.
I think you could do it, but you'll need to use nanotechnology.
What is so wrong with a project failing? I really don't get it. This is a site to donate money for people to do a cool project. If none of the projects are allowed to fail, it would only be really conservative projects.
If you aren't willing to take that risk, don't fund a kickstarter. It is not a shopping site.
They are not saying a project must not fail. They are laying out specific requirements for when a project does fail, which essentially amounts to saying project creators must make their best effort to succeed, and if it fails then explaining to backers why it failed, how the funds were used, and refunding any remaining funds if there are any. It seems pretty reasonable to me.
Pay the geniuses they want to import what they're worth
One of the best suggestions I've read for fixing the H-1B fiasco is that H-1B workers should have a minimum salary of $100k/yr. The whole idea of H-1B is that you can't find a non-foreign worker that has the skills you need. If somebody is so specialized and/or so good at a particular skill, then they should be worth more than $100k/yr. If not, then the claim of local scarcity is bullshit.
If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
And how many shares would you realistically have to buy of Apple in order to have an influence on company direction? Do you think that's applicable to anyone reading this?
While I'm sure you're much more of an expert then the researches who actually conducted this study, they do specify that the strains present are from livestock based on genetic testing. The introduction in the paper specifies why those strains are livestock-associated and what that means.
Here's the link, since you seem to have missed it even though the link is the first two words of the summary: http://oem.bmj.com/content/ear...
So it seems to me that responsible researchers would go a bit farther before reporting: Like by doing genetic testing on the strains of bug in the various workers and the livestock, and running models on the results to try to identfy whether the bugs are from the herd or the workers.
So it seems to me that a responsible commenter would go a bit farther before accusing the researchers of not thinking of something that they in fact did think of and went to great effort to do genetic testing on hundreds of samples for. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to at least RTFA (read the fucking abstract).
I'm actually pretty impressed that the summary linked to the actual paper and not just the journalist article. I'm not impressed that you didn't at least read the abstract before commenting.
I bet Apple does though. The last thing they want is "iPad" becoming so generic they lose the trademark, like hoover or cellophane or escalator or sellotape.
You mean like "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid"? Oh wait, those are still under trademark, aren't they?
Slashdot Mirror
Germany has "strict" privacy laws, but they largely apply to organizations that don't pose a big threat to privacy in the first place. Police, courts, financial institutions, businesses, tax authorities, secret service, "state police", health insurers, and employers can have a field day with your private data in Germany.
The US has strict privacy laws too (more specifically the Bill of Rights), and those laws apply to everyone. The problem in the US isn't the absence of such laws, it's the absence of oversight and enforcement of those laws.
Strong passwords are not mandatory because it's the responsibility of the user to read the instructions and secure the device. If they don't, they have no reason to complain. It was their choice to disregard the instructions.
So everyone should be an expert on everything they use? That's bullshit. I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a design flaw, but it's definitely a part of the design that could be improved and still be useful by people with no computer expertise. For example, the particular router I have has no default password. It has a random password that is printed on a label on the side of the device. Users have the option of changing it, and can reset the password using the printed password, but no default password is necessary and the cost is only a minor inconvenience that you have to take an extra 30 seconds to read the label and type in the password when you're setting it up. Of course, the hole there is if somebody has physical access, but I think it can be assumed that if somebody has physical access you have bigger problems, and physical access is still a problem with routers with default passwords because then you can just reset them and use the default password.
Except Macs routinely are first to fall at the Pwn to Own competitions, so no, that's bullshit.
Which isn't necessarily relevant to how big of a problem it is for real-life users.
And the vaccine contains GMOs!
And more importantly, how many of them give a damn?
I'm an American citizen too, and I give a...oh look, the American Idol Finale is on!
When more than a small minority of police start behaving like criminals, I'l worry about your concerns.
A small minority of police is still enough to really screw up a lot of people's lives. Cops are humans and like any other profession, some will be good, some will be bad, and some will be in the spectrum in-between. However, while an asshole waiter has the power to mess up your dinner, an asshole cop has the power to mess up your life.
the surprise is that they built a town there in the first place. now we're supposed to spend our tax dollars on this *emergency*
First off, lava hasn't flowed there since humans have lived there (at least thousands of years), but we shouldn't spend tax dollars on disaster assistance there? What about Miami, where hurricanes hit regularly, or areas of CA where huge earthquakes hit regularly? What about Portland, where a volcano erupted a few decades ago? Should we not spend tax dollars for disaster relief those places? And I suppose if a tsunami hits any coastal city or town that we shouldn't spend tax dollars helping them out?
It's poorly worded, but if you read TFA carefully, they did use the treatment in live mice. They surgically removed the tumor, then put the stem cells at the site of where the tumor had been and they killed the remaining cancer cells. The article also contradicts itself in first saying that the next step is testing on humans, and later saying the next step is testing a number of different techniques with it on mice with glioblastoma. Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a paywall.
Most people won't have any technical knowhow to understand why their device bricked, just that it bricked. Bricked devices will be blamed on the device manufacturer not the chip supplier.
And if the devices brick immediately following a Windows update, then Windows will be blamed for it, "it was working just fine until Windows updated!" In part, rightly so...MS should not include an update that bricks their customers' devices.
If he can show a working prototype, and show that it works, he can get a patent. That seems to be what he's aiming at here.
No, you can't. One of the key ingredients in a patent application is that you have to describe how to make your invention, and it has to be described clearly and with enough information that somebody else skilled in the art would be able to reproduce it. If his patent application doesn't include that, then it doesn't matter if he has a working prototype or not.
The FBI is a federal law enforcement agency. Their mission is to enforce federal law.
Not anymore. They changed it recently. The first part is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foresight intelligence threats. The criminal justice part comes second.
So what kind of people are they going to get? Any twenty-something who hasn't illegally downloaded music or movies probably fits into one of the following categories:
1. Computer illiterate.
2. Spoiled brat because their parents kept their iTunes gift card loaded all the way through high school and college.
3. Too poor growing up to have a computer and went straight into the military.
4. Able to defeat a polygraph.
Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The 2nd specifies that it applies to a well regulated militia, so it doesn't actually apply literally to gun control, the question is if control violates the intent of it. The 1st, on the other hand, has the qualification of "congress shall make no law..." So any law granting authority for NSLs violates the constitution. In same cases the argument is made that something other than congress passing a law violates the intent of the 1st, but in the case of NSLs, the FBI uses various laws passed by congress as it's rationale, therefore any portions of those laws that do grant the FBI authority for NSLs is unconstitutional whether the 1st is taken literally or on its intent. Of course, that just applies to the disclosure portion. The purpose of the NSL is to force a search and/or seizure without a warrant, which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Nowhere in the text of either the 1st or 4th amendments does it specify exceptions for suspected terrorism. This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.
According to the reward committee, Obama's achievement was not being Bush.
No, his biggest achievement was defeating John McCain (and Romney but that didn't happen until after the peace prize was awarded). Although Obama has proven that he doesn't give a shit about peace, McCain would have made Obama look like Ghandi by comparison. At minimum, we'd be in a full-scale war with Iran. So, by winning the elections, he really did contribute to world peace significantly, not that he even comes close to deserving a peace prize, but it really is his biggest achievement in contributing to the good of the US and the world.
but the duration driving necessary by a fleet of garbage trucks isn't there unless you have a bunch of "tender" vehicles running them fresh batteries all day long.
Except garbage trucks don't actually drive that many miles. Time, yes, miles, no. That makes them perfect candidates for electric. As far as the "tender" vehicles, it mentions having an onboard turbine so this is essentially a plug-in hybrid, where the key is efficiency.
I thought this was the point of HL7?
When I worked for a major medical practice software company we spent a lot of time insuring HL7 support for hospitals...
It was the point of HL7, but is a fail in a lot of circumstances. Saying "HL7" is a bit like saying "XML" combined with "TCP." That's great to be able to exchange XML over TCP, but without all the details being included it doesn't mean any two systems that can exchange XML over TCP and have it be meaningful.
Most EMR systems are flaming piles of crap, especially the big players like Epic. That's because they are designed to satisfy bureaucrats who have a checklist of features. Unfortunately, being usable is not a checklist feature. It is not in Epic's best interest to make their system usable, because the less usable it is the more money they make on "implementation," which really means making stuff sorta kinda work the way it should have in the first place, but still be a PITA for the users.
I wonder if this will help me 3D print a drone? I was originally going to use Raspberry Pi, but might use a graphene based product instead. I would like to start a delivery service which accepts bitcoin as payment for Apple products.
I think you could do it, but you'll need to use nanotechnology.
What is so wrong with a project failing? I really don't get it. This is a site to donate money for people to do a cool project. If none of the projects are allowed to fail, it would only be really conservative projects.
If you aren't willing to take that risk, don't fund a kickstarter. It is not a shopping site.
They are not saying a project must not fail. They are laying out specific requirements for when a project does fail, which essentially amounts to saying project creators must make their best effort to succeed, and if it fails then explaining to backers why it failed, how the funds were used, and refunding any remaining funds if there are any. It seems pretty reasonable to me.
Pay the geniuses they want to import what they're worth
One of the best suggestions I've read for fixing the H-1B fiasco is that H-1B workers should have a minimum salary of $100k/yr. The whole idea of H-1B is that you can't find a non-foreign worker that has the skills you need. If somebody is so specialized and/or so good at a particular skill, then they should be worth more than $100k/yr. If not, then the claim of local scarcity is bullshit.
If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
And how many shares would you realistically have to buy of Apple in order to have an influence on company direction? Do you think that's applicable to anyone reading this?
I take it you've never actually used a 3-D printer?
I'm not claiming they didn't simply photoshop the images
I am! In fact, I'd be willing to be dollars to pesos they did not use Photoshop on the images. I'm sure they used Aperture.
RTFP (read the fucking paper).
While I'm sure you're much more of an expert then the researches who actually conducted this study, they do specify that the strains present are from livestock based on genetic testing. The introduction in the paper specifies why those strains are livestock-associated and what that means.
Here's the link, since you seem to have missed it even though the link is the first two words of the summary:
http://oem.bmj.com/content/ear...
So it seems to me that responsible researchers would go a bit farther before reporting: Like by doing genetic testing on the strains of bug in the various workers and the livestock, and running models on the results to try to identfy whether the bugs are from the herd or the workers.
So it seems to me that a responsible commenter would go a bit farther before accusing the researchers of not thinking of something that they in fact did think of and went to great effort to do genetic testing on hundreds of samples for. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to at least RTFA (read the fucking abstract).
I'm actually pretty impressed that the summary linked to the actual paper and not just the journalist article. I'm not impressed that you didn't at least read the abstract before commenting.
Hey, bribery is just part of unfettered capitalism, isn't it?
Except bribery does not exist in capitalist US. Instead, we call it "lobbying" and "campaign contributions."
RT is directly controlled by the Russian govern.. well, Putin. I would say that makes Fox News slightly more trustworthy.
In US, Fox News controls the government.
I bet Apple does though. The last thing they want is "iPad" becoming so generic they lose the trademark, like hoover or cellophane or escalator or sellotape.
You mean like "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid"? Oh wait, those are still under trademark, aren't they?