Ike was talking about the American defense industry and how congress fed it. JFK was talking about worldwide communism. Arguably the latter was intended to be a "a new world government", but given that we won the Cold War two decades ago, I doubt that's what the GGP was talking about.
Human trafficking and human smuggling are two different things. By definition, the latter is about people who want to go, and who are not being tricked into prostitution or something. Along the US-Mexican border the human smugglers are called coyotes. It's a standard service that's available.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
The "threat" is that these talks will be delayed by a month, while the diplomats put on their "we're so outraged" show, and a few script kiddies hit Australia. These revelations are about as surprising as finding out that the sun rises in the east. It's become comical. Brazil express outrage, oops, Brazil is doing it too (and it's hardly limited to Brazil). The diplomatic protests are just kabuki.
What outrages me is the domestic spying, including loopholes like comm between two US parties being routed outside the country, or country A spying on the citizens of country B, then reporting it to B (but A did no domestic surveillance!). I don't give a damn about Angela Merkel's privacy, or the head of any other country. I do care about the privacy of the average American, and think citizens of other countries should be concerned about their privacy, especially from their own government.
I'm curious why Snowden is doing this now. The domestic revelations were very important, and I thank him for them. These foreign revelations are another story. I doubt they do any harm, or at least no more than finding out that the sun rises in the east. But why? Does he think these are a big deal? Does he just want revenge? Or (one to be hoped for) he just wants to keep making noise about the NSA until something is done about the domestic situation. Inquiring minds want to know.
the more shocking aspect is how much collusion there is with the espionage, not the espionage itself. It's as if there is no separation between the US, UK, Australia, Italy, and Germany intelligence agencies.
WWII, Cold War, NATO, ANZUS, etc. ECHELON was built in the early 60's, and public knowledge by the late 80's.
People have been telling about a group trying to create a new world government right under your noses... Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower said the same thing.
Yeah, entrapment depends on the details of how you do it. I don't know what the laws are regarding underage pixels, but in the US the minimum is probably life.
One legitimate use though would be to find out who is interest in such things, and use that as a basis to get a warrant (I'm old-fashioned about those things). Then you could track them to actual crimes.
Of course this overlooks that the 4th Amendment is now toilet paper, you can get everything from the NSA, and one accidental click on a site like that is something that grandstanding prosecutors take as equivalent to being a distribution kingpin. But as a theoretical exercise in the legitimate pursuit of justice, I stand by what I said.
Forgot to add: if your beef is Obamacare, your argument is nonsense because you get insurance from a company, not the government. There are also a number of other countries with universal healthcare, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, that provide it via insurance companies.
Obviously one anecdote settles the entire issue. BTW, how would you have fared if you didn't have insurance? In the US it's common, but is never a problem for Canadians.
You have to realize that you don't have a "contract" with the gov't like you do with the insurance company. The insurance company you can sue if they don't do what they're supposed to.
With an actual contract on your side, how could you possibly loose? That's iron clad protection in our system of justice.
Ignore the fact that you may never have actually signed a contract if, like most people, you get it through your employer, and that your employer doesn't give a damn, and that even if you signed a contract it's extremely unlikely you understood it all (your perusal vs, an army of lawyers working for the insurance company), and that all health insurance contracts are full of loopholes for the benefit of the insurance company (ever hear of recission?), and that the insurance companies have armies of lawyers whose sole job is demonstrating that the way the insurance company screwed you is both legal and in accordance with the contract.
In what jurisdiction was it a joke? How was it a joke? What should have been done?
I am a surgeon and I can say that the amount of a potential lawsuit is not the incentive to cover my ass. It's the act of being sued.
Why?
Especially when the legal system is rigged against the docs.
How so?
And my profession is ability to practice is at stake.
Really? There seem to be plenty of surgeons, and doctors in general, for an endangered profession. If you think there is a real shortage, consider pushing for an increase in the arbitrarily restricted number of residency slots.
P.S. I think most people would be willing to accept serious changes in the way malpractice is handled if doctors were more willing to police their own. Revoke the licenses of the truly incompetent doctors (and don't revoke them then issue a stay - which means it's supposedly going to be revoked but they can practice anyway). Institute truly systematic procedures for evaluating why a mistake happened (even if it doesn't rise to the level of malpractice), and actually act on those findings. That's the way really quality control is achieved in every other industry. Learn from operations research - everybody else has been doing it since it proved itself in WWII.
it is reasonable to infer that the number of non-reported cases has been under-reported as a result of pressure from device manufacturers
No, not with a 3% under or non-reporting rate. Absent specific reasons to be skeptical, it's only reasonable to suggest it might be a problem, and that it warrants investigation. However some posters here are playing armchair cynic and jumping to conclusions - that's my only point. And no, I don't own any stock in Intuitive Surgical.
As for the ruling you cited, it's absurd. However, it applies to the CPSC, which only handles consumer products. It doesn't apply to the FDA (or at least not yet).
I am a surgeon. There is NO autonomous robotic system.
You're right, but we'll fix that, just as we're fixing it with aircraft now, and working towards it with cars. Real engineers find it abhorrent to let wetware control anything - it's never given us anything but trouble.
What kind of training do surgeons undergo for using the da Vinci? That could be a big factor.
Da Vinci aside, what kind of training do surgeons undergo for regular laproscopic surgery? I would think/hope that people coming out of their residencies learned it from the get go, but what about surgeons who've been practicing for 10 or 20 years? I understand that regular laproscopic can be tough, if for no other reasons than that the tools operate backwards, and visibility can be an issue (those are some of the things the da Vinci is supposed to fix). Wish I could find the link, but it was reported that laproscopic worked better than traditional open, but only if the surgeon had good training and lots of experience.
Perhaps we could afford our medicine if we just paid for medicine without the added cost of the insurance and finance and legal lobby that have infiltrated our every transactional need.
Texas implemented tort "reform" for malpractice and it did nothing to control medical costs. Overhead and bureaucracy is another matter - it's well documented that our costs are several times higher than for countries with civilized and efficient systems, and it show in our costs. We're also the only developed country that relies on for-profit insurance companies for basic medical insurance. When Switzerland instituted universal health care about 20 years ago (about the last developed country to do so, aside from the US) they basically forced for-profit insurers out of the business, and I'd hardly call Switzerland an anti-business country.
Slashdot Mirror
Ike was talking about the American defense industry and how congress fed it. JFK was talking about worldwide communism. Arguably the latter was intended to be a "a new world government", but given that we won the Cold War two decades ago, I doubt that's what the GGP was talking about.
Didn't realize that - thanks.
Last time I checked, Apple was not a telecom company.
Considering bonobos' social rituals, I might want to become one myself.
Human trafficking and human smuggling are two different things. By definition, the latter is about people who want to go, and who are not being tricked into prostitution or something. Along the US-Mexican border the human smugglers are called coyotes. It's a standard service that's available.
There is no heroic position in providing information that *will* help terrorists.
Any terrorist who was too dumb to realize that this sort of spying was probably going on, is too dumb to worry about.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
The "threat" is that these talks will be delayed by a month, while the diplomats put on their "we're so outraged" show, and a few script kiddies hit Australia. These revelations are about as surprising as finding out that the sun rises in the east. It's become comical. Brazil express outrage, oops, Brazil is doing it too (and it's hardly limited to Brazil). The diplomatic protests are just kabuki.
What outrages me is the domestic spying, including loopholes like comm between two US parties being routed outside the country, or country A spying on the citizens of country B, then reporting it to B (but A did no domestic surveillance!). I don't give a damn about Angela Merkel's privacy, or the head of any other country. I do care about the privacy of the average American, and think citizens of other countries should be concerned about their privacy, especially from their own government.
I'm curious why Snowden is doing this now. The domestic revelations were very important, and I thank him for them. These foreign revelations are another story. I doubt they do any harm, or at least no more than finding out that the sun rises in the east. But why? Does he think these are a big deal? Does he just want revenge? Or (one to be hoped for) he just wants to keep making noise about the NSA until something is done about the domestic situation. Inquiring minds want to know.
Consider it a stress test. Maybe Australia should even pay them for it.
Unlike human trafficking, people smuggling is characterized by the consent between customer and smuggler - a contractual agreement that typically terminates upon arrival in the destination location.
the more shocking aspect is how much collusion there is with the espionage, not the espionage itself. It's as if there is no separation between the US, UK, Australia, Italy, and Germany intelligence agencies.
WWII, Cold War, NATO, ANZUS, etc. ECHELON was built in the early 60's, and public knowledge by the late 80's.
People have been telling about a group trying to create a new world government right under your noses ... Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower said the same thing.
Cite or quotation?
What are Slashdotters?
Yeah, entrapment depends on the details of how you do it. I don't know what the laws are regarding underage pixels, but in the US the minimum is probably life.
One legitimate use though would be to find out who is interest in such things, and use that as a basis to get a warrant (I'm old-fashioned about those things). Then you could track them to actual crimes.
Of course this overlooks that the 4th Amendment is now toilet paper, you can get everything from the NSA, and one accidental click on a site like that is something that grandstanding prosecutors take as equivalent to being a distribution kingpin. But as a theoretical exercise in the legitimate pursuit of justice, I stand by what I said.
Instead the cops are telling them, "Let us do our job, go away."
Probably because too many cops got snared. Personally I want a list of the politico visitors.
Forgot to add: if your beef is Obamacare, your argument is nonsense because you get insurance from a company, not the government. There are also a number of other countries with universal healthcare, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, that provide it via insurance companies.
Obviously one anecdote settles the entire issue. BTW, how would you have fared if you didn't have insurance? In the US it's common, but is never a problem for Canadians.
You have to realize that you don't have a "contract" with the gov't like you do with the insurance company. The insurance company you can sue if they don't do what they're supposed to.
With an actual contract on your side, how could you possibly loose? That's iron clad protection in our system of justice.
Ignore the fact that you may never have actually signed a contract if, like most people, you get it through your employer, and that your employer doesn't give a damn, and that even if you signed a contract it's extremely unlikely you understood it all (your perusal vs, an army of lawyers working for the insurance company), and that all health insurance contracts are full of loopholes for the benefit of the insurance company (ever hear of recission?), and that the insurance companies have armies of lawyers whose sole job is demonstrating that the way the insurance company screwed you is both legal and in accordance with the contract.
Which software engineer? I'm an electrical engineer.
Gov't's don't care about your additional weeks of laying in bed recovering, they only care about how cheap it is for them.
And insurance companies are different?
if you want to learn a new procedure or simply update your skills, there are dozens of programs to do exactly that
That's good. Are surgeons required to take such a program to perform laproscopic surgery.
That's because tort reform was a JOKE.
In what jurisdiction was it a joke? How was it a joke? What should have been done?
I am a surgeon and I can say that the amount of a potential lawsuit is not the incentive to cover my ass. It's the act of being sued.
Why?
Especially when the legal system is rigged against the docs.
How so?
And my profession is ability to practice is at stake.
Really? There seem to be plenty of surgeons, and doctors in general, for an endangered profession. If you think there is a real shortage, consider pushing for an increase in the arbitrarily restricted number of residency slots.
P.S. I think most people would be willing to accept serious changes in the way malpractice is handled if doctors were more willing to police their own. Revoke the licenses of the truly incompetent doctors (and don't revoke them then issue a stay - which means it's supposedly going to be revoked but they can practice anyway). Institute truly systematic procedures for evaluating why a mistake happened (even if it doesn't rise to the level of malpractice), and actually act on those findings. That's the way really quality control is achieved in every other industry. Learn from operations research - everybody else has been doing it since it proved itself in WWII.
it merely moved the malpractice lawsuits to federal courts
That's your strawman. The cited costs of malpractice suits includes both state and federal cases. With some people it's so entrenched in their minds that "tort reform" is a an important way to reduce costs, that they refuse to accept the reality that it's not. "Including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of all US malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending."
it is reasonable to infer that the number of non-reported cases has been under-reported as a result of pressure from device manufacturers
No, not with a 3% under or non-reporting rate. Absent specific reasons to be skeptical, it's only reasonable to suggest it might be a problem, and that it warrants investigation. However some posters here are playing armchair cynic and jumping to conclusions - that's my only point. And no, I don't own any stock in Intuitive Surgical.
As for the ruling you cited, it's absurd. However, it applies to the CPSC, which only handles consumer products. It doesn't apply to the FDA (or at least not yet).
I am a surgeon. There is NO autonomous robotic system.
You're right, but we'll fix that, just as we're fixing it with aircraft now, and working towards it with cars. Real engineers find it abhorrent to let wetware control anything - it's never given us anything but trouble.
What kind of training do surgeons undergo for using the da Vinci? That could be a big factor.
Da Vinci aside, what kind of training do surgeons undergo for regular laproscopic surgery? I would think/hope that people coming out of their residencies learned it from the get go, but what about surgeons who've been practicing for 10 or 20 years? I understand that regular laproscopic can be tough, if for no other reasons than that the tools operate backwards, and visibility can be an issue (those are some of the things the da Vinci is supposed to fix). Wish I could find the link, but it was reported that laproscopic worked better than traditional open, but only if the surgeon had good training and lots of experience.
Perhaps we could afford our medicine if we just paid for medicine without the added cost of the insurance and finance and legal lobby that have infiltrated our every transactional need.
Texas implemented tort "reform" for malpractice and it did nothing to control medical costs. Overhead and bureaucracy is another matter - it's well documented that our costs are several times higher than for countries with civilized and efficient systems, and it show in our costs. We're also the only developed country that relies on for-profit insurance companies for basic medical insurance. When Switzerland instituted universal health care about 20 years ago (about the last developed country to do so, aside from the US) they basically forced for-profit insurers out of the business, and I'd hardly call Switzerland an anti-business country.