Doesn' HIPPA only apply to a patient's doctors and medical providers? I know some firefighters have some overlap with EMT, so maybe they would count for that reason?
You know, because the person who was killed is SUPER concerned about postmortem privacy.
Why is it all brains evaporate when it comes to liability? Take reasonable steps and be reasonably safe. You can't avoid all lawsuits. Accidents happen.
I swear, paranoia that the lawyers are going to get you has cost this nation almost as much as paranoia over terrorists.
I think the timing was also right. That was in 92 before the news really went full tilt with selling tickets to partisan boxing. It also helped that the communist "threat" had just collapsed. The powers that be were preoccupied with figuring out who we should be afraid of next to justify more defense spending, and anyway this sent some money their way.
I was on antidepressants when I was depressed as a teenager and they helped. I think antidepressants shouldn't have the negative connotation that they do have. Big pharma pushing them for everything is despicable, but they have their uses. I'm glad I didn't commit suicide, I think the vast majority of people who do commit suicide have no good reason to, and should be stopped.
That said, I agree with GP. The government should have no say in whether or not I can end my life, be it euthanasia or depression, if I'm somehow being logical about it. I can't blame family members and/or friends from stopping people from killing themselves, but it's still a right.
I would honestly suggest trying it as a form of protest if you've got some money and time you're willing to part with. Though, how are you going to know if it does get stolen* by the NSA?
("stolen" here using the MPAA/RIAA definition of stealing.)
I'm confused as to why they did this specifically though. I thought it was a blog to explain law as it relates to open source. Why did they need private collaboration to function?
If it's a form of protest, I understand that. The wiki page mentions Jones intended to shut it down a few years ago, but got pulled back in, using it as an excuse to quit when she intended to anyway, that's also good. But this sounds like there's more to it.
Rather than quibbling about smart acting stupid or genuine stupid, how about we just agree it's bad. The effect is still the same: giving government agencies power without oversight will lead to bad times for the citizens whether it's bumbling well-meaning idiots or sinister SPECTRE agents pulling the strings.
The reps who passed this should be tossed out either way. The law needs to go either way.
They're the same thing but a magsail has way more power.
Again, I've only skimmed the wiki article, but it sounds like this can push other objects away, while a magsail can only move the cargo that it is on. In other words, if you had a sattelite and a bit of junk was moving towards it to destroy it, this thing could push the junk away while the magsail could only move the satellite out of the way of the junk. So, no, it doesn't sound at all like the same thing.
And all technology was nothing but an idea at one time.
Well yes, but this thing is MORE THAN AN IDEA RIGHT NOW, while the sail doesn't appear to be.
You appear to be judging a book by it's cover. Or more appropriately, rejecting wisdom because it comes from an 80's teen movie. Or 90's.
There are probably some valuable lessons to be learned from anything. I'm going to now watch porn. To prove my thesis that there are important lessons everywhere. I'll report back when I get some results.
The wiki article says those are merely proposed. This sounds closer to being a real thing. Why would they prefer a purely fictional technology?
Also, TFA mentions
According to an MIT study [PDF], when EMFF is perfected, it will have a wide number of applications including interferometers, space telescopes where each satellite carries a section of mirror, generating artificial gravity, creating a magnet shield against solar radiation storms, and clearing space debris by using their spin to toss the debris into a safer trajectory.
It sounds like this is useful for pushing stuff around in space at near distances, including non-autonomous propulsion such as junk, while magsails are (in theory) useful for moving only the cargo around over large distances, at slower accelerations.
The people in charge of making such unpopular decisions are not the ones paying the price though. Much like how many of the people who pull the strings to decide the good people of some other country NEED a war aren't going to the front line.
The people at biggamecorp who decide that the end to the game will require an additional $20, and you will need to be online at all times with ads popping up in-game, who make the testers work 60 hours a week for no overtime and then are fired immediately upon launch AREN'T the ones being threatened here. Don't try to rationalize it.
To extend the metaphor, the trolls who make death threats are like the terrorists. When is the last time you heard of a terrorist trying to attack a US politician who actually had any power? That's too hard. They're both taking their rage out on innocent people because they are too lazy, cowardly, and/or stupid to do anything against the real "bad guys" they claim to be hating.
The article points out that some combinations of tropomyosins are needed in the embryo, but are dispensable afterward. You needed this particular combination of tropomyosins targeted before birth, but your heart doesn't need it now. Cancer cells often revert back to a more primordial state mimicking development. So the strategy seems to be targeting that since only the cancer should be using it.
The specific combination will not be important to all cancers, but it's possible that the STRATEGY of targeting individual tropomyosin combinations might be broadly applicable. They used the structure of the tropomyosins in question to identify drugs that would block it specifically. That could be used in other combinations. You get a sample of the tumor, find it's using combination X and Y. Y is used by the heart and is no good for targeting, but X is, so you attack that. Another cancer, combo AB and Y might be upregulated, so you look into A or B. One would likely also use it in combination with other chemotherapy. If Y combo, is the only one the cancer is using, and again that one is needed for the heart, you might give a low dose of that with a lowered dose of taxol, which targets all dividing cells. That one-two punch will have two sets of side effects to worry about, but if you give low doses of both, you might target the cancer more effectively with reduced side effects.
I'm not a clinical doctor, so maybe that's not the idea, just that more tools are better, and the strategy is what seems to be a bigger story.
The road to Big Pharma Hell is paved with effective in vitro cures for cancer
It's also the road to better basic research tools. You can't jump from the stone age to the space age obviously. If this were the stone age, I might want to develop a better chisel. If people funding (?) research back in the stone age were the same people that are funding biomedical research today, I probably would suggest that a better chisel would be better able to cut metal for the rocket engine. I'd know in reality, it would just make it easier to carve stones to make a house, but if I don't promise big, the research money will go to some guy rubbing sticks together suggesting it was a novel source of combustion energy for reaching that big bright thing in the night sky.
I won't say it in my grant applications, but I doubt we have the technology to cure cancer at this point. That doesn't mean my research won't be essential to the eventual cure for cancer, nor does it mean that cancer research is wasted.
I'd like to thank the bone-eating worms for protecting us from hordes of white walkers swimming their way from Antarctica. We don't have a wall, we have worms!
So you're saying that cyber-colonialism will be justified as "for security" or "terrorism." Genius.
I guess the silver lining is that at least it won't poison, enslave, or indebt the locals, it's not establishing banana republics, and it wouldn't be fighting proxy wars and killing them as collateral damage (though I suppose that's obsolete, now they're automatically enemy combatants if they died from our bombs). That's kind of an improvement. Still a long shot from playing nice, but baby steps towards ethical foreign policy, I guess.
I suppose it's not mutually exclusive with also raping and pillaging the old fashioned ways though.
I'd generalize it more to "Bottom line: censorship is always an annoying, stupid waste of time."
In protest, I'm going to play fallout new vegas today and murder EVERYONE in it. Dogs, women, men... and I'm going to fire ineffectively at the immortal children.
Rule 18.1: if you admit to liking some popular work of art, be it a song, a painting, a book, a movie, a videogame, or a play, and do so on the internet, someone will immediately criticize it. "Overrated" has a 50/50 chance of being used.
Observe. (ahem) The Beatles were a pretty good band. They had good songs. Like "Hey Jude." That was a good song.
It was a citation. I didn't blame fox news, though I do find it questionable they made sure to quote some guy saying him being gay was probablay motivation.
I have always suspected it really had more to do with getting revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc. Of course those posts were down-modded, and I received many, many angry replies stating I was completely off base in claiming he was in any shape or form "gay" or "transgender". Well it turns out that he was diagnosed with whatever you call the whole "Gender Identity" thing where you think you're a girl even though you're not. So I've been vindicated- yes, he was upset over their policies (and understandably so, I find our military attitude highly offensive even today).
What on earth is wrong in your head? You aren't vindicated. Being diagnosed with issues over gender identity doesn't mean he "did it to get revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc."
Gender identity issues =/= homosexual, nor are they "transgender", but more importantly, you have no smoking gun as to his motivations.
I'd argue that he risks little at this point by apologizing. His supporters should see the apology for what it is, just a symptom of the abuse he's suffered. Propaganda? Please. The propaganda machine doesn't need facts. This only disrupts their narrative of "he's an evil traitor and probably gay." Showing him as remorseful of his crimes takes away the "enemy."
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're thinking of census taker foie gras.
That's a bit of a strawman argument. AC didn't say his country, whatever it is, is any better.
If I am on fire, I still may be able to accurately identify whether or not YOU are on fire as well.
Doesn' HIPPA only apply to a patient's doctors and medical providers? I know some firefighters have some overlap with EMT, so maybe they would count for that reason?
(I, for one, would be deeply vexed if somebody's helmet-cam of 'sleepy-looking guy runs out of house in underwear' turned me into a youtube star...
There is a ton of absolute inane shit that is on youtube, but I think even youtubers wouldn't be too interested in that.
Now if your underwear was on fire while that happened, or got hit in the nuts, yeah, they'd probably eat that up.
I'm going to assume AC was making a clever, subtle parody of the “You don't need privacy if you're not doing anything wrong” mentality here.
"Privacy of the victim" seems really desperate.
You know, because the person who was killed is SUPER concerned about postmortem privacy.
Why is it all brains evaporate when it comes to liability? Take reasonable steps and be reasonably safe. You can't avoid all lawsuits. Accidents happen.
I swear, paranoia that the lawyers are going to get you has cost this nation almost as much as paranoia over terrorists.
I think the timing was also right. That was in 92 before the news really went full tilt with selling tickets to partisan boxing. It also helped that the communist "threat" had just collapsed. The powers that be were preoccupied with figuring out who we should be afraid of next to justify more defense spending, and anyway this sent some money their way.
There's nothing disingenuous here: a car that cannot move most of the time is much safer than one that does!
I kid, I kid. BP, I expect my check by the end of the month.
I was on antidepressants when I was depressed as a teenager and they helped. I think antidepressants shouldn't have the negative connotation that they do have. Big pharma pushing them for everything is despicable, but they have their uses. I'm glad I didn't commit suicide, I think the vast majority of people who do commit suicide have no good reason to, and should be stopped.
That said, I agree with GP. The government should have no say in whether or not I can end my life, be it euthanasia or depression, if I'm somehow being logical about it. I can't blame family members and/or friends from stopping people from killing themselves, but it's still a right.
I would honestly suggest trying it as a form of protest if you've got some money and time you're willing to part with. Though, how are you going to know if it does get stolen* by the NSA?
("stolen" here using the MPAA/RIAA definition of stealing.)
I'm confused as to why they did this specifically though. I thought it was a blog to explain law as it relates to open source. Why did they need private collaboration to function?
If it's a form of protest, I understand that. The wiki page mentions Jones intended to shut it down a few years ago, but got pulled back in, using it as an excuse to quit when she intended to anyway, that's also good. But this sounds like there's more to it.
Rather than quibbling about smart acting stupid or genuine stupid, how about we just agree it's bad. The effect is still the same: giving government agencies power without oversight will lead to bad times for the citizens whether it's bumbling well-meaning idiots or sinister SPECTRE agents pulling the strings.
The reps who passed this should be tossed out either way. The law needs to go either way.
They're the same thing but a magsail has way more power.
Again, I've only skimmed the wiki article, but it sounds like this can push other objects away, while a magsail can only move the cargo that it is on. In other words, if you had a sattelite and a bit of junk was moving towards it to destroy it, this thing could push the junk away while the magsail could only move the satellite out of the way of the junk. So, no, it doesn't sound at all like the same thing.
And all technology was nothing but an idea at one time.
Well yes, but this thing is MORE THAN AN IDEA RIGHT NOW, while the sail doesn't appear to be.
You appear to be judging a book by it's cover. Or more appropriately, rejecting wisdom because it comes from an 80's teen movie. Or 90's.
There are probably some valuable lessons to be learned from anything. I'm going to now watch porn. To prove my thesis that there are important lessons everywhere. I'll report back when I get some results.
Also, TFA mentions
According to an MIT study [PDF], when EMFF is perfected, it will have a wide number of applications including interferometers, space telescopes where each satellite carries a section of mirror, generating artificial gravity, creating a magnet shield against solar radiation storms, and clearing space debris by using their spin to toss the debris into a safer trajectory.
It sounds like this is useful for pushing stuff around in space at near distances, including non-autonomous propulsion such as junk, while magsails are (in theory) useful for moving only the cargo around over large distances, at slower accelerations.
The people in charge of making such unpopular decisions are not the ones paying the price though. Much like how many of the people who pull the strings to decide the good people of some other country NEED a war aren't going to the front line.
The people at biggamecorp who decide that the end to the game will require an additional $20, and you will need to be online at all times with ads popping up in-game, who make the testers work 60 hours a week for no overtime and then are fired immediately upon launch AREN'T the ones being threatened here. Don't try to rationalize it.
To extend the metaphor, the trolls who make death threats are like the terrorists. When is the last time you heard of a terrorist trying to attack a US politician who actually had any power? That's too hard. They're both taking their rage out on innocent people because they are too lazy, cowardly, and/or stupid to do anything against the real "bad guys" they claim to be hating.
The specific combination will not be important to all cancers, but it's possible that the STRATEGY of targeting individual tropomyosin combinations might be broadly applicable. They used the structure of the tropomyosins in question to identify drugs that would block it specifically. That could be used in other combinations. You get a sample of the tumor, find it's using combination X and Y. Y is used by the heart and is no good for targeting, but X is, so you attack that. Another cancer, combo AB and Y might be upregulated, so you look into A or B. One would likely also use it in combination with other chemotherapy. If Y combo, is the only one the cancer is using, and again that one is needed for the heart, you might give a low dose of that with a lowered dose of taxol, which targets all dividing cells. That one-two punch will have two sets of side effects to worry about, but if you give low doses of both, you might target the cancer more effectively with reduced side effects.
I'm not a clinical doctor, so maybe that's not the idea, just that more tools are better, and the strategy is what seems to be a bigger story.
The road to Big Pharma Hell is paved with effective in vitro cures for cancer
It's also the road to better basic research tools. You can't jump from the stone age to the space age obviously. If this were the stone age, I might want to develop a better chisel. If people funding (?) research back in the stone age were the same people that are funding biomedical research today, I probably would suggest that a better chisel would be better able to cut metal for the rocket engine. I'd know in reality, it would just make it easier to carve stones to make a house, but if I don't promise big, the research money will go to some guy rubbing sticks together suggesting it was a novel source of combustion energy for reaching that big bright thing in the night sky.
I won't say it in my grant applications, but I doubt we have the technology to cure cancer at this point. That doesn't mean my research won't be essential to the eventual cure for cancer, nor does it mean that cancer research is wasted.
I'd like to thank the bone-eating worms for protecting us from hordes of white walkers swimming their way from Antarctica. We don't have a wall, we have worms!
So you're saying that cyber-colonialism will be justified as "for security" or "terrorism." Genius.
I guess the silver lining is that at least it won't poison, enslave, or indebt the locals, it's not establishing banana republics, and it wouldn't be fighting proxy wars and killing them as collateral damage (though I suppose that's obsolete, now they're automatically enemy combatants if they died from our bombs). That's kind of an improvement. Still a long shot from playing nice, but baby steps towards ethical foreign policy, I guess.
I suppose it's not mutually exclusive with also raping and pillaging the old fashioned ways though.
I'd generalize it more to "Bottom line: censorship is always an annoying, stupid waste of time."
In protest, I'm going to play fallout new vegas today and murder EVERYONE in it. Dogs, women, men... and I'm going to fire ineffectively at the immortal children.
That's one of those fancy book-learnin jokes there. Not one of those flatulence-based knee slappers.
Rule 18.1: if you admit to liking some popular work of art, be it a song, a painting, a book, a movie, a videogame, or a play, and do so on the internet, someone will immediately criticize it. "Overrated" has a 50/50 chance of being used.
...
Observe. (ahem) The Beatles were a pretty good band. They had good songs. Like "Hey Jude." That was a good song.
It was a citation. I didn't blame fox news, though I do find it questionable they made sure to quote some guy saying him being gay was probablay motivation.
I have always suspected it really had more to do with getting revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc. Of course those posts were down-modded, and I received many, many angry replies stating I was completely off base in claiming he was in any shape or form "gay" or "transgender". Well it turns out that he was diagnosed with whatever you call the whole "Gender Identity" thing where you think you're a girl even though you're not. So I've been vindicated- yes, he was upset over their policies (and understandably so, I find our military attitude highly offensive even today).
What on earth is wrong in your head? You aren't vindicated. Being diagnosed with issues over gender identity doesn't mean he "did it to get revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc."
Gender identity issues =/= homosexual, nor are they "transgender", but more importantly, you have no smoking gun as to his motivations.
I'd argue that he risks little at this point by apologizing. His supporters should see the apology for what it is, just a symptom of the abuse he's suffered. Propaganda? Please. The propaganda machine doesn't need facts. This only disrupts their narrative of "he's an evil traitor and probably gay." Showing him as remorseful of his crimes takes away the "enemy."