It's not so much common sense as it is a rush to get to patients. I have all three of Dr. Atul Gawande's books where he discusses at length how the medical profession works. He talks about how there's only so much time to see patients and washing hands before seeing each one to avoid moving infections between patients takes precious time. Proper washing takes at least 30 seconds. Multiply that by the number of patients seen on rounds, and it adds up.
Even when his hospital added gel dispensers to walls, people were in such a hurry that they forgot. One of his patients became infected with MRSA and he was left wondering if it happened because he neglected to wash his hands. There was no way to know, and the patient was put in jeopardy, not to mention having to stay in the hospital even longer.
I think the major issue that scares some people is the ability of a person who is otherwise ineligible to own a firearm to manufacture one at home using a 3D printer. While it's also possible to do this with other home equipment, proper operation of a lathe, press, and other shop tools usually used to manufacture firearms requires a level of skill that a 3D printer does not. Of course, the cost of purchasing a 3D printer plus materials goes way beyond the cost of an ineligible person getting a gun on the black market. The only benefit that I can see is relative anonymity in acquiring a gun in this new manner.
I figured that something like recent events would happen, which is one of the reasons that I downloaded the plans when they first hit the web. I'm eligible to (and in fact do) own guns, and I trust the courts to protect this. But it never hurts to have an out.
Wasn't Aureal starting in on this kind of thing before Creative bought them and killed the product? I seem to recall their sound chips doing some things to calculate real-time echos and other changes to the sound based on materials and room geometry.
I guess it's good that it can be done on the GPU; it might make for one less chipset to go into a system especially given the move toward DisplayPort.
The OUI can be used for part of the address, but doesn't have to be. Microsoft by default does not use it when generating the IPv6 address as of Vista and instead generates a random address to make it harder to track a device across connections.
I don't know where you got the idea that a serial number was used at all.
I'm right there with you. As one of the security people involved with implementing BYOD (though somewhat peripherally) at my last job, I opted to keep the Blackberry issued to me rather than attach my phone to the enterprise network even though I had admin access to the system. Many people thought I was nuts, but I draw a fairly clear line between work and personal life. Knowing what can be monitored, I opted to maintain that line.
I think that might be one of the things people don't realize, even if they read what the company should be supplying. The mobile device security industry is changing rapidly with hooks going much deeper than they used to. One product that we looked at (but didn't implement) allowed not only monitoring of call logs but copied all text and MMS messages to or from the device up to the server for archiving, something I viewed as far too invasive for BYOD. Even if it was deleted immediately from the device, the software grabbed it and copied it up (or archived it for copying if data wasn't available). But with companies clambering over each other for features, I'm sure it wasn't long before others added it to their own lists.
Expensive isn't the word for it. Changing the battery technology would require months of re-engineering work and months more of certification, possibly grounding the plane for a year, and that doesn't factor in the performance loss from the extra weight. The result could cripple Boeing, possibly fatally, to implement a solution that probably is not required.
They performed a great deal of testing on the new architecture including setting off a propane explosion. The containment system held and vented properly. The FAA is satisfied with the solution, and they're the ones who are going to get blamed if it fails catastrophically. It's good enough for me. You're welcome to check the planes in use on your flights and avoid the 787.
The presence of an election does not remove the circumstances of a dictatorship. Dictators often "win" elections with 75% or more of the vote (IIRC, Saddam Hussein won his last election with 99% of the vote). The presence of free and clear elections makes for a democracy. That country's government was not.
While I don't argue that what's happening at Gitmo is a serious problem, I often wonder how many people who label the US a dictatorship have actually lived under one.
Forgive me if you are one, but I've read that people who have lived in real dictatorships scoff at the accusations of dictatorship in the US. These are people who have come from places where speaking out against the regime results in prison time if not outright execution or disappearance; where entire families of criminals--sometimes crossing generations--are punished for one person's wrongdoing; where trials are conducted in closed court and often without the benefit of a defense attorney; where the military takes a position equal to or higher than the civilian government; and/or where a cult of personality that dwarfs the Obama followers ensures that the people not only obey but worship the current leader, sometimes under formal links to the national deity.
There are certainly issues with the US (and a lot of Western countries), but most of them are a long way from being true dictatorships.
For the most part, they don't do things half-way, especially if a significant capital outlay is required. The money required to get the roll-out started was significant, so they weren't going to do something slip-shod.
I won't be surprised if this ends up getting spun off into a separate ISP company with the majority ownership maintained by Google itself and a handful of Google principals (Larry, Sergei, etc.) to keep the vision going.
What I'm hoping for are some other upstart competitiors to Google Fiber.
Google has said several times that this is exactly what they're trying to foster. Google gets an advantage from deploying fiber aside from the privacy issues that most people consider. They get loyalty. When one of their features is to "[r]ecord up to eight programs simultaneously, just because you can," it engenders a loyalty that the others can't touch.
From what they've said, I expect they don't really want to be in the ISP business, but as their core business depends in large part on growing bandwidth, they felt they had to do something to push the boundary. I would gladly pay $300 (or even more) for gigabit service. I moved to my current location specifically for FiOS availability and pay $105/month for 150/65 service. I am considering moving from Dallas to Austin in the near term mostly because I like the community, but also now in large part due to Google Fiber coming to the area. Everybody (Austin, Google, and me) wins then.
Paying attention to something doesn't necessarily mean looking at it. When I want to figure out what the traffic guy is saying, I have to pay attention to it even if I'm not staring at the radio. I don't pull over to the side of the road to do it. Likewise, I can converse with a passenger, paying attention to what is being said without staring at them.
Actually, judges usually don't ignore the intent of the law. I've read many decisions at all levels, and where there is an assertion of vagueness or ambiguity, the courts almost always look to debate, statute prefaces, and even public statements to determine what was expected. Lower courts do this because higher courts do, and judges don't like to get overturned on that point.
You must be a lot of fun on road trips. By your words, there should be no talking with passengers, no radio, nothing at all.
You can actually get people killed that way because something to engage the brain to some degree aside from driving, people tend to zone out or fall asleep. There's been some research on this and it's been found that zero distractions from the road turns out to be as dangerous as driving while using a cell phone or being mildly drunk. Those minor distractions keep the brain engaged, particularly on road segments that don't change much.
Not always intentionally incorrect, either. Sometimes they're just prepping two possible stories with different headlines and differing by only a paragraph or two.
The difference is very real on the diplomatic playing field. Those who fight don't much care; they just do their job. But there are additional consequences to a declared war because it tends to become a drive to win unlike those of undeclared wars which can wind down more quietly. A declared war on North Korea may well have brought the Soviets in on a scale greater than actually happened. A declared war in Vietnam might have opened up the bombing of any ship in Hanoi Harbor, many of which were Soviet supply vessels. Either of those could have opened fighting in a wider area of the West Pacific, and Europe would have been a lot more tense than it was.
We say North Korea is developing nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation treaty.
No, we don't, because North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003. Since that time, it has not been under the restraints required by the treaty.
That doesn't make the world any happier about them developing nuclear weapons, but no one is saying they're violating a treaty they're no longer part of.
The convention in the United States for decades has been to places periods inside the quotation marks. All others are based on the actual quote. The Chicago Manual of Style, as one of many, recommends this, but most guides point out that the British style placing anything not part of the quote outside of the quotation marks is acceptable but may be seen as unusual to American readers--of all ages.
Cesar Chavez Day is not a Mexican holiday, and is observed in Arizona and Texas as well as California. He was born in Arizona and is remembered for improving life for migrant workers while generally opposing illegal immigration (though this latter part seems to be lost in the current debate).
I dont know that that would work. People on the fringes like Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh would be pushed rapidly up to very high levels. If you added negative points to balance this, it would quickly become a political war where technically correct but unpopular people could get buried as untrustworthy while a politician who says all the right things could become the most trusted person.
He's the target of many more jokes than those about his name. That's what he gets for being part of the PaulDotCom cast.
But I should have made clear that I was speaking of the infosec guy, not the whiskey brand. I see his name often enough that it doesn't even occur to me to consider the crossover anymore.
Crime? Smog? I don't know which part of California you're describing, but levels of both are down dramatically. At least in Southern California, crime is a shadow of its former self and as for smog... I remember spending a lot of days indoors due to smog alerts, something that most students have little knowledge of these days.
You have good points besides those, and crime and smog can still certainly be reduced, but it's nothing like it used to be.
What was declared unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust was unapportioned direct taxes on real estate income. Taxes on payroll income were not ruled unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much common sense as it is a rush to get to patients. I have all three of Dr. Atul Gawande's books where he discusses at length how the medical profession works. He talks about how there's only so much time to see patients and washing hands before seeing each one to avoid moving infections between patients takes precious time. Proper washing takes at least 30 seconds. Multiply that by the number of patients seen on rounds, and it adds up.
Even when his hospital added gel dispensers to walls, people were in such a hurry that they forgot. One of his patients became infected with MRSA and he was left wondering if it happened because he neglected to wash his hands. There was no way to know, and the patient was put in jeopardy, not to mention having to stay in the hospital even longer.
Solutions like this are done out of desperation.
I think the major issue that scares some people is the ability of a person who is otherwise ineligible to own a firearm to manufacture one at home using a 3D printer. While it's also possible to do this with other home equipment, proper operation of a lathe, press, and other shop tools usually used to manufacture firearms requires a level of skill that a 3D printer does not. Of course, the cost of purchasing a 3D printer plus materials goes way beyond the cost of an ineligible person getting a gun on the black market. The only benefit that I can see is relative anonymity in acquiring a gun in this new manner.
I figured that something like recent events would happen, which is one of the reasons that I downloaded the plans when they first hit the web. I'm eligible to (and in fact do) own guns, and I trust the courts to protect this. But it never hurts to have an out.
Wasn't Aureal starting in on this kind of thing before Creative bought them and killed the product? I seem to recall their sound chips doing some things to calculate real-time echos and other changes to the sound based on materials and room geometry.
I guess it's good that it can be done on the GPU; it might make for one less chipset to go into a system especially given the move toward DisplayPort.
The OUI can be used for part of the address, but doesn't have to be. Microsoft by default does not use it when generating the IPv6 address as of Vista and instead generates a random address to make it harder to track a device across connections.
I don't know where you got the idea that a serial number was used at all.
I'm right there with you. As one of the security people involved with implementing BYOD (though somewhat peripherally) at my last job, I opted to keep the Blackberry issued to me rather than attach my phone to the enterprise network even though I had admin access to the system. Many people thought I was nuts, but I draw a fairly clear line between work and personal life. Knowing what can be monitored, I opted to maintain that line.
I think that might be one of the things people don't realize, even if they read what the company should be supplying. The mobile device security industry is changing rapidly with hooks going much deeper than they used to. One product that we looked at (but didn't implement) allowed not only monitoring of call logs but copied all text and MMS messages to or from the device up to the server for archiving, something I viewed as far too invasive for BYOD. Even if it was deleted immediately from the device, the software grabbed it and copied it up (or archived it for copying if data wasn't available). But with companies clambering over each other for features, I'm sure it wasn't long before others added it to their own lists.
That depends on the test you're trying to take. Some tests are only available through one of the providers.
Expensive isn't the word for it. Changing the battery technology would require months of re-engineering work and months more of certification, possibly grounding the plane for a year, and that doesn't factor in the performance loss from the extra weight. The result could cripple Boeing, possibly fatally, to implement a solution that probably is not required.
They performed a great deal of testing on the new architecture including setting off a propane explosion. The containment system held and vented properly. The FAA is satisfied with the solution, and they're the ones who are going to get blamed if it fails catastrophically. It's good enough for me. You're welcome to check the planes in use on your flights and avoid the 787.
The presence of an election does not remove the circumstances of a dictatorship. Dictators often "win" elections with 75% or more of the vote (IIRC, Saddam Hussein won his last election with 99% of the vote). The presence of free and clear elections makes for a democracy. That country's government was not.
While I don't argue that what's happening at Gitmo is a serious problem, I often wonder how many people who label the US a dictatorship have actually lived under one.
Forgive me if you are one, but I've read that people who have lived in real dictatorships scoff at the accusations of dictatorship in the US. These are people who have come from places where speaking out against the regime results in prison time if not outright execution or disappearance; where entire families of criminals--sometimes crossing generations--are punished for one person's wrongdoing; where trials are conducted in closed court and often without the benefit of a defense attorney; where the military takes a position equal to or higher than the civilian government; and/or where a cult of personality that dwarfs the Obama followers ensures that the people not only obey but worship the current leader, sometimes under formal links to the national deity.
There are certainly issues with the US (and a lot of Western countries), but most of them are a long way from being true dictatorships.
For the most part, they don't do things half-way, especially if a significant capital outlay is required. The money required to get the roll-out started was significant, so they weren't going to do something slip-shod.
I won't be surprised if this ends up getting spun off into a separate ISP company with the majority ownership maintained by Google itself and a handful of Google principals (Larry, Sergei, etc.) to keep the vision going.
Google has said several times that this is exactly what they're trying to foster. Google gets an advantage from deploying fiber aside from the privacy issues that most people consider. They get loyalty. When one of their features is to "[r]ecord up to eight programs simultaneously, just because you can," it engenders a loyalty that the others can't touch.
From what they've said, I expect they don't really want to be in the ISP business, but as their core business depends in large part on growing bandwidth, they felt they had to do something to push the boundary. I would gladly pay $300 (or even more) for gigabit service. I moved to my current location specifically for FiOS availability and pay $105/month for 150/65 service. I am considering moving from Dallas to Austin in the near term mostly because I like the community, but also now in large part due to Google Fiber coming to the area. Everybody (Austin, Google, and me) wins then.
Paying attention to something doesn't necessarily mean looking at it. When I want to figure out what the traffic guy is saying, I have to pay attention to it even if I'm not staring at the radio. I don't pull over to the side of the road to do it. Likewise, I can converse with a passenger, paying attention to what is being said without staring at them.
Actually, judges usually don't ignore the intent of the law. I've read many decisions at all levels, and where there is an assertion of vagueness or ambiguity, the courts almost always look to debate, statute prefaces, and even public statements to determine what was expected. Lower courts do this because higher courts do, and judges don't like to get overturned on that point.
You must be a lot of fun on road trips. By your words, there should be no talking with passengers, no radio, nothing at all.
You can actually get people killed that way because something to engage the brain to some degree aside from driving, people tend to zone out or fall asleep. There's been some research on this and it's been found that zero distractions from the road turns out to be as dangerous as driving while using a cell phone or being mildly drunk. Those minor distractions keep the brain engaged, particularly on road segments that don't change much.
Not always intentionally incorrect, either. Sometimes they're just prepping two possible stories with different headlines and differing by only a paragraph or two.
The difference is very real on the diplomatic playing field. Those who fight don't much care; they just do their job. But there are additional consequences to a declared war because it tends to become a drive to win unlike those of undeclared wars which can wind down more quietly. A declared war on North Korea may well have brought the Soviets in on a scale greater than actually happened. A declared war in Vietnam might have opened up the bombing of any ship in Hanoi Harbor, many of which were Soviet supply vessels. Either of those could have opened fighting in a wider area of the West Pacific, and Europe would have been a lot more tense than it was.
No, we don't, because North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003. Since that time, it has not been under the restraints required by the treaty.
That doesn't make the world any happier about them developing nuclear weapons, but no one is saying they're violating a treaty they're no longer part of.
South Korea is at war with North Korea. The US never declared war on North Korea. It took part in a UN-sanctioned action to defend South Korea.
The convention in the United States for decades has been to places periods inside the quotation marks. All others are based on the actual quote. The Chicago Manual of Style, as one of many, recommends this, but most guides point out that the British style placing anything not part of the quote outside of the quotation marks is acceptable but may be seen as unusual to American readers--of all ages.
China isn't a federal government. Don't confuse "federal" with "national."
Cesar Chavez Day is not a Mexican holiday, and is observed in Arizona and Texas as well as California. He was born in Arizona and is remembered for improving life for migrant workers while generally opposing illegal immigration (though this latter part seems to be lost in the current debate).
I dont know that that would work. People on the fringes like Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh would be pushed rapidly up to very high levels. If you added negative points to balance this, it would quickly become a political war where technically correct but unpopular people could get buried as untrustworthy while a politician who says all the right things could become the most trusted person.
He's the target of many more jokes than those about his name. That's what he gets for being part of the PaulDotCom cast.
But I should have made clear that I was speaking of the infosec guy, not the whiskey brand. I see his name often enough that it doesn't even occur to me to consider the crossover anymore.
Crime? Smog? I don't know which part of California you're describing, but levels of both are down dramatically. At least in Southern California, crime is a shadow of its former self and as for smog... I remember spending a lot of days indoors due to smog alerts, something that most students have little knowledge of these days.
You have good points besides those, and crime and smog can still certainly be reduced, but it's nothing like it used to be.
What was declared unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust was unapportioned direct taxes on real estate income. Taxes on payroll income were not ruled unconstitutional.