Putting a rocket on the moon is a purely technical problem; nothing social or political about it. Automating the healthcare industry involves several players:
1. The care givers 2. The care receivers 3. The insurance agents 4. Lawyers 5. Politicians 6. Software, platform and hardware architects
Unlike in the case of NASA, there are more than hundreds of players providing (6);
Don't you mean 'more than hundreds of players providing (3)?'
How do you rationalize that when the entire republican party was unified in voting against it?
He's likely basing the assumption on the fact that the individual mandate did originate from the Republican camp, but is forgetting that Democrats did their own part to write, pass, and half-assed enforce the law.
FWIW, and not absolving their guilt in this situation, but it wasn't a Repub who said "we have to sign it to see what's in it."
Hate to tell ya, bud, but all that 'self-destruction' we've seen of late is nothing but partisan brinkmanship, and has all become just another part of the political game; you can tell by the fact that congresscritters are still on TV blaming each other, rather than hiding from the lynch mobs, in fear for their lives.
I will say, I learned something from this latest government shutdown - we, the People, don't really seem to need feds quite as much as the try and convince us we do.
I understand his reasons for releasing information about domestic spying, but what good reason does he have for releasing information about spying on the international scene?
Because he's not just an upstanding, patriotic American, he's an upstanding, patriotic human.
One of those rules for criticizing Israel while not seeming like an anti-Semitic cock...
There is only one rule for that; preface every criticism of Israel with the following:
"Don't get me wrong, I love Jon Stewart, but..."
For example:
Don't get me wrong, I love Jon Stewart, bit it seems to me the Israeli government uses Judaism as a weapon against their detractors, since nobody can say anything about Israel's bad behavior without being accused of anti-semitism.
Encryption per se doesn't even need to come in to this. Just don't have the real names visible on the documents. Come up with nicknames and never use the real names.
That's what really struck me about this: She knew she was investigating something that certain, powerful people in government would not like her to investigate, yet didn't even have the good sense to use aliases for her sources?
Not that it excuses the government for flagrantly violating her rights, but shit, man, you don't have to make it easy for them!
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text?
The kind who isn't a computer expert.
I know it's hard to do considering the crowd here, but try and keep in mind - most people, journalists included, barely even know what encryption is, let alone how to use it properly.
Regardless, her Constitutional rights should have negated any need for encrypting her work. That is what we should take away from this.
I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.
From reading the article there, he was released due to overcrowding; more than likely a result of increased enforcement of draconian drug laws. The real question is, why the fuck, in an overcrowding situation, would you release a goddamn serial killer on parole?!?! Surely there were some non-violent offenders that could have been let out to make room instead.
Put simply, the case of Kenneth McDuff does not show necessity for state sponsored executions, but rather that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at why we put non-violent offenders like drug users in prisons with murderers and rapists.
Correction: having just finished reading the entire page, I find that the issue at hand in this case would be the utter idiocy and incompetence of the Texas government and prison system, circa the 1980's. Jeebus, what a clusterfuck!
I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.
From reading the article there, he was released due to overcrowding; more than likely a result of increased enforcement of draconian drug laws. The real question is, why the fuck, in an overcrowding situation, would you release a goddamn serial killer on parole?!?! Surely there were some non-violent offenders that could have been let out to make room instead.
Put simply, the case of Kenneth McDuff does not show necessity for state sponsored executions, but rather that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at why we put non-violent offenders like drug users in prisons with murderers and rapists.
Slow down and try to understand what people are saying. Their points are that the US is trampling on a bunch of liberties, but most other places in the world would be doing worse with the same amount of power. The best place to have your data center is in the US because, well look at the clashes between big tech companies and governments like Italy's, China's, Russia's, Australia's, etc. It would be much, much worse if the Syrian governement were in the US's position, for instance.
If that's the point OP was trying to make, they should have actually said it.
Intent is pretty damn hard to infer from an anonymous online posting.
"CAVEAT EMPTOR, BITCHES." Good thing someone wrote a guide explaining all this then eh?
Yea, that guide is called "capitalism."
You're seriously going to pretend that a concept normally expressed in Latin is some newfangled idea that you have to be made explicitly aware of on each and every financial transaction?
I think the assumption is that if those governments had as much power, then the damage they could inflict would be proportional.
But they don't, which makes it a terribly inaccurate comparison.
If the US couldn't do anything with the knowledge, then no one would care.
Which is why I find OP's position odd, since the US very much can do stuff with the knowledge. Bad, unpleasant stuff.
Considering probability, it's a lot more reasonable to fear the US government's panopticon than one that Osama bin Deadtowel might have built in some remote Turkaturkastani cavern.
Also, I'd prefer American's do the spying instead of Russians or god forbid Mujaheddin army from the garden variety of middle eastern kingdoms/banana republics.
You would really rather be spied on by a country that has the capability to summarily execute you anywhere on the planet via drone strike, than a bunch of radicalized extremists living in tents, who couldn't get close enough to harm you, even if they really really wanted to?
Pardon me for finding that an odd position to hold.
no, barbaric is letting monsters live who committ their hideous crimes again and again. Murder, rape, child molesting, kidnapping there are hundreds of cases of repeat offenders. don't believe the urban legend lie, putting one of those kinds of crimminals to death saves lives.
Right, because as we all know, there's no such thing as a life sentence without parole.
The fact is it is the software component of the device that is licensed so perhaps they need to put on the box "The software contained on the device is licensed - not sold - to you." or something like that.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm getting at.
I tend to be a rather mercurial personality, so my train of thought has a habit of constantly jumping rails; less of a Point A to Point B trip, but more like the ridiculously circuitous route that a drunken fly would take. Sorry if it's sometime hard to follow.
People that like to be able to watch what goes on inside their homes when they're gone
Hard to believe that for thousands of years people went out without having the ability to watch what was going on inside their homes when they were gone. How ever did they manage?
Dogs.
Re:statistically, cyclists don't hit pedestrians
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps I should have clarified - in my town, cyclists over the age of 18 are considered motor vehicle operators and thus, legally ineligible to travel on the sidewalks. Therefore, any incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk in this city is automatically ruled to be the cyclists fault.
That doesn't change the nature of your claim that cyclists hitting pedestrians - anywhere - is a significant problem.
Wow, good thing I never made any such claim, huh? All I did was point out that the danger exists.
Call your local police department and ask them for how many pedestrians were hit by motor vehicles this year. Then ask how many cyclists hit pedestrians.
It's liable to be a 99%/1% ratio, or thereabouts.
Probably, and a good part of the reason why is because the ratio of drivers to cyclists is about 99%/1%. Just because someone rides a bike instead of driving a car does not magically increase their awareness nor vehicle operation abilities. Shit happens to everyone.
Separately: there's nothing like criminalizing a behavior people do because they feel safer.
Yea, but see, "feel safer" isn't the same thing as "being safer." You might feel like you are safer riding on the sidewalk, but what about all the children, pets, old people, etc. who are trying to walk in that same space?
FWIW, things like the TSA feel-you-up checkpoints exist due to certain people's need to feel safer (without actually being safer).
The reason people ride on sidewalks is because they're terrified to ride in the road. And why is that, exactly, hmm?
Because they're selfish chickenshits who value their own narcissistic sense of self worth far more than the safety and well-being of people around them? I dunno, I don't usually waste time trying to talk to selfish dickheads who flagrantly break laws.
People that like to be able to watch what goes on inside their homes when they're gone, but don't want every spook and perv on the planet to be able to as well?
Do we really need a new story for each one of these?
How else would you know about it?
Man, it seems the trolls are running out of material these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting a rocket on the moon is a purely technical problem; nothing social or political about it. Automating the healthcare industry involves several players:
1. The care givers
2. The care receivers
3. The insurance agents
4. Lawyers
5. Politicians
6. Software, platform and hardware architects
Unlike in the case of NASA, there are more than hundreds of players providing (6);
Don't you mean 'more than hundreds of players providing (3)?'
I'm going to assume that. Makes more sense.
How do you rationalize that when the entire republican party was unified in voting against it?
He's likely basing the assumption on the fact that the individual mandate did originate from the Republican camp, but is forgetting that Democrats did their own part to write, pass, and half-assed enforce the law.
FWIW, and not absolving their guilt in this situation, but it wasn't a Repub who said "we have to sign it to see what's in it."
When Congress self-destructs,
Ah, to dream the impossible dream...
Hate to tell ya, bud, but all that 'self-destruction' we've seen of late is nothing but partisan brinkmanship, and has all become just another part of the political game; you can tell by the fact that congresscritters are still on TV blaming each other, rather than hiding from the lynch mobs, in fear for their lives.
I will say, I learned something from this latest government shutdown - we, the People, don't really seem to need feds quite as much as the try and convince us we do.
I understand his reasons for releasing information about domestic spying, but what good reason does he have for releasing information about spying on the international scene?
Because he's not just an upstanding, patriotic American, he's an upstanding, patriotic human.
One of those rules for criticizing Israel while not seeming like an anti-Semitic cock...
There is only one rule for that; preface every criticism of Israel with the following:
"Don't get me wrong, I love Jon Stewart, but..."
For example:
Don't get me wrong, I love Jon Stewart, bit it seems to me the Israeli government uses Judaism as a weapon against their detractors, since nobody can say anything about Israel's bad behavior without being accused of anti-semitism.
According to the feds, that's just two ways of saying the same thing.
Encryption per se doesn't even need to come in to this. Just don't have the real names visible on the documents. Come up with nicknames and never use the real names.
That's what really struck me about this: She knew she was investigating something that certain, powerful people in government would not like her to investigate, yet didn't even have the good sense to use aliases for her sources?
Not that it excuses the government for flagrantly violating her rights, but shit, man, you don't have to make it easy for them!
I do not disagree in the least.
However, as has been pointed out by others, it's kinda hard to encrypt notes written on good ol' fashioned paper.
So, learn encryption, and buy a good safe.
I sure hope to hell that they are teaching the basics of encryption in journalism classes these days....
Really, it should be a required course for damn near any degree program, considering.
PS love the new sig, depressing as it may be.
Turn the tables. Then again, that approach will be heavily dependent on how the media will cover it, and what the spinsters have to say.
I'd recommend taking the story to RT, Democracy Now!, and Youtube.
The oligarchs might control most of the media, but they don't control all of it.
No, I'm suggesting that the article explains all the things that buyers should be wary of and therefore makes an excellent guide for buyers.
If you're referring to some specific document that exists, cite the source.
Otherwise, your post is ambiguous enough to make the rest of us think you're generalizing.
Doesn't seem that way.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text?
The kind who isn't a computer expert.
I know it's hard to do considering the crowd here, but try and keep in mind - most people, journalists included, barely even know what encryption is, let alone how to use it properly.
Regardless, her Constitutional rights should have negated any need for encrypting her work. That is what we should take away from this.
I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.
From reading the article there, he was released due to overcrowding; more than likely a result of increased enforcement of draconian drug laws. The real question is, why the fuck, in an overcrowding situation, would you release a goddamn serial killer on parole?!?! Surely there were some non-violent offenders that could have been let out to make room instead.
Put simply, the case of Kenneth McDuff does not show necessity for state sponsored executions, but rather that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at why we put non-violent offenders like drug users in prisons with murderers and rapists.
Correction: having just finished reading the entire page, I find that the issue at hand in this case would be the utter idiocy and incompetence of the Texas government and prison system, circa the 1980's. Jeebus, what a clusterfuck!
I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.
From reading the article there, he was released due to overcrowding; more than likely a result of increased enforcement of draconian drug laws. The real question is, why the fuck, in an overcrowding situation, would you release a goddamn serial killer on parole?!?! Surely there were some non-violent offenders that could have been let out to make room instead.
Put simply, the case of Kenneth McDuff does not show necessity for state sponsored executions, but rather that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at why we put non-violent offenders like drug users in prisons with murderers and rapists.
Slow down and try to understand what people are saying. Their points are that the US is trampling on a bunch of liberties, but most other places in the world would be doing worse with the same amount of power. The best place to have your data center is in the US because, well look at the clashes between big tech companies and governments like Italy's, China's, Russia's, Australia's, etc. It would be much, much worse if the Syrian governement were in the US's position, for instance.
If that's the point OP was trying to make, they should have actually said it.
Intent is pretty damn hard to infer from an anonymous online posting.
"CAVEAT EMPTOR, BITCHES."
Good thing someone wrote a guide explaining all this then eh?
Yea, that guide is called "capitalism."
You're seriously going to pretend that a concept normally expressed in Latin is some newfangled idea that you have to be made explicitly aware of on each and every financial transaction?
WHY do you AMERICANS?
Why do stupid non-Americans* always make such idiotic blanket generalizations about Americans? Some sort of ePenis-envy?
* Not that all non-Americans do this - just the stupid ones.
I think the assumption is that if those governments had as much power, then the damage they could inflict would be proportional.
But they don't, which makes it a terribly inaccurate comparison.
If the US couldn't do anything with the knowledge, then no one would care.
Which is why I find OP's position odd, since the US very much can do stuff with the knowledge. Bad, unpleasant stuff.
Considering probability, it's a lot more reasonable to fear the US government's panopticon than one that Osama bin Deadtowel might have built in some remote Turkaturkastani cavern.
Also, I'd prefer American's do the spying instead of Russians or god forbid Mujaheddin army from the garden variety of middle eastern kingdoms/banana republics.
You would really rather be spied on by a country that has the capability to summarily execute you anywhere on the planet via drone strike, than a bunch of radicalized extremists living in tents, who couldn't get close enough to harm you, even if they really really wanted to?
Pardon me for finding that an odd position to hold.
you speak of theory that only works between your ears. in practice, thousands of times the monsters are out again and do their crimes again.
[citation needed]
no, barbaric is letting monsters live who committ their hideous crimes again and again. Murder, rape, child molesting, kidnapping there are hundreds of cases of repeat offenders. don't believe the urban legend lie, putting one of those kinds of crimminals to death saves lives.
Right, because as we all know, there's no such thing as a life sentence without parole.
The fact is it is the software component of the device that is licensed so perhaps they need to put on the box "The software contained on the device is licensed - not sold - to you." or something like that.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm getting at.
I tend to be a rather mercurial personality, so my train of thought has a habit of constantly jumping rails; less of a Point A to Point B trip, but more like the ridiculously circuitous route that a drunken fly would take. Sorry if it's sometime hard to follow.
People that like to be able to watch what goes on inside their homes when they're gone
Hard to believe that for thousands of years people went out without having the ability to watch what was going on inside their homes when they were gone. How ever did they manage?
Dogs.
Perhaps I should have clarified - in my town, cyclists over the age of 18 are considered motor vehicle operators and thus, legally ineligible to travel on the sidewalks. Therefore, any incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk in this city is automatically ruled to be the cyclists fault.
That doesn't change the nature of your claim that cyclists hitting pedestrians - anywhere - is a significant problem.
Wow, good thing I never made any such claim, huh? All I did was point out that the danger exists.
Call your local police department and ask them for how many pedestrians were hit by motor vehicles this year. Then ask how many cyclists hit pedestrians.
It's liable to be a 99%/1% ratio, or thereabouts.
Probably, and a good part of the reason why is because the ratio of drivers to cyclists is about 99%/1%. Just because someone rides a bike instead of driving a car does not magically increase their awareness nor vehicle operation abilities. Shit happens to everyone.
Separately: there's nothing like criminalizing a behavior people do because they feel safer.
Yea, but see, "feel safer" isn't the same thing as "being safer." You might feel like you are safer riding on the sidewalk, but what about all the children, pets, old people, etc. who are trying to walk in that same space?
FWIW, things like the TSA feel-you-up checkpoints exist due to certain people's need to feel safer (without actually being safer).
The reason people ride on sidewalks is because they're terrified to ride in the road. And why is that, exactly, hmm?
Because they're selfish chickenshits who value their own narcissistic sense of self worth far more than the safety and well-being of people around them? I dunno, I don't usually waste time trying to talk to selfish dickheads who flagrantly break laws.
...so do a lot of things - who gives a shit!
People that like to be able to watch what goes on inside their homes when they're gone, but don't want every spook and perv on the planet to be able to as well?
Do we really need a new story for each one of these?
How else would you know about it?
Man, it seems the trolls are running out of material these days.