"Autologous" donations are donations extracted from you when you're healthy enough, like in advance of surgery, for use later, like when you need it during/after surgery. Currently, it's infrequent, and suffers from the same problems (possibly) identified by this study after a while.
But if you donated blood in advance of surgery, and it were used within a few hours, you could get a credit for blood later on when you need it urgently. If everyone scheduled for surgery were required to donate blood in advance (if they were healthy enough to do so), there would be so much blood available all the time that the fresh stuff would never be in short supply.
The infrastructure is in place right now. The techniques are nearly the same, just a tiny little DB and fridge shuffling to keep the fresh stuff flowing, and discard the extra as it ages.
All that's required to permanently end the incessant "blood shortages" and blood drives that could work on something else instead, would be making these donations a requirement.
The jury's job is to determine if she broke the law, not determine if the law makes sense.
No, in point of fact the jury's job does indeed include deciding that the law makes no sense:
Jury Nullification Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented.
The point of a jury trial is to make sure that accused people are treated reasonably, by their peers, according to the sensibility of their community. Our country's committment to the people and our collective wisdom in living with each other is so strong that even after all the people-mediated processes produce a law, the people still aren't forced to coerce each other according to it, if we go through due process.
Even when applying the law, the jury is not bound by damages awards when it disagrees with their basis, formula, eligible incidents or net result.
The jury might not know either of those ways the system works, but that would be the fault of the defendant's lawyers, or maybe the judge. The system is a lot more flexible than that.
Except that it's not "my" teardown. Make of it what you will. At least I posted the source of my info: all you're doing is declaring "facts". If you have some evidence that their parts ID is incorrect, post a better teardown. And I'll make of that what I will.
Maybe his exact title wasn't exactly "Chief Security Officer", but that was his job. And it might have been early 2005, for that matter. It was 2-3 years ago, and he didn't impress me to remember much about him except that he was a total lightweight in a job that demanded a heavyweight. Everything I said is true. I really don't care whether you believe me.
You "calm down" or whatever you need to do to read my post properly.
I met at length with Microsoft's Chief Security Officer (as I'm telling you for the third time now). He knew nothing about security. Not even what MS had done about security under his immediate predecessor, which included that BS about "every single MS programmer taking all of January off to do nothing but secure Windows and their apps".
This was in 2004, in NYC, where he was meeting with the NYC legislature (advised by me). We are responsible for security at a level of rigor matched by few governments other than the US Federal government, which also depends on us. So we were, naturally, appalled.
The CSO is not a "marketing exec". Unless it's Microsoft, evidently. Which goes a long way towards explaining why MS is insecure.
Moreover, I used to work closely with one of CMP Publications' top VPs, the one who published _Dr Dobbs Journal_. In the 1990s, he used to help me get gigs in Silicon Valley. And I used to tag along on his meetings with MS execs and other staff (he used to meet with Gates in Redmond several times a month). The entire crew was like that. Some were smart, some were geeks. But they were always there because of either their marketing or legal assets, or (more often, like any other big corp) because they were social animals who could keep their jobs and rise to the top in the group of humans, regardless of what they worked on.
Which is the same as most any big corp. But still one reason that it's dysfunctional, as they all are, except to make lots of money, despite an inferior product. In Microsoft's case, its their monopoly that makes it all go. Which is why they perpetuate their business success with marketing and legal minds, rather than experts in, say, security.
But that's OK for them. Not for customers like, say, New York City.
And people telling me that it is OK for NYC to get the marketing gladhand instead of the security expert are not OK with me. Get it straight: this stuff matters. People's lives are on the line. You think you can flip it off... that's why you are just a MS customer, and I am the NYC City Council's tech advisor.
Vitriol? It's the truth. And that's what the City Council, like the rest of my serious clients over many years, have me around for. For years, since I helped them become a full committee, with a budget and oversight of NYC's huge IT department.
What do you know of MS execs? Have you ever even met one directly? I bet not. I have, more than one, and this guy was the Chief Security Officer for the entire MS corporation. What about NYC? Have you ever even been here? Been in a City Council committee meeting, whether public or private? Do you even understand that "a city council" like NYC is responsible for security for 10 million people every day, including the UN, 3 giant airports, the country's largest seaport, a $50 BILLION annual city budget? I didn't ask for a "supercoder", but someone who knew something meaningful about security, like what MS did about it six months before under his predecessor would have been reassuring from their Chief Security Officer.
I say you're just talking out of your ass, from someplace tiny that you think is big and "serious", because you don't know what "big and serious" really is. That's not just "vitriol". That's what you get when you push naive BS like that, contradicting a New Yorker like me, who knows the truth, and knows that you don't. Just don't bother telling me that you're in marketing or something like that. Even if you're really a "supercoder".
Microsoft's execs have no expertise in the subject of the departments they direct (except maybe legal or marketing). They are expert in being executives. I once met for a long time with the MS "Chief Security Officer", in my capacity advising the NYC City Council (legislature). He knew nothing about security, not even the recent history of MS (in)security under his predecessor. And I've watched how MS shuffles its execs.
All that the person in the job needs to know is their marching orders from where the only real MS strategy comes from: the mutual work of the (real) geniuses in legal and marketing. That's all MS is good at, and all it needs to be good at. They need to know how to talk to the other execs in their job, and the inevitable lawyers from other companies and the government, and marketers from everywhere.
So he's a "server marketer". It means nothing that he's also an "open source exec". All that means is that he's going to meetings about "open source" and "servers", which we already know since MS has a major strategic alliance with Novell over Linux, and Novell just won proof that Unix belongs to Novell, and *nix runs the only competition to MS servers. But I wouldn't expect this guy to know that until he takes the job.
Google and others like it should force open the airwaves for mobile telecom. Telcos like AT&T, Sprint and Verizon have fled to their mobile divisions because it's still much more regulated against competition, though without the "common carrier" regulations that forced competition in landlines, and cable, and carried over into Internet. Even though radio phones are the least reliable, and often the most urgently needed, the redundancy that any phone connecting to any network available at the time/place is still out of reach. Except at outrageous roaming rates. Including the charges for text and other async messaging.
Google tried to force the 700MHz band open to any terminal device, unbundling the network from the dialtone. It didn't work. But there are other ways, and Google is persistent. Google bought lots of fiber and built lots of datacenters, so it can mount its own competitive telco. But Google's model calls for everyone to have unfettered access to all content and people on all the networks, so Google can help everyone navigate everyone else's content (and each other). They'll get there. And the incumbent telcos (and cablecos which keep their own bundled monopolies, though they just got the cableboxes unbundled from them this year) can't compete with Google. It's too rich, too popular, too smart. Unfolding history is on Google's side. I just wish it would all happen a lot faster.
What IP exactly is licensed from MIPS? And how come they don't have to pay it when emulating it? And if they don't, why didn't they emulate it earlier, and save all that money, including skipping the back-compat HW in the PS3 rollout?
Oh, I see. The problem is really that you're just totally full of shit.
What you said (in its entirety):
But when the Cell processor was first being introduced they were saying it had much more than 10x the cpu power of the ps2!!!
This is a cop-out, either the CELL is not as good as they thought or they are very lazy - either way their sales are going to be reduced.
What you say now:
I did not say that the cell isn't 10x as powerful as a ps2. The cell is hard to program and Sony is being lazy.
Here's the point of actual logic that derails all your "thoughts": the Cell is hard to program, so not using it entirely is not a sign of being "very lazy". Besides, there isn't even any evidence to support your implication that perhaps the Cell isn't fast enough.
You're contradicting yourself, as well as writing opaque crap.
I'm friendly, but not towards belligerent, obnoxious idiots. Goodbye.
Your programmer history means you don't have any excuse for the poorly constructed logic in that post. If you do Cell programming, how can you say that the Cell isn't 10x as powerful as a PS2?
FWIW, I do indeed help people who work on peace to use technology, as I have for many years, starting in the 1980s (amidst my extensive programming career predating that by a decade). So there's yet another reason to reject the implication in your question, on top of your demonstrated quality at reasoning even within your own specialty.
This research exposes only a single grant code, responsible for up to "tens of $millions" in funding for NSA work. The NSA has budgets in the $BILLIONS, if not tens of $BILLIONS, every year. I'm sure there are more grant codes, and this research is exposing perhaps only one percent or less of what the NSA is spending covertly every year.
As I posted elsewhere in this discussion, a teardown revealed that the HW cost difference between the embedded HW PS2 and its SW emulation is about $30.
A teardown revealed that the EE cost $27 each from Toshiba, and integrating it probably cost another $5 (including specify other mutual parts that will serve double, rather than single, duty, including security HW for PS2 games).
So you're probably nearly exactly correct. I wonder how much per revised unit it will have cost to redesign and change the manufacturing, across the first few million units sold. Possibly a breakeven, if the redesign/retool cost more than $30-60M.
I think they're just dropping PS2 compatibility so that PS2 game sales don't compete with PS3s. Sony is slightly immune to "planned obsolescence" criticism, because they still sell PS2 consoles fairly cheap, and even PS1 consoles. And PS3s will still run PS2 games, just in SW. This PS3 rollout seems to be running quite sensibly, especially for the recently erratic Sony strategists.
The PS3 Cell does have much more than 10x the CPU power of the PS2.
But raw power doesn't mean that the old games would run on the new chip. Or that there are enough programmers to port to the new chip, or that porting all those old games is worth doing, instead of just including the old chips and some glue.
Do you know how to program? Or are you saying "very lazy" without knowing what you're talking about? Making you both clueless and lazy...
How good is it? Is there any actual data showing how accurate it is? Can it distinguish among different cover versions? Find short samples in a larger mix?
Probably not. Like I said, false positives won't stop them from using it against us. So I expect that they're already doing it, just waiting to accumulate case history in all these RIAA suits. Maybe already even "testing" the random, silent tapping of people's phones.
Where do the extents of a 'public performance' end?
They end wherever the "market" ceases to bear the charges.
I expect that sometime soon, the copyright industry will convince courts to let them silently activate (or tap) your mobile phone randomly for several seconds, to tell whether you're hearing (or, eventually, seeing) some autoidentified copyrighted content that your database lookup shows you're not licensed to consume at that time (because you haven't paid for that content for that timeslot). And then automatically charge you damages, or cut off your phone or have you arrested (or just sued and subpoenaed).
The tech will allow it: only the autoidentify is still waiting, and they'll start using that on us well before it's reliable. And then of course they'll do it; rights or other impediments to consumer abuse will never stand in their way. Killing the culture by stifling the free exchange of popular content which underwrites all cultural activity, doing most of the work perpetuating it, won't matter to them until it's well too late.
One issue of the SCO/Novell suit is whether SCO owns the Unix System V code (by owning its copyrights), or whether Novell still does instead. Novell didn't seem to be doing any business depending on owning the Unix copyright, so even if this suit is settled (probably by the judge, in a binding decision) specifying that Unix belongs to Novell either because SCO never owned it, or that SCO did own it but must surrendered it to Novell as compensation for damages, Novell will probably own it. But what will they do with it?
Will they sell it "again", this time retaining their rights to use it that will prevent any attempt at the kind of extortion SCO attempted (whether or not it was legitimately based)? Will they keep it and use it themselves, other than to protect their right to include it in Linux? Will they kill it so it doesn't cause any problems in the new market Novell is in (maybe because Microsoft wants it out of the way once and for all)? Or will they perhaps kill just the copyright, and put it all into the public domain, or under GPL - perhaps just including it in a revised Linux kernel?
Will Novell perhaps release a Linux compatible layer made of Unix that interoperates with only the Novell distro, and with Vista?
The SCO/Novell suit could turn out to be just a preliminary battle. The next chapter of Unix's history could turn out to be the really interesting one. Which, with that kind of relativity, could be extremely interesting.
The only reason courts are finding in favor of common sense and the obvious workings of the law, and against shortsighted business interests, is because the culture is slowly making these attitudes part of common sense. Before, these principles were always merely a matter of esoteric expertise, which excludes "common sense" itself. The nature of "obvious" is defined by the overall community experience.
So it pays to keep whining, if the whines are legitimate, about injustices like these. It just takes way too long to feel good about it.
I tend to think that since there has never been any as bad as this one, and he's the worst by such a large margin, especially in catastrophes like this, that the next one is extremely unlikely to be any worse, because this one is the worst ever. Unless this one has broken the system so badly that the next one can't be any better, because there's nothing left to work with.
Though since it's been such a long 80 months so far, I'm not surprised you can't remember that it wasn't anywhere near this bad before.
Even if these records were under my own control, on a my server, behind a firewall I control, in my home connected over my home broadband, or some other system where I control physical and network access to it, I still wouldn't trust Microsoft to control it.
Microsoft has proven that it should be trusted with info only when absolutely necessary, like when you're already locked into its OS/software monopoly. The CIOs of those healthcare corps already know that: it's not just common knowledge, but they're spending $millions every year coping with Microsoft server and desktop insecurities in their orgs. Their disregard of the certainty that Microsoft will leak this data just says that they have no respect whatsoever for the privacy and safety of their patients - and those patients' families.
I expect this whole project is another way for Microsoft to get even more info to profile all Americans (and visitors) in every way. Probably some payback for Bush leaving them their monopoly that has to do with Bush wiretapping us. Together, Microsoft and the Federal government will have all our personal info, right down to our DNA and psychological tests.
Slashdot Mirror
Will all cop cars have this crackable feature?
"Autologous" donations are donations extracted from you when you're healthy enough, like in advance of surgery, for use later, like when you need it during/after surgery. Currently, it's infrequent, and suffers from the same problems (possibly) identified by this study after a while.
But if you donated blood in advance of surgery, and it were used within a few hours, you could get a credit for blood later on when you need it urgently. If everyone scheduled for surgery were required to donate blood in advance (if they were healthy enough to do so), there would be so much blood available all the time that the fresh stuff would never be in short supply.
The infrastructure is in place right now. The techniques are nearly the same, just a tiny little DB and fridge shuffling to keep the fresh stuff flowing, and discard the extra as it ages.
All that's required to permanently end the incessant "blood shortages" and blood drives that could work on something else instead, would be making these donations a requirement.
No, in point of fact the jury's job does indeed include deciding that the law makes no sense:
The point of a jury trial is to make sure that accused people are treated reasonably, by their peers, according to the sensibility of their community. Our country's committment to the people and our collective wisdom in living with each other is so strong that even after all the people-mediated processes produce a law, the people still aren't forced to coerce each other according to it, if we go through due process.
Even when applying the law, the jury is not bound by damages awards when it disagrees with their basis, formula, eligible incidents or net result.
The jury might not know either of those ways the system works, but that would be the fault of the defendant's lawyers, or maybe the judge. The system is a lot more flexible than that.
Except that it's not "my" teardown. Make of it what you will. At least I posted the source of my info: all you're doing is declaring "facts". If you have some evidence that their parts ID is incorrect, post a better teardown. And I'll make of that what I will.
Maybe his exact title wasn't exactly "Chief Security Officer", but that was his job. And it might have been early 2005, for that matter. It was 2-3 years ago, and he didn't impress me to remember much about him except that he was a total lightweight in a job that demanded a heavyweight. Everything I said is true. I really don't care whether you believe me.
You "calm down" or whatever you need to do to read my post properly.
I met at length with Microsoft's Chief Security Officer (as I'm telling you for the third time now). He knew nothing about security. Not even what MS had done about security under his immediate predecessor, which included that BS about "every single MS programmer taking all of January off to do nothing but secure Windows and their apps".
This was in 2004, in NYC, where he was meeting with the NYC legislature (advised by me). We are responsible for security at a level of rigor matched by few governments other than the US Federal government, which also depends on us. So we were, naturally, appalled.
The CSO is not a "marketing exec". Unless it's Microsoft, evidently. Which goes a long way towards explaining why MS is insecure.
Moreover, I used to work closely with one of CMP Publications' top VPs, the one who published _Dr Dobbs Journal_. In the 1990s, he used to help me get gigs in Silicon Valley. And I used to tag along on his meetings with MS execs and other staff (he used to meet with Gates in Redmond several times a month). The entire crew was like that. Some were smart, some were geeks. But they were always there because of either their marketing or legal assets, or (more often, like any other big corp) because they were social animals who could keep their jobs and rise to the top in the group of humans, regardless of what they worked on.
Which is the same as most any big corp. But still one reason that it's dysfunctional, as they all are, except to make lots of money, despite an inferior product. In Microsoft's case, its their monopoly that makes it all go. Which is why they perpetuate their business success with marketing and legal minds, rather than experts in, say, security.
But that's OK for them. Not for customers like, say, New York City.
And people telling me that it is OK for NYC to get the marketing gladhand instead of the security expert are not OK with me. Get it straight: this stuff matters. People's lives are on the line. You think you can flip it off... that's why you are just a MS customer, and I am the NYC City Council's tech advisor.
Vitriol? It's the truth. And that's what the City Council, like the rest of my serious clients over many years, have me around for. For years, since I helped them become a full committee, with a budget and oversight of NYC's huge IT department.
What do you know of MS execs? Have you ever even met one directly? I bet not. I have, more than one, and this guy was the Chief Security Officer for the entire MS corporation. What about NYC? Have you ever even been here? Been in a City Council committee meeting, whether public or private? Do you even understand that "a city council" like NYC is responsible for security for 10 million people every day, including the UN, 3 giant airports, the country's largest seaport, a $50 BILLION annual city budget? I didn't ask for a "supercoder", but someone who knew something meaningful about security, like what MS did about it six months before under his predecessor would have been reassuring from their Chief Security Officer.
I say you're just talking out of your ass, from someplace tiny that you think is big and "serious", because you don't know what "big and serious" really is. That's not just "vitriol". That's what you get when you push naive BS like that, contradicting a New Yorker like me, who knows the truth, and knows that you don't. Just don't bother telling me that you're in marketing or something like that. Even if you're really a "supercoder".
Microsoft's execs have no expertise in the subject of the departments they direct (except maybe legal or marketing). They are expert in being executives. I once met for a long time with the MS "Chief Security Officer", in my capacity advising the NYC City Council (legislature). He knew nothing about security, not even the recent history of MS (in)security under his predecessor. And I've watched how MS shuffles its execs.
All that the person in the job needs to know is their marching orders from where the only real MS strategy comes from: the mutual work of the (real) geniuses in legal and marketing. That's all MS is good at, and all it needs to be good at. They need to know how to talk to the other execs in their job, and the inevitable lawyers from other companies and the government, and marketers from everywhere.
So he's a "server marketer". It means nothing that he's also an "open source exec". All that means is that he's going to meetings about "open source" and "servers", which we already know since MS has a major strategic alliance with Novell over Linux, and Novell just won proof that Unix belongs to Novell, and *nix runs the only competition to MS servers. But I wouldn't expect this guy to know that until he takes the job.
Google and others like it should force open the airwaves for mobile telecom. Telcos like AT&T, Sprint and Verizon have fled to their mobile divisions because it's still much more regulated against competition, though without the "common carrier" regulations that forced competition in landlines, and cable, and carried over into Internet. Even though radio phones are the least reliable, and often the most urgently needed, the redundancy that any phone connecting to any network available at the time/place is still out of reach. Except at outrageous roaming rates. Including the charges for text and other async messaging.
Google tried to force the 700MHz band open to any terminal device, unbundling the network from the dialtone. It didn't work. But there are other ways, and Google is persistent. Google bought lots of fiber and built lots of datacenters, so it can mount its own competitive telco. But Google's model calls for everyone to have unfettered access to all content and people on all the networks, so Google can help everyone navigate everyone else's content (and each other). They'll get there. And the incumbent telcos (and cablecos which keep their own bundled monopolies, though they just got the cableboxes unbundled from them this year) can't compete with Google. It's too rich, too popular, too smart. Unfolding history is on Google's side. I just wish it would all happen a lot faster.
What IP exactly is licensed from MIPS? And how come they don't have to pay it when emulating it? And if they don't, why didn't they emulate it earlier, and save all that money, including skipping the back-compat HW in the PS3 rollout?
What you said (in its entirety):
What you say now:
Here's the point of actual logic that derails all your "thoughts": the Cell is hard to program, so not using it entirely is not a sign of being "very lazy". Besides, there isn't even any evidence to support your implication that perhaps the Cell isn't fast enough.
You're contradicting yourself, as well as writing opaque crap.
I'm friendly, but not towards belligerent, obnoxious idiots. Goodbye.
Your programmer history means you don't have any excuse for the poorly constructed logic in that post. If you do Cell programming, how can you say that the Cell isn't 10x as powerful as a PS2?
FWIW, I do indeed help people who work on peace to use technology, as I have for many years, starting in the 1980s (amidst my extensive programming career predating that by a decade). So there's yet another reason to reject the implication in your question, on top of your demonstrated quality at reasoning even within your own specialty.
This research exposes only a single grant code, responsible for up to "tens of $millions" in funding for NSA work. The NSA has budgets in the $BILLIONS, if not tens of $BILLIONS, every year. I'm sure there are more grant codes, and this research is exposing perhaps only one percent or less of what the NSA is spending covertly every year.
As I posted elsewhere in this discussion, a teardown revealed that the HW cost difference between the embedded HW PS2 and its SW emulation is about $30.
A teardown revealed that the EE cost $27 each from Toshiba, and integrating it probably cost another $5 (including specify other mutual parts that will serve double, rather than single, duty, including security HW for PS2 games).
So you're probably nearly exactly correct. I wonder how much per revised unit it will have cost to redesign and change the manufacturing, across the first few million units sold. Possibly a breakeven, if the redesign/retool cost more than $30-60M.
I think they're just dropping PS2 compatibility so that PS2 game sales don't compete with PS3s. Sony is slightly immune to "planned obsolescence" criticism, because they still sell PS2 consoles fairly cheap, and even PS1 consoles. And PS3s will still run PS2 games, just in SW. This PS3 rollout seems to be running quite sensibly, especially for the recently erratic Sony strategists.
The PS3 Cell does have much more than 10x the CPU power of the PS2.
But raw power doesn't mean that the old games would run on the new chip. Or that there are enough programmers to port to the new chip, or that porting all those old games is worth doing, instead of just including the old chips and some glue.
Do you know how to program? Or are you saying "very lazy" without knowing what you're talking about? Making you both clueless and lazy...
I don't know karate, but I do know CAAA- RAAAY-ZEEEE!
How good is it? Is there any actual data showing how accurate it is? Can it distinguish among different cover versions? Find short samples in a larger mix?
Probably not. Like I said, false positives won't stop them from using it against us. So I expect that they're already doing it, just waiting to accumulate case history in all these RIAA suits. Maybe already even "testing" the random, silent tapping of people's phones.
They end wherever the "market" ceases to bear the charges.
I expect that sometime soon, the copyright industry will convince courts to let them silently activate (or tap) your mobile phone randomly for several seconds, to tell whether you're hearing (or, eventually, seeing) some autoidentified copyrighted content that your database lookup shows you're not licensed to consume at that time (because you haven't paid for that content for that timeslot). And then automatically charge you damages, or cut off your phone or have you arrested (or just sued and subpoenaed).
The tech will allow it: only the autoidentify is still waiting, and they'll start using that on us well before it's reliable. And then of course they'll do it; rights or other impediments to consumer abuse will never stand in their way. Killing the culture by stifling the free exchange of popular content which underwrites all cultural activity, doing most of the work perpetuating it, won't matter to them until it's well too late.
One issue of the SCO/Novell suit is whether SCO owns the Unix System V code (by owning its copyrights), or whether Novell still does instead. Novell didn't seem to be doing any business depending on owning the Unix copyright, so even if this suit is settled (probably by the judge, in a binding decision) specifying that Unix belongs to Novell either because SCO never owned it, or that SCO did own it but must surrendered it to Novell as compensation for damages, Novell will probably own it. But what will they do with it?
Will they sell it "again", this time retaining their rights to use it that will prevent any attempt at the kind of extortion SCO attempted (whether or not it was legitimately based)? Will they keep it and use it themselves, other than to protect their right to include it in Linux? Will they kill it so it doesn't cause any problems in the new market Novell is in (maybe because Microsoft wants it out of the way once and for all)? Or will they perhaps kill just the copyright, and put it all into the public domain, or under GPL - perhaps just including it in a revised Linux kernel?
Will Novell perhaps release a Linux compatible layer made of Unix that interoperates with only the Novell distro, and with Vista?
The SCO/Novell suit could turn out to be just a preliminary battle. The next chapter of Unix's history could turn out to be the really interesting one. Which, with that kind of relativity, could be extremely interesting.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
TrollMods don't even want their own privacy, when they could sacrifice it at their Microsoft altar.
The only reason courts are finding in favor of common sense and the obvious workings of the law, and against shortsighted business interests, is because the culture is slowly making these attitudes part of common sense. Before, these principles were always merely a matter of esoteric expertise, which excludes "common sense" itself. The nature of "obvious" is defined by the overall community experience.
So it pays to keep whining, if the whines are legitimate, about injustices like these. It just takes way too long to feel good about it.
I tend to think that since there has never been any as bad as this one, and he's the worst by such a large margin, especially in catastrophes like this, that the next one is extremely unlikely to be any worse, because this one is the worst ever. Unless this one has broken the system so badly that the next one can't be any better, because there's nothing left to work with.
Though since it's been such a long 80 months so far, I'm not surprised you can't remember that it wasn't anywhere near this bad before.
It's gonna be a long 16 months.
Even if these records were under my own control, on a my server, behind a firewall I control, in my home connected over my home broadband, or some other system where I control physical and network access to it, I still wouldn't trust Microsoft to control it.
Microsoft has proven that it should be trusted with info only when absolutely necessary, like when you're already locked into its OS/software monopoly. The CIOs of those healthcare corps already know that: it's not just common knowledge, but they're spending $millions every year coping with Microsoft server and desktop insecurities in their orgs. Their disregard of the certainty that Microsoft will leak this data just says that they have no respect whatsoever for the privacy and safety of their patients - and those patients' families.
I expect this whole project is another way for Microsoft to get even more info to profile all Americans (and visitors) in every way. Probably some payback for Bush leaving them their monopoly that has to do with Bush wiretapping us. Together, Microsoft and the Federal government will have all our personal info, right down to our DNA and psychological tests.