Artificial limbs, I see that. Now what is with someone who had laser surgery on his eyes so he/she can see better ? For that case no because it's a repair to a damaged or poorly-functioning natural body part. I would see it as no different than having a torn acl repaired or maybe having a hip replaced. However if someone had bionic eyes installed that would likely be a different answer. Then it isn't apples to apples anymore. Ultimately there has to be an application of reasonableness to it with a mind towards precedent. It's ok to allow technology so long as it is safe and available to everyone. If it isn't it should be prohibited in the competition.
Where it's going to get weird is with gene therapy. Then the line between natural and unnatural is going to get VERY fuzzy because you will be changing the genome of the athlete. Fairness will become very hard to adjudicate at that point.
The question is do these alleged "enhancements" negate the human spirit....or are they simply 1:1 replacements for what he was born with. The problem is that it is impossible to tell how much is him and how much is the prosthetics. He can't run without them so there is nothing to compare to. Any argument that they do or do not provide an "advantage" is ridiculous because his performance versus the prosthetics performance are not separable.
What cannot be argued is that they do enhance his performance. They do so in very much the same way that steroids enhance performance. My legs don't work well enough to get me to the Olympics either but with some good drugs and/or a mechanical assist I would definitely have a better shot at it. I admire the guy but I don't think he deserves a shot at the Olympics either because he cannot compete fairly with the other athletes.
Furthermore you are forgetting about the guy who's place he would take in the games. Why should that guy get screwed just because he couldn't use a mechanical assist? He shouldn't.
Drug taking is mostly illegal because of the seriously negative side effects of many of the performance enhancing drugs. That's half the reason. The other half is to keep sports from becoming a pharmaceutical arms race with the associated costs in addition to the dangers you already mentioned. (Yes I know in reality it already is but we don't have to condone it) Seems to miss the point of a fair competition if the winner is determined by who has the most/best drugs pumped into them.
If he came back and someone made artificial legs that put him within a reasonable margin of error of what the other athletes have to work with, I'd say sure, let him run. So when do I get my artificial enhancements? My legs aren't built to run at Olympic speed (I blame my parents) so why does he get special treatment and I don't? Aside from legality, this is no different than using performance enhancing drugs. His legs ARE a performance enhancement. Without them he, like 99.9999% of people out there including myself, could not qualify for the Olympics. I admire his accomplishments but having a handicap should not get you a special pass to the Olympics.
Drug taking IS NOT illegal because it is dangerous. Actually that is exactly why many drugs are illegal. That's why we have prescriptions and require a doctor to confirm that we need certain medications. It also keeps many unethical swindlers from peddling snake-oil cures. It's also why many drugs with limited medicinal uses are prohibited for sale to the general public. Pretty much any drug has the potential to be dangerous if used improperly and many are quite dangerous under any circumstances even with the best of supervision.
Anabolic steroids have legal uses. I have an aunt who has been using them for a few years. Under appropriate supervision steroids can be safely used but they also can cause all sorts of problem including but not limited to immune system suppression. There are medical conditions such as allergies where their use is indicated (though almost always for short periods of time) but they're not to be taken lightly.
Aspirin and similar drugs in that category kill more people than ALL illegal drugs in the US You're going to have to cite some data to back that up before I find that credible. You might be right but that's a pretty big claim to make.
Saying that performance enhancing drugs are somehow more dangerous is only used to convince feeble minded dolts that 'all drugs are bad'. You're missing the point. The problem is not that the drugs CAN NOT be used safely. The problem is that the WILL NOT be used safely. Athletes will keep trying to get an edge and they will push beyond the limits of safety in their quest for sporting glory. It's absolutely guaranteed to happen.
Are performance enhancing drugs more dangerous than others? Absolutely not. But they are dangerous just like every other drug, especially when used at the limits of human capability.
Think of the skis and the fancy swim suits used in the swim competitions.Of more relevance are the spiked running shoes used by the runners. They offer a huge advantage. All of which are available to every competitor. This guy's prosthetic legs are performance enhancing technology that is not available or usable by any other competitor. Technology that provides an unfair or unsafe advantage can be accounted for in the rules but those rules have to be applied uniformly. Performance enhancing drugs have been ruled illegal primarily for safety reasons but also because it becomes a technological arms race defeating the whole point of fair competition. I cannot find a logical distinction between performance enhancing drugs and performance enhancing prosthetics.
Sports are very much intertwined with technology. It is simply that for this athlete the line in drawn at a different point. Which is exactly the problem. The line CANNOT be drawn in a different place for different competitors. The rules have to be applied uniformly and fairly.
It is my assertion that his participation is NOT unfair to the other athlete. Yes it is unfair because the athletes are not competing under the same conditions. It doesn't matter whether he could win the gold, he's taking another athlete's chance to even go to the Olympics. He's not the only sprinter in his country. Without his performance enhancing legs he would have zero chance to make the Olympic team. That is no different (other than legality) than someone taking performance enhancing drugs to make the team when they would otherwise lack the ability to do so.
Going to the Olympics is an honor. It means you are one of the best in the world at your sport. If I had my place on the team taken by someone who had a mechanical performance enhancement no one else had, I'd be rightfully pissed. I feel bad for the guy but 99.9999% of the world's population isn't gifted enough to go to the Olympics either. He shouldn't get any special privileges, technological or otherwise.
A) To exclude him the IAAF would have to prove that he had an undue advantage. B) The IAAF failed to do so. You forgot: C) The CAS panel who made the ruling are a bunch of idiots who missed the entire point.
MOST people don't have the ability to compete in the Olympics. Having a disability shouldn't give anyone the right to a mechanical or chemical assist not available to the other athletes. Performance enhancing legs are no different than performance enhancing drugs other than their legality. Without them he has as much chance to make the Olympics as the rest of us - none.
Well, if you really wanted too you could et your legs chopped off and attach a pair of cheetas instead. Not really. I'm built for other sports. I'm an ok runner but even with prosthetics I likely wouldn't be fast enough for Olympic competition. How about I just ride a bike instead? After all, what's the difference between one performance enhancer and another?
He does not get a big advantage over other athletes Ã" he has had huge hurdles to overcome (balance for one). Why not let him compete in the Olympics? The Olympics is supposed to take the best guy Ã" and not discriminate against him because he is disabled. I wasn't born with legs fast enough to be an Olympic sprinter either. Why are you discriminating against me?
For the sarcastically impaired, most of us aren't physically gifted enough to be Olympic athletes. That's the WHOLE FLIPPIN' POINT.
Did you actually read the article? It said that the legs did not give him a mechanical advantage: But the ARE performance enhancing. How is that ANY different than someone taking performance enhancing drugs? It isn't. This ruling misses the point. While he's not cheating he's not competing under the same rules as everyone else either. The prosthetics allow him to do things his body cannot naturally do and none of his competitors will have a similar chance to (legally) enhance their performance the same way.
I wasn't born with legs fast enough to run 400 meters in 45 seconds either even with feet. Yes it sucks to not have two feet but that doesn't mean anyone should get an advantage in getting to the Olympics. Not me and not anyone else.
So in just a years time, the only thing we will be left with is the precedent that allows cyborgs in the Olympics. Actually the more immediate and interesting question is how do they justify this in the face of their ban on performance enhancing drugs? Cold and heartless maybe but I cannot see a logical difference between performance enhancing legs (and they ARE unquestionably performance enhancing) and performance enhancing drugs. Forget cyborgs 50 years from now, there is a double standard now because of this ruling.
Look, I wasn't born with legs that can run at Olympic sprinter speeds either. Why should this guy get a free pass when I don't just because he was born with a birth defect? Envy? Maybe (probably) but I was a pretty good athlete many moons ago (yes a few of us are here on Slashdot... save your insults) and I would have liked a shot at the Olympics too. While he's not cheating (I greatly admire what he's accomplished) I think there is a double standard here. Most of us are not born with the ability to be Olympic athletes. That's supposedly the entire point. Perhaps not anymore?
Nice post. Hardly any facts, no meaningful statistics, and certainly no coherent arguments but I'm the one "drinking the coolaid". Sure... You stated earlier that the US has no manufacturing left which is demonstrably wrong and now you are off on some useless rant about national debt, 30 year mortgages and MBAs. I've no idea what you're so pissed about but it clearly upsets you whatever it is. That's one of the more random bits of ranting I've read in quite a while.
Not only would it help keep some manufacturing jobs here but it would just make me feel a lot safer. I understand. Believe it or not I used to feel the same way. I had to be involved in global sourcing for quite a while to come to terms with the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's ok if we buy some stuff elsewhere. It is not an intuitive idea, that's for sure and it IS a little unsettling to rely on something manufactured in a country you might not totally trust.
Certainly there are critical items that absolutely should never be manufactured anywhere but in the US. But I'd submit that some less critical items are probably OK to do elsewhere. We can (and should) debate about where the cutoff should be, but I don't really care if the pencils the army uses are manufactured in China or not. Silly example I know, but that's the point. Not "everything" has to be made in the US for it to be useful and safe.
I think the past couple months of economic headlines are putting to rest that notion that destroying your manufacturing base is a good idea. Where did you get the idea that the US manufacturing base has been "destroyed"? Sure, a lot of labor intensive work has migrated to locations with low labor cost. But US manufacturing output has increased in the last 10 years. For example manufacturing output in Michigan rose 6.6% from 2001-2006 and Michigan is one of the harder hit states in the recent economic downturn. Employment in manufacturing has fallen but actual output has increased quite steadily. It's no different than the farm industry. Fewer individuals are directly employed in farming but output is higher than ever. Here is a link to a powerpoint presentation given by an economist at the Fed. His basic conclusions? Manufacturing in the US has never been higher. and productivity increases have been massive. Disagree if you want, but please support your position with facts and data, not vague assertions that the sky is falling.
We were a lot better off when a lot more stuff *was* US made. Why do you say that? There are very few economists who would agree with you. Please study the concept of comparative advantage. While there are certainly downsides to global trade, there is overwhelming evidence that on balance it is beneficial to those who participate. Just ask North Korea how successful their economy has been by isolating themselves from the rest of the world.
would be a radical departure from the free reign allowed to companies WRT to outsourcing the manufacture of devices that are critical to national defense and infrastructure. Such as? Seriously, I'm curious about your experiences. I've got a lot of experience with global sourcing though mostly in the private sector. I've also had exposure to government procurement though it's not my main expertise. I'm aware of many instances of defense infrastructure being outsourced (recent example: the Northrop/EADS tanker contract) but I'm hardly an expert on the matter. What have you seen outsourced that is genuinely critical and you feel should not be outsourced? No joke, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
They can't just watch for network activity; these routers might be filtering and caching data waiting for the eventual physical removal of the router in the next upgrade cycle Which presumes the entity making the modifications has access to the device and the upgrade schedule - rather a stretch I think. Plus, our government isn't exactly known for rapid upgrades. Timeliness of any information would be a huge issue.
-- or, they might all have a kill switch built in, so someone can remotely take out ALL routers. Which presumes that all such said routers can receive such signals. Possible? I suppose, but incredibly unlikely. And even if it happened what are the effects? Hard to predict but probably not devastating. Now if it can disable warships? That's a problem.
There are an infinite number of possibilities to look for, and since Cisco doesn't manufacture everything in-house, they really don't have much hope of detecting that none of the infinite possible modifications have been made. They wouldn't be able to check for everything even if they did manufacture everything themselves. If I was going to compromise a piece of equipment I'd get someone on the design staff if I could. Yes there are an almost infinite number of possible threats but a MUCH smaller number of feasible ones. My point is that it's easy to think of threats but most of them will be practically impossible to execute or not very useful in real life.
I am generally for free trade and against protectionism, but I am leaning more and more towards the need for a law that makes it mandatory that all gear (guns, routers, computers, coffee makers, etc.) purchased by the Government for any use that is even remotely sensitive be made in the US by US owned companies. That won't necessarily solve this kind of problem, but it would certainly make it far easier to prosecute entities who do things that threaten our national security. As for "prosecuting" the military has weapons for that sort of thing. Lot cheaper to send a team of Navy Seals to handle a situation than to insist everything be US made.
On a more serious note, I think you should take some time to look at how the US government does procurement. Typically the US government is EXTREMELY rigorous (to the point of stupidity sometimes) in how they source, where they source from, the design of the products, how much will be paid and when. Generally speaking the US military and other security agencies are quite aware of the security risks of products designed overseas and generally speaking they take appropriate precautions. Being a supplier to the government can be lucrative (ask Haliburton) but it's also often a huge pain in the ass due to the security and regulations to (hopefully) keep ner-do-wells from ripping the government off or endangering national security.
the counterfeit routers are made in the same factories by the same people who make the real routers; they just keep the assembly line running past the hours that Cisco is paying them for. That happens ALL the time. I've visited manufacturing plants in China and I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Selling out the back door is not surprising at all. In fact this is why I'm less worried than I might otherwise be about the gear having back doors or being otherwise compromised. Simplest explanation is just theft in one form or another.
does the LEGIT Cisco equipment contain back doors? Very good question. Got to be worrisome to the US military and security agencies. Much/most off the shelf hardware is made outside the US where it wouldn't me much of a stretch to imagine backdoors have been added by foreign governments. Same worries that other governments have about US made/designed software and hardware. And of course if you really want to get tin-foil-hat about it one has to wonder if our own government has had back doors installed. Very unlikely to be sure, but clearly possible.
That said, it's pretty low on the list of likely threats. Pretty hard to know exactly what gear will be placed where and what it will give you access to. Plus even with a back door, places with sensitive data are more likely to be monitoring the traffic which is harder to hide.
Those services are for discussion inside a group, not for handling emails from outside. So set up an email account to forward to the group. Problem solved. A Google Group (or similar - not recommending a specific one) would be a MUCH better solution than a joint email account for almost any application I can think of unless there is some pretty serious security issues involved.
That only works well under the presumption that everyone's able/bothered to work out their own filtering system... I don't buy the "able" argument personally. That's just laziness to my mind. Which leaves "bothered" in your terminology. If someone can't be bothered to organize their own account I find it highly unlikely they will be bothered in a joint account.
Personally I think joint accounts are normally a terrible idea. They are extremely difficult to maintain since (supposedly) everyone is responsible. In my experience if everyone is supposed to be responsible then in reality no one is actually responsible. Tragedy of the commons applies here. Everyone trusts someone else will deal with it and it becomes a big old mess.
The only problem is that I have a wife and kid to support and my current job pays very well. Have any of you been through this kind of career 'mid-life crisis?' Yes. I'm an engineer by training and by vocation for the last decade. However I realized a few years ago the career prospects for me in my engineering field are somewhat limited, not to mention boring, compared to what I ultimately want to do. So I've been diversifying, learning about finance and several other fields necessary for my goals and slowly changing my career path.
What did you do to get out of the rut? I went to graduate school personally but that's not the only way to do it. It was just the most condensed way to get the education I felt I needed. What I'd recommend is to start talking to people you trust, preferably people with a lot of experience in various fields and ask them about what it is they do. You'll learn a lot but also probably get some very good advice along the way.
Is making a complete career change at this point a bad idea?" No, especially if you have some money saved away. The tough question actually isn't should you change. The tough question is what should you change to? Took me a long time to figure that one out.
Slashdot Mirror
Where it's going to get weird is with gene therapy. Then the line between natural and unnatural is going to get VERY fuzzy because you will be changing the genome of the athlete. Fairness will become very hard to adjudicate at that point.
What cannot be argued is that they do enhance his performance. They do so in very much the same way that steroids enhance performance. My legs don't work well enough to get me to the Olympics either but with some good drugs and/or a mechanical assist I would definitely have a better shot at it. I admire the guy but I don't think he deserves a shot at the Olympics either because he cannot compete fairly with the other athletes.
Furthermore you are forgetting about the guy who's place he would take in the games. Why should that guy get screwed just because he couldn't use a mechanical assist? He shouldn't.
Are performance enhancing drugs more dangerous than others? Absolutely not. But they are dangerous just like every other drug, especially when used at the limits of human capability.
Going to the Olympics is an honor. It means you are one of the best in the world at your sport. If I had my place on the team taken by someone who had a mechanical performance enhancement no one else had, I'd be rightfully pissed. I feel bad for the guy but 99.9999% of the world's population isn't gifted enough to go to the Olympics either. He shouldn't get any special privileges, technological or otherwise.
B) The IAAF failed to do so. You forgot:
C) The CAS panel who made the ruling are a bunch of idiots who missed the entire point.
MOST people don't have the ability to compete in the Olympics. Having a disability shouldn't give anyone the right to a mechanical or chemical assist not available to the other athletes. Performance enhancing legs are no different than performance enhancing drugs other than their legality. Without them he has as much chance to make the Olympics as the rest of us - none.
For the sarcastically impaired, most of us aren't physically gifted enough to be Olympic athletes. That's the WHOLE FLIPPIN' POINT.
I wasn't born with legs fast enough to run 400 meters in 45 seconds either even with feet. Yes it sucks to not have two feet but that doesn't mean anyone should get an advantage in getting to the Olympics. Not me and not anyone else.
Look, I wasn't born with legs that can run at Olympic sprinter speeds either. Why should this guy get a free pass when I don't just because he was born with a birth defect? Envy? Maybe (probably) but I was a pretty good athlete many moons ago (yes a few of us are here on Slashdot... save your insults) and I would have liked a shot at the Olympics too. While he's not cheating (I greatly admire what he's accomplished) I think there is a double standard here. Most of us are not born with the ability to be Olympic athletes. That's supposedly the entire point. Perhaps not anymore?
Nice post. Hardly any facts, no meaningful statistics, and certainly no coherent arguments but I'm the one "drinking the coolaid". Sure... You stated earlier that the US has no manufacturing left which is demonstrably wrong and now you are off on some useless rant about national debt, 30 year mortgages and MBAs. I've no idea what you're so pissed about but it clearly upsets you whatever it is. That's one of the more random bits of ranting I've read in quite a while.
Certainly there are critical items that absolutely should never be manufactured anywhere but in the US. But I'd submit that some less critical items are probably OK to do elsewhere. We can (and should) debate about where the cutoff should be, but I don't really care if the pencils the army uses are manufactured in China or not. Silly example I know, but that's the point. Not "everything" has to be made in the US for it to be useful and safe.
Dude, lost and found called. They have your sense of humor whenever you want to pick it up.
On a more serious note, I think you should take some time to look at how the US government does procurement. Typically the US government is EXTREMELY rigorous (to the point of stupidity sometimes) in how they source, where they source from, the design of the products, how much will be paid and when. Generally speaking the US military and other security agencies are quite aware of the security risks of products designed overseas and generally speaking they take appropriate precautions. Being a supplier to the government can be lucrative (ask Haliburton) but it's also often a huge pain in the ass due to the security and regulations to (hopefully) keep ner-do-wells from ripping the government off or endangering national security.
That said, it's pretty low on the list of likely threats. Pretty hard to know exactly what gear will be placed where and what it will give you access to. Plus even with a back door, places with sensitive data are more likely to be monitoring the traffic which is harder to hide.
Republicans are no better than democrats and vice-versa.
Personally I think joint accounts are normally a terrible idea. They are extremely difficult to maintain since (supposedly) everyone is responsible. In my experience if everyone is supposed to be responsible then in reality no one is actually responsible. Tragedy of the commons applies here. Everyone trusts someone else will deal with it and it becomes a big old mess.