I suspect that you're going to have a lot more pushback when you ask those same surgeons to hazard the lives of healthy people in exchange for mortgage payments or a new car.
Which is why I suggest measures to make sure it can't happen -- place the money in trust, and ensure it can only be spent on wellbeing.
Medical payments for new procedures for the family of the donor would be OK.
Donating the money to a charity selected by the organ donor, would be OK.
Or ask why Java on Windows boxes seems to want to update every third day, as does Adobe Reader
I hate to break it to you, but updating your Java plugin is NOT sound security practice.
Completely disabling and uninstalling your Java plugin is sound security practice; the Reader plugin should be turned off as well.
It doesn't matter, how up to date you think you are ---- the latest Java has more security holes than a sieve in it.
Yeah; some of them will eventually be found, and exploited, and malware deployed.
Then 3 months later, Oracle will come out with the next quarterly update, to fix the bug that has been getting exploited in the wild for 3 months.
All the folks running JAVA6 will still be SOL, because only Enterprises can afford the ridiculous Oracle extended support prices. Meanwhile the majority of Java applications people are using require Version6, and will not work with JAVA7 or newer.
Meanwhile.... Updating to the latest patch release of JAVA7 does not automatically remove or disable JAVA6.
Meanwhile.... when the typical user installs the Java update; there is always some offer for Adware or some random Toolbar or browser, that will get installed, because the user is just clicking next -- and not looking for the obscure box to uncheck.
Automatic updates from well-established trusted companies are one thing.
For others.... I would rather see Google automatically "shut off" these extensions, and only turn them on or update when requested by the user.
Google is not in any position to judge what addons of their system need, or don't need updates
These folks have no business installing random bits of extension addon bits in their browser. They are armed and dangerous, with any extension installation feature.
Also Google is not equipped to make this decision for them for each plugin --- Google employees do not curate the updates, before they get forced: check the release notes for the update, and manually approve it.
The biggest reason why there is an organ supply problem is that there is no incentive for people to give up their own organs. The solution is to create a donor list: if you are on the list you will receive organs before none donors in the event you need one
Or they could allow each actual donor to provide a short list of people that will be prioritized, in the event, that the donor's organs are harvested. First priority to actual surviving donors, Second priority to 1 extra person listed by the donor for every organ successfully transplanted (In the event any of those people are ever in the future requiring a transplant), Third priority to those who volunteering to donate their organs and their body to science upon their death and also have made a substantial financial contribution to medical research made on their behalf (Substantial = 2% of the person's annual income), and do these things at least 2 years before they are placed on any organ waiting list; Fourth priority to those who who just volunteer to donate their organs after their death.
The problem is the non-donor's condition could be more imminent; the donor might not be so sick.
I believe the donor priority is decided mostly by compatibility, distance (geographical closeness), and immediacy of the need.
"Go to the hospital, sell a lung, come back, give me the money or several bad things will happen to your family."
Add regulatory burden.
Requirement for psychological evaluation; DNA sample + gene sequencing. Requirement potential sellers take a lie-detector test, show they are in good health financially and physically --- that they have the financial means to repay all debts, and confirm that they are conducting the sale willingly, not under duress, and not for booze money, or to repay some consumer debt or predatory loan.
Requirement, that if they are filing for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy must be completed first, and cash proceeds or assets purchased using dollars received from the sale cannot be held, frozen, or seized, and used to pay creditors, cannot be used to satisfy a judgement or unpaid dollars owed for alimony or child support, and cannot be used to cover a tax liability owed to the IRS, or other state or federal governmental entities.
Requirement to sign papers expressing intent to sell an organ and receive a secure document from the feds conveying individual sale approval, with a 6 to 12 month cooldown/waiting period, before a sale and transplant can be conducted.
Looks like Nagios Plugins was a community project to provide plugins for Nagios, with little to no input by Nagios themselves.
They were a community project to develop plugins. The guy who originally developed the Nagios core software, eventually went on to create Nagios enterprises.
The NetSaint plugins project was renamed to the Nagios plugins project in ~2001; The nagios-plugins repo has content going back 9 years.
Nagios Enterprises company was first founded in 2007. The Nagios Trademark was registered in 2007.
The Nagios plugins project pre-dated the existence of the corporate entity or any trademark registrations, by at least 5 years.
Yeah, and that would hold weight if you weren't using their trademark all over your site.
I think you don't get it... the Nagios Plugins project pre-dated Nagios.
The Nagios Plugins Project was renamed from The NetSaint plugins project due to trademark issues.
Nagios was an acronym for "Nagios Aint gonna insist on Sainthood"
The open source project was using the name before Nagios Enterprises was founded, and these development teams, therefore have prior use of the name Nagios.
They were apparently tricked into handing over control of the domain to the guy who founded Nagios enterprises later.
You seem to be completely overlooking the issue of copyright. Re-appropriating the domain was apparently within Nagios' rights, but copying the contents of the web site was not. Trademark rights are not virally transmissible to copyright.
They are if the potential claimant/entity whose rights you are stepping on does not have lawyers, or is otherwise prevented from suing you over the copying.
This battle was lost years ago when this volunteer organisation gave control of their domain to Nagios Enterprises to avoid trademark issues.
Yes... it would of been prudent for them to at that time begin the immediate process of transitioning releases to a domain that they retained control over.
It still gives you no rights whatsoever against the second owner, who is not a party to the contract.
The rights are encumbered ownership to the property, and to the monitoring, recording data about its use --- the next owner doesn't obtain the right to the property, free and clear of the encumbrances.
You don't need to obtain rights "against the second owner"; as the first owner gave you rights against the property, that the first owner is incapable of taking back without your consent ----- even if they reassign their ownership rights.
If the second owner objects to your use of the data, they have to pursue action against the original owner, for failing to disclose the conditions, restrictions, or consents that have been made which limited the ownership rights.
Just as if the first owner had sold the new owner a house, and failed to mention they had leased the outhouse to someone else for the next 5 years, who was living there, or that the deed was subject to a restriction, preventing them from building a fence, or obstructing view of the yard from the street.
The lease agreement is still binding on the new owner --- because the extra agreement is bound to the property, and the transfer of ownership doesn't release the new owner of property, from restrictions that had been added to those rights due to agreement.
Similarly, the new owner isn't able to ignore the restrictions, and build a privacy wall around the yard.
Certainly once you've transmitted it beyond the collection point to a third party, it can be assumed to be available forever.
Encrypt the data at the point of collection with a key only accessible to the user.
And make sure the transmision is securely to a third party outside the local, national, and co-operating international parties jurisdictions in which the person the data is about resides.
Much like the ordinary folks who had extra cash in their pockets and paid $249 for a shiny new Nest thermostat (or smoke detector).
I hope those folks have more extra cash in their pockets..... the Nest devices rely upon a cloud service to provide certain aspects of its functionality.
If Google discontinues the product.... will the app continue to work?
Or perhaps, even if they don't.... the Nest owners might in a few years -- after they're very accustomed to their new Google/Nest thermostat --- find they will need to start paying an extra monthly fee, for the rest of the life of the unit ----- perhaps slightly less than the fees all the competitors charge, to keep things working like they have used to:)
"This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their permitted successors and assigns."
"Any assignment or transfer of an asset covered by this agreement, may only be performed, if there is also a binding assumption section of responsibility for performance under this agreement, by the assignee."
Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing at Honolulu International airport, delaying our arrival at San Diego, to remove a number of air travelers from the flight, who have been talking loudly on their cell phones.
Today we have (First Name) X. (Last Name) from (City, State), and (First Name 2) X. (Last name 2) from (City, State).
We apologize for the inconvenience. Rest assured, these individuals have been added to the Department of Homeland Security no-fly list, and will not be annoying you any further, with distracting cell phone calls, on any of our future flights.
The hard part isn't building a smart thermostat. The hard part is finding somebody simultaneously dumb enough and rich enough to pay $3.2 billion for a thermostat company.
They make smoke detectors too. Not only do they have to build them, but they have to be certified by 3rd party laboratories.
here i was giving a real suggestion and you have to spoil it with all this sarcasm.
Not all of it was sarcasm. This country would be doing a heck of a lot better, if certain elements were removed from the gene pool.
Starting with.... people who need warning signs to tell them not to engage in obviously life-threatening activities..
The method of execution should simply be remove the sign that says "Do not climb on railing" above the 15 story drop.
They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone
What do you think of a plug that fits into the lightning port, locks into place using a magnetic lock, and prevents any other cable from being inserted?
Attempt to force removal, should trigger release of corrosive materials sufficient to immediately destroy the connector, and possibly leak into the phone, and render the unit inoperable
If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.
No...... because no evidence is required to arrest or detain someone, only suspicion of "substantial chance" or "fair probability" that there might be a specific criminal activity, the person is involved with. The phone might contain personal information, or information that could be incriminating in a manner unrelated to the basis for searching it: Illegal fishing expedition.
Since there was no warrant documenting the police officer's hunch, or reason for the search or suspected criminal activity, the suspicion can be modified, to whatever the phone suggests!
A search requires obtaining a warrant which shall not issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation describing the particular thing to be searched for.
A warrant is the proper standard, for breaking an encryption lock box and rummaging around in someone else's effects, without their cooperation.
Even a warrant should be insufficient to compel the suspect to disclose passwords or decryption keys, or penalize the suspect for refusing, however.
... we should just go back to hanging. rope is much cheaper than all these drugs.
Sounds good.
We should also get a legislative bans on all these extra "appeals" processes required for executions.
Barring the completion of a successful appeal, every execution should be required to be done, within 1 year of the date the sentence was ordered.
And expand capital punishment should be expanded as a penalty, a little bit -- to include trafficking or participating in the trafficking in large volume of Marijuana, Cocaine, and any other Schedule I drugs and crimes against the government, in the form of any fraud with a dollar amount in excess of $500,000 , and also, any fraud involving the exploitation, overuse, or unnecessary use of of any public assistance program, such as Food stamps, Social security, Medicaid, etc.
We're not out of pentobarbital. We have an unlimited supply (at market price) for surgery.
Seems like an economic opportunity for someone to start a competing manufacturer US-based,
who will supply a copy of pentobarbital at a cost substantially above market price, for executions,
and sell the excess below market price for surgery --- thus cutting out the EU suppliers.
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
I think it's simple then... the FCC should say cell phones are allowed on an airplane, BUT only with written revokable permission, and the name of the passengers' documented by the airline. If the airline wishes to allow someone to use a cell phone, then they can issue written permission to every passenger that requests to use their cell phone.
If at any time, any member of the airline staff revokes permission from a passenger, and the passenger refuses to comply continues to use the cellular data -- then it should be a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that you're going to have a lot more pushback when you ask those same surgeons to hazard the lives of healthy people in exchange for mortgage payments or a new car.
Which is why I suggest measures to make sure it can't happen -- place the money in trust, and ensure it can only be spent on wellbeing.
Medical payments for new procedures for the family of the donor would be OK.
Donating the money to a charity selected by the organ donor, would be OK.
Or ask why Java on Windows boxes seems to want to update every third day, as does Adobe Reader
I hate to break it to you, but updating your Java plugin is NOT sound security practice.
Completely disabling and uninstalling your Java plugin is sound security practice; the Reader plugin should be turned off as well.
It doesn't matter, how up to date you think you are ---- the latest Java has more security holes than a sieve in it. Yeah; some of them will eventually be found, and exploited, and malware deployed. Then 3 months later, Oracle will come out with the next quarterly update, to fix the bug that has been getting exploited in the wild for 3 months.
All the folks running JAVA6 will still be SOL, because only Enterprises can afford the ridiculous Oracle extended support prices. Meanwhile the majority of Java applications people are using require Version6, and will not work with JAVA7 or newer.
Meanwhile.... Updating to the latest patch release of JAVA7 does not automatically remove or disable JAVA6.
Meanwhile.... when the typical user installs the Java update; there is always some offer for Adware or some random Toolbar or browser, that will get installed, because the user is just clicking next -- and not looking for the obscure box to uncheck.
Automatic updates from well-established trusted companies are one thing.
For others.... I would rather see Google automatically "shut off" these extensions, and only turn them on or update when requested by the user.
Google is not in any position to judge what addons of their system need, or don't need updates
These folks have no business installing random bits of extension addon bits in their browser. They are armed and dangerous, with any extension installation feature.
Also Google is not equipped to make this decision for them for each plugin --- Google employees do not curate the updates, before they get forced: check the release notes for the update, and manually approve it.
The biggest reason why there is an organ supply problem is that there is no incentive for people to give up their own organs. The solution is to create a donor list: if you are on the list you will receive organs before none donors in the event you need one
Or they could allow each actual donor to provide a short list of people that will be prioritized, in the event, that the donor's organs are harvested. First priority to actual surviving donors, Second priority to 1 extra person listed by the donor for every organ successfully transplanted (In the event any of those people are ever in the future requiring a transplant), Third priority to those who volunteering to donate their organs and their body to science upon their death and also have made a substantial financial contribution to medical research made on their behalf (Substantial = 2% of the person's annual income), and do these things at least 2 years before they are placed on any organ waiting list; Fourth priority to those who who just volunteer to donate their organs after their death.
The problem is the non-donor's condition could be more imminent; the donor might not be so sick. I believe the donor priority is decided mostly by compatibility, distance (geographical closeness), and immediacy of the need.
"Go to the hospital, sell a lung, come back, give me the money or several bad things will happen to your family."
Add regulatory burden.
Requirement for psychological evaluation; DNA sample + gene sequencing. Requirement potential sellers take a lie-detector test, show they are in good health financially and physically --- that they have the financial means to repay all debts, and confirm that they are conducting the sale willingly, not under duress, and not for booze money, or to repay some consumer debt or predatory loan.
Requirement, that if they are filing for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy must be completed first, and cash proceeds or assets purchased using dollars received from the sale cannot be held, frozen, or seized, and used to pay creditors, cannot be used to satisfy a judgement or unpaid dollars owed for alimony or child support, and cannot be used to cover a tax liability owed to the IRS, or other state or federal governmental entities.
Requirement to sign papers expressing intent to sell an organ and receive a secure document from the feds conveying individual sale approval, with a 6 to 12 month cooldown/waiting period, before a sale and transplant can be conducted.
Looks like Nagios Plugins was a community project to provide plugins for Nagios, with little to no input by Nagios themselves.
They were a community project to develop plugins. The guy who originally developed the Nagios core software, eventually went on to create Nagios enterprises.
The NetSaint plugins project was renamed to the Nagios plugins project in ~2001; The nagios-plugins repo has content going back 9 years.
Nagios Enterprises company was first founded in 2007. The Nagios Trademark was registered in 2007.
The Nagios plugins project pre-dated the existence of the corporate entity or any trademark registrations, by at least 5 years.
Yeah, and that would hold weight if you weren't using their trademark all over your site.
I think you don't get it... the Nagios Plugins project pre-dated Nagios. The Nagios Plugins Project was renamed from The NetSaint plugins project due to trademark issues. Nagios was an acronym for "Nagios Aint gonna insist on Sainthood"
The open source project was using the name before Nagios Enterprises was founded, and these development teams, therefore have prior use of the name Nagios.
They were apparently tricked into handing over control of the domain to the guy who founded Nagios enterprises later.
You seem to be completely overlooking the issue of copyright. Re-appropriating the domain was apparently within Nagios' rights, but copying the contents of the web site was not. Trademark rights are not virally transmissible to copyright.
They are if the potential claimant/entity whose rights you are stepping on does not have lawyers, or is otherwise prevented from suing you over the copying.
This battle was lost years ago when this volunteer organisation gave control of their domain to Nagios Enterprises to avoid trademark issues.
Yes... it would of been prudent for them to at that time begin the immediate process of transitioning releases to a domain that they retained control over.
static inline void B(void *blah, uint32_t a)
{
uint8_t * z = (uint8_t *)blah;
z[0] = (a >> 24) & 0xff;
z[1] = (a >> 16) & 0xff;
z[2] = (a >> 8) & 0xff;
z[3] = a & 0xff;
}
It still gives you no rights whatsoever against the second owner, who is not a party to the contract.
The rights are encumbered ownership to the property, and to the monitoring, recording data about its use --- the next owner doesn't obtain the right to the property, free and clear of the encumbrances. You don't need to obtain rights "against the second owner"; as the first owner gave you rights against the property, that the first owner is incapable of taking back without your consent ----- even if they reassign their ownership rights.
If the second owner objects to your use of the data, they have to pursue action against the original owner, for failing to disclose the conditions, restrictions, or consents that have been made which limited the ownership rights.
Just as if the first owner had sold the new owner a house, and failed to mention they had leased the outhouse to someone else for the next 5 years, who was living there, or that the deed was subject to a restriction, preventing them from building a fence, or obstructing view of the yard from the street.
The lease agreement is still binding on the new owner --- because the extra agreement is bound to the property, and the transfer of ownership doesn't release the new owner of property, from restrictions that had been added to those rights due to agreement.
Similarly, the new owner isn't able to ignore the restrictions, and build a privacy wall around the yard.
Certainly once you've transmitted it beyond the collection point to a third party, it can be assumed to be available forever.
Encrypt the data at the point of collection with a key only accessible to the user.
And make sure the transmision is securely to a third party outside the local, national, and co-operating international parties jurisdictions in which the person the data is about resides.
Much like the ordinary folks who had extra cash in their pockets and paid $249 for a shiny new Nest thermostat (or smoke detector).
I hope those folks have more extra cash in their pockets..... the Nest devices rely upon a cloud service to provide certain aspects of its functionality.
If Google discontinues the product.... will the app continue to work?
Or perhaps, even if they don't.... the Nest owners might in a few years -- after they're very accustomed to their new Google/Nest thermostat --- find they will need to start paying an extra monthly fee, for the rest of the life of the unit ----- perhaps slightly less than the fees all the competitors charge, to keep things working like they have used to :)
Won't give them any rights with a second owner.
So they add an additional clause....
"This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their permitted successors and assigns."
"Any assignment or transfer of an asset covered by this agreement, may only be performed, if there is also a binding assumption section of responsibility for performance under this agreement, by the assignee."
Now there's something we can all agree on!
Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing at Honolulu International airport, delaying our arrival at San Diego, to remove a number of air travelers from the flight, who have been talking loudly on their cell phones. Today we have (First Name) X. (Last Name) from (City, State), and (First Name 2) X. (Last name 2) from (City, State).
We apologize for the inconvenience. Rest assured, these individuals have been added to the Department of Homeland Security no-fly list, and will not be annoying you any further, with distracting cell phone calls, on any of our future flights.
I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
Ever heard of Skype? We can use data to have loud obnoxious voice calls.
We can also probably do the same with existing airline-provided WiFi.
The hard part isn't building a smart thermostat. The hard part is finding somebody simultaneously dumb enough and rich enough to pay $3.2 billion for a thermostat company.
They make smoke detectors too. Not only do they have to build them, but they have to be certified by 3rd party laboratories.
here i was giving a real suggestion and you have to spoil it with all this sarcasm.
Not all of it was sarcasm. This country would be doing a heck of a lot better, if certain elements were removed from the gene pool.
Starting with.... people who need warning signs to tell them not to engage in obviously life-threatening activities.. The method of execution should simply be remove the sign that says "Do not climb on railing" above the 15 story drop.
They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone
What do you think of a plug that fits into the lightning port, locks into place using a magnetic lock, and prevents any other cable from being inserted?
Attempt to force removal, should trigger release of corrosive materials sufficient to immediately destroy the connector, and possibly leak into the phone, and render the unit inoperable
If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.
No...... because no evidence is required to arrest or detain someone, only suspicion of "substantial chance" or "fair probability" that there might be a specific criminal activity, the person is involved with. The phone might contain personal information, or information that could be incriminating in a manner unrelated to the basis for searching it: Illegal fishing expedition.
Since there was no warrant documenting the police officer's hunch, or reason for the search or suspected criminal activity, the suspicion can be modified, to whatever the phone suggests!
A search requires obtaining a warrant which shall not issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation describing the particular thing to be searched for.
A warrant is the proper standard, for breaking an encryption lock box and rummaging around in someone else's effects, without their cooperation.
Even a warrant should be insufficient to compel the suspect to disclose passwords or decryption keys, or penalize the suspect for refusing, however.
Sounds good.
We should also get a legislative bans on all these extra "appeals" processes required for executions. Barring the completion of a successful appeal, every execution should be required to be done, within 1 year of the date the sentence was ordered.
And expand capital punishment should be expanded as a penalty, a little bit -- to include trafficking or participating in the trafficking in large volume of Marijuana, Cocaine, and any other Schedule I drugs and crimes against the government, in the form of any fraud with a dollar amount in excess of $500,000 , and also, any fraud involving the exploitation, overuse, or unnecessary use of of any public assistance program, such as Food stamps, Social security, Medicaid, etc.
We're not out of pentobarbital. We have an unlimited supply (at market price) for surgery.
Seems like an economic opportunity for someone to start a competing manufacturer US-based, who will supply a copy of pentobarbital at a cost substantially above market price, for executions, and sell the excess below market price for surgery --- thus cutting out the EU suppliers.
No, we should follow the same rules as any drug tests.
You are terribly confused. What is used to execute prisoners is an intentionally administered poison, not a drug.
Drugs are tested, poisons are not.
It would be unethical to conduct a study in which you administer a poison to groups of people or animals.
Your only option as an executioner is to use the poison, and based on an educated guess... it will either work, or not.
How hard can it be to do this? Start with standard general anesthesia. One the person is out, then administer cyanide or whatever.
The general anesthesia drug is the one the EU banned export of.
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
I think it's simple then... the FCC should say cell phones are allowed on an airplane, BUT only with written revokable permission, and the name of the passengers' documented by the airline. If the airline wishes to allow someone to use a cell phone, then they can issue written permission to every passenger that requests to use their cell phone.
If at any time, any member of the airline staff revokes permission from a passenger, and the passenger refuses to comply continues to use the cellular data -- then it should be a crime.
Are you saying TSA stands for The Stupid Army?
And I always thought it meant Travel Suppression Agency