If the concern is that confidential health information needs to become public in order to confirm studies under this bill is accurate, then it's a law written in bad faith. That's the point. If you can reproduce findings in a study without the part of a record that ties an identity to the relevant medical data then there is no issue with the scientific method.
Now, maybe, that's not what this bill is attempting to do, but I have yet to read anything on this that doesn't make me suspicious. And the historic trend of this current EPA tenure on removing scientists from decision making I am not confident that there's a sudden honest desire to protect the scientific method.
For an obscure law or regulation, sure, I'm willing to cut some slack. Patient confidentiality is a known entity, however. It's one of the most sacrosanct laws we have, imo. To claim it is unintentional to have these two potential laws at odds is... nonsense. Lawmakers are on a long trend of trying to use the law as a weapon instead of shield, especially when it comes to political hot buttons like EPA and abortion. Don't be naive.
Lower taxes to attempt to bring in new businesses? Fund education/training for your residents to get jobs? Yes, easy just mention, but... if you want to fight for your citizens it's a whole lot better than waiting for a government bailout.
I wish more people understood this. You can't claim a moral high ground or to be a beacon for the rest of the world if you're doing the same things as terrorists.
I think I agree there's a negative effect on society (assuming that's the point you are making). If people weren't so susceptible to affirming their beliefs instead of trying to inform themselves this wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem.
Funny how the biggest company and the one getting ready for a huge merger is VERY VERY much right-wing. Maybe there are more left of center, but it's pretty clear where the most influential ones are.
Right, so I guess your point is that there's nothing we can do to stop violence as a whole so we may as well not do anything. Just a warning though - that anti-terrorism stance might get tricky.
Just for the record, banning assault weapons, which we somewhat had in place for a while, is not even close to the same as taking away all guns. Radicals believe that's a solution, just as the other side of the spectrum has people believing that there should be no restrictions of any kind. It's not practical, as you point out. As that isn't being floated as a serious solution to anything, please stop bringing up that canard. It isn't helping the conversation.
The council was brought in to look for Russian interference in the election. While elected Democrats might be primary rooting for a collusion charge, I certainly don't have any expectations on that.
To date, we have people charged with (1) lying to investigators about their knowledge/involvement and (2) interference from Russian nationals. Maybe they'll go off track, but so far all charges are pretty darn relevant. And the fact alone that the key players being investigated keep changing their stories means there's more to come.
And as far as the media goes, they're just looking for the next story to sensationalize. Political slant simply comes from what company owns them. Paying attention to any of them is IMHO a waste of time.
And all come together and unite around America's institutions like the Presidency.
Okay, let's make a deal - our President stops attack our institutions (press, federal law enforcement, courts, etc.) and we'll make a serious effort to back the institution of the Presidency.
The problem with people who judge President Trump so harshly on such inane things is that eventually people have had enough of you.
This in response to a comment on a settled cause of consumer fraud where vulnerable people had their pockets emptied because of Trump. You call *THAT* inane and then act like you're on a high horse. Go troll elsewhere please.
A search engine would be failing at its job if it didn't return Amazon links.
Of course, a search engine is not doing its job if it fails to list devices made by a competitor. If an Amazon search failed to return Amazon products it would just be funny. The other is dishonest, hence this technology war which users are forced to witness.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not of the mindset that 2 wrongs make a right, but I would argue that Google simply rolling over and not responding to Amazon in a way that isn't visible would not be the way to go. I don't like that we're getting caught in the crossfire, but I think Amazon's anti-competitive behavior needs to be addressed. I think Google refusing to cater to Amazon devices is the right approach. YMMV.
On top of that, at the time the Electoral College was conceived, giving weight to non-urban areas was not one of the reasons, according to Alexander Hamilton. I don't know that I buy all of his reasons, but I'm also 100% sure he knew way more about this stuff than I ever will.
Undoing accidental moderation - parent comment strikes at the heart of the matter (whether you think a specific entity should be in charge of keeping things in check is a tangential matter).
I'm sure he believes it. If you view everything he does through the lens of 'what would a lawyer for Verizon do if he were in charge of the Internet', everything comes into focus.
Slashdot Mirror
If the concern is that confidential health information needs to become public in order to confirm studies under this bill is accurate, then it's a law written in bad faith. That's the point. If you can reproduce findings in a study without the part of a record that ties an identity to the relevant medical data then there is no issue with the scientific method.
Now, maybe, that's not what this bill is attempting to do, but I have yet to read anything on this that doesn't make me suspicious. And the historic trend of this current EPA tenure on removing scientists from decision making I am not confident that there's a sudden honest desire to protect the scientific method.
I'm pretty sure a patient's privacy is more important than a third party wanting their information for a study or experiment. Maybe I'm wrong though.
For an obscure law or regulation, sure, I'm willing to cut some slack. Patient confidentiality is a known entity, however. It's one of the most sacrosanct laws we have, imo. To claim it is unintentional to have these two potential laws at odds is... nonsense. Lawmakers are on a long trend of trying to use the law as a weapon instead of shield, especially when it comes to political hot buttons like EPA and abortion. Don't be naive.
(Excellent post, btw).
Lower taxes to attempt to bring in new businesses? Fund education/training for your residents to get jobs? Yes, easy just mention, but... if you want to fight for your citizens it's a whole lot better than waiting for a government bailout.
I wish more people understood this. You can't claim a moral high ground or to be a beacon for the rest of the world if you're doing the same things as terrorists.
I think I agree there's a negative effect on society (assuming that's the point you are making). If people weren't so susceptible to affirming their beliefs instead of trying to inform themselves this wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem.
Still no. Turn the television off (or, don't turn it on in the first place).
Obvious answer: parents or the school board finds out, and game over. This isn't difficult, right?
Funny how the biggest company and the one getting ready for a huge merger is VERY VERY much right-wing. Maybe there are more left of center, but it's pretty clear where the most influential ones are.
As I said, that anti-terrorism stance gets tricky. May as well ignore other countries' nuclear programs too, right? After all, it's just a tool.
Right, so I guess your point is that there's nothing we can do to stop violence as a whole so we may as well not do anything. Just a warning though - that anti-terrorism stance might get tricky.
Just for the record, banning assault weapons, which we somewhat had in place for a while, is not even close to the same as taking away all guns. Radicals believe that's a solution, just as the other side of the spectrum has people believing that there should be no restrictions of any kind. It's not practical, as you point out. As that isn't being floated as a serious solution to anything, please stop bringing up that canard. It isn't helping the conversation.
Well, if Marco Rubio brings it up then I know I should believe it!
The council was brought in to look for Russian interference in the election. While elected Democrats might be primary rooting for a collusion charge, I certainly don't have any expectations on that.
To date, we have people charged with (1) lying to investigators about their knowledge/involvement and (2) interference from Russian nationals. Maybe they'll go off track, but so far all charges are pretty darn relevant. And the fact alone that the key players being investigated keep changing their stories means there's more to come.
And as far as the media goes, they're just looking for the next story to sensationalize. Political slant simply comes from what company owns them. Paying attention to any of them is IMHO a waste of time.
And all come together and unite around America's institutions like the Presidency.
Okay, let's make a deal - our President stops attack our institutions (press, federal law enforcement, courts, etc.) and we'll make a serious effort to back the institution of the Presidency.
Face it, this whole thing was completely oversold by the Dems and the media and now they are reaching for straws looking for someone to charge.
So Mueller is a Democrat now, is that your point? Or is it the person who appointed him, Rosenstein?
The problem with people who judge President Trump so harshly on such inane things is that eventually people have had enough of you.
This in response to a comment on a settled cause of consumer fraud where vulnerable people had their pockets emptied because of Trump. You call *THAT* inane and then act like you're on a high horse. Go troll elsewhere please.
A search engine would be failing at its job if it didn't return Amazon links.
Of course, a search engine is not doing its job if it fails to list devices made by a competitor. If an Amazon search failed to return Amazon products it would just be funny. The other is dishonest, hence this technology war which users are forced to witness.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not of the mindset that 2 wrongs make a right, but I would argue that Google simply rolling over and not responding to Amazon in a way that isn't visible would not be the way to go. I don't like that we're getting caught in the crossfire, but I think Amazon's anti-competitive behavior needs to be addressed. I think Google refusing to cater to Amazon devices is the right approach. YMMV.
Good there were 3 judges making this decision instead of just one, right?
On top of that, at the time the Electoral College was conceived, giving weight to non-urban areas was not one of the reasons, according to Alexander Hamilton. I don't know that I buy all of his reasons, but I'm also 100% sure he knew way more about this stuff than I ever will.
Undoing accidental moderation - parent comment strikes at the heart of the matter (whether you think a specific entity should be in charge of keeping things in check is a tangential matter).
Reading an entire sentence is diffic.... oh look, a kitty!
Isn't the whole ethos of the Trump movement to push back against Washington? This looks more like rolling over and playing along.
I'm sure he believes it. If you view everything he does through the lens of 'what would a lawyer for Verizon do if he were in charge of the Internet', everything comes into focus.