No, they won't. They'll yell at you in a very unpleasant way and tell you to get the f*ck back in the car. I did this as a teen when I didn't know any better intending just to be cooperative. I was harshly, but merely verbally, educated that if you want to be cooperative, stay in the car and put your hands where they can be seen.
I've been pulled over dozens of times, all for minor speeding offenses and nearly all in my youth. Rarely have I even had the cop mad at me. Never have I felt like I was in danger.
Which is not necessarily unreasonable if your job is to invent things. I had a job once where my job was to move boxes from a conveyor belt to a truck. Brainless manual labor, in other words. They also required me to assign inventions, which being a desperate and relatively poor student, I did. I also mentally committed not to ever invent a damn thing while working for them. I moved boxes from A to B, as efficiently and as well as I could, but I didn't view the overall process as something to be optimized. They stated up front they weren't paying me for that, and what's more, would gleefully steal any such ideas from me, so I didn't bother thinking of them.
It's not ideal, but that's one way to handle it. If you're a low-paid drone, be a low paid drone. And, of course, get a better job as soon as you can. I didn't stay with that one long, but to be perfectly honest, there were other reasons than that.
Conversely, if you're a well compensated professional who is paid to invent things, then yes, things you're paid to invent should belong to your employer. They're taking the risk that they pay you $X/year whether or not you succeed in solving some problem or other. Things not at all related to the work you are paid for them for should not belong to them. If you're a rocket scientist who develops a new process for brewing beer on your own time, not using company resources, that should belong 100% to you.
And in the final analysis, the owner may well not be held liable. Still, I'd not run one of these things. Yes, I understand they can be used for good and noble purposes. They're also used for awful ones. When "the man" gets wind of that and follows the trail of bits to your servers, you will be raided. You may not be prosecuted, but your kit is absolutely now evidence. Of course you might be prosecuted, and then you better be able to afford a good lawyer and hope for a technologically competent judge and jury. You might be served with a search warrant that turns your Tor exit node into a great big log server so they can keep tracking back to the actual criminals.
My backup plan is simply not to run a Tor exit node. Nowhere near worth the hassle.
There have been plenty of drugs that work well in rats but don't work in humans, or would kill them. Don't get yourself in a lather over the fact that something worked in rats or a petri dish but isn't on your drug store shelf. It's 99.999% likely it's because it wouldn't help you or would kill you.
The ones I've been involved in included a statistician in the experimental design. The statistician helps you figure out, among other things, how many test subjects you're going to need. Yes, it's possible that sometimes you get to the end and have results that are suggestive that there might be an effect, but it's not statistically significant, which means you need to do the whole thing over with more test subjects.
What GP may not be understanding is that placebo studies on humans don't mean you get sugar water. In cancer therapy, for example, you would get the standard treatment regimen plus sugar water. The test group would get the standard treatment and something else. No IRB is going to pass any protocol that involves putting the control group at greater risk than they would have been if they didn't enroll in the study.
In the real world, experiments are more complicated. Having done them, I understand this. There is this thing called measurement error, for example. There's the fact that measurements are often a factor of human opinion. Is that tumor 8 or 9mm? I used to measure tumors in mm, by the way, and trust me, they're rarely ever exactly 8 or 9. When you're measuring something like how long an organism is disease free, you're assessing something. It's not as simple as whether or not the test subject impacted a field at 120 mph after his parachute didn't deploy.
So, how do you insure you don't inadvertently round up the placebo group and round down the trial group? Don't tell the people running the experiment which is which. How do you insure they don't outright lie to get more funding? Don't tell them which is which. Double blind studies are important simply because they prevent the people who can nudge an experiment one way or another accidentally from having any basis on which to do so.
In your silly example, the scientist's buddies, Jim and Sally, gets placebo parachutes. Not wanting them to die, the scientist tips them off and they refuse to jump at the last minute. Your scientist uses the data to "prove" that real parachutes promote risky behavior through some as yet unexplained mechanism. Or, if your scientist assigns parachutes himself, he assigns them to the sickest patients because they need it most. This fails your parachute example, but only because it's a stupid example. In the real world, the tested treatment is hoped to be better, but it may not a lot better. It may not be enough better to overcome being given a pool of artificially sicker patients, which results in throwing out a treatment that actually is better than what we're doing now.
A friend of mine was diagnosed with a particularly nasty variety that had a 0% survival rate. She went from "Hey, what's this weird yet painless lump in my belly?" to heart failure in 6 months. That was 13 years ago. She was 20. My uncle had prostate cancer ~5 years ago and is fine. My grandmother had some kind of breast cancer 10-15 years ago and is fine now. My father-in-law had one of those near-100% cure skin cancers removed a few years ago. Time will tell, but he's almost certainly fine.
I'm not at all saying that cancer isn't a brutal disease that kills people. It is. I just don't want someone to read this, get diagnosed, and think they're a goner. They might be. They might not.
Cancer is a lot of different but related diseases, though. Some of them are quite treatable and curable. I have a few members of my extended family who had cancer 5+ years ago and are cancer free now. I went to high school with a kid who had cancer. He's still alive and doing well today, and that was a long time ago. Of course, I also know people who have lost this battle. It's not a death sentence for everyone, though.
Oh, I don't mind the guy doing this one bit. I mind web sites with a huge audience (slashdot and CNN) publishing this as anything but one desperate man's cry for help. I read this first on CNN, which described it as an open source "cure" for cancer. As if the one thing that's been missing in all the thousands of trials and billions of dollars spent trying to cure cancer was one man's complete medical record.
You might think that it takes an extrordinarily naive person to get themselves into a situation like that. But it doesn't. All it takes is a willingness to trust popular opinion.
Some might say that's a symptom of an at least moderately naive person. Popular opinion is all well and good, but you should really understand the reasoning behind popular opinion and judge it sound on your own before committing your life savings to it.
I truly don't mean to kick you while you're down. I'm sorry this happened to you. But still, I think it's worth saying that following the herd is not always a good idea.
Not turning in DNA is not probable cause for an investigation
Sure it is. Maybe you mean it's not enough for an arrest or search warrant. This guy was already being investigated merely because he lived in the right region.
It's not a mystery, but it is inappropriate. Drives me nuts when companies pull this. If I buy your PC, I expect it to work and support all the standards you claim it does. That includes attaching other hardware that adheres to the same standards. I appreciate that there's a dicey issue in there of determining who is at fault when something doesn't work, but that doesn't justify artificially forcing a bunch of hardware not to work. When you do that, YOU are the problem by definition, as you are the party causing it not to work.
NASA has employees. Those employees have things like SSNs and disabilities and other such things that go in personnel files. It's one thing to say that all NASA's mission data should be completely open, and quite another to say that means everyone who works there should expect the public to be pawing through their data when that data would be afforded protection at any other employer.
I'm not a SLC citizen, but if the average police officer makes ~$40,000/year (I googled) and we let them drive around cars ($20,000 minimum) and make it legal for them to use deadly force (what's your life worth?), then I'm ok with spending $1,000 for a camera to document what really happened.
I think I read somewhere that he started having an affair after taking the CIA post, and therefore quite likely after passing whatever poly required. He might well have had problems when trying to renew.
I would assume that by now these things are implemented as iPhone/Android apps that use the GPS locations (or maybe less-granular cellular locations) so your phone will track you in real time while you're running, as well as showing your heartbeat and playing your music.
Exactly true. The same is true of any of the Garmin, Polar, or whatever other brand you like GPS fitness watches. They record exactly where and when you are and a bunch of other data (depending on model). The key is simple: if you don't want this sort of data recorded about you and stored on a web site, don't buy and use a device that records and stores data like this on a web site.
I understand when people get their panties in a bunch when some device does this unexpectedly, but this really isn't one of those times. The guy in TFS just bought a device that records his physical activity, shares said data with his girlfriend, and then got caught cheating on her because of it. This isn't an unexpected betrayal by technology. The guy was just a dumbass.
This is pretty incomprehensible, but I'd just like to point out that many billions of computers capable of providing a perfect host for one human mind have been built. Each one consumes about 10-20 watts. It hasn't been done in silicon yet, but assuming it will require insane amounts of energy is not at all realistic.
Yes, it was a dumb thing to do. No, these knuckleheads shouldn't get a pass for doing it. This is actually why i never let cell phone vendors move my info to the new phone. They SHOULD simply move data from A to B without retaining or examining the data in any way. I don't trust them to. And there aren't nekkid pictures of anyone on my phone anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite likely true. I'll amend to say that in none of those situations have they ever drawn a weapon on me.
No, they won't. They'll yell at you in a very unpleasant way and tell you to get the f*ck back in the car. I did this as a teen when I didn't know any better intending just to be cooperative. I was harshly, but merely verbally, educated that if you want to be cooperative, stay in the car and put your hands where they can be seen.
I've been pulled over dozens of times, all for minor speeding offenses and nearly all in my youth. Rarely have I even had the cop mad at me. Never have I felt like I was in danger.
Which is not necessarily unreasonable if your job is to invent things. I had a job once where my job was to move boxes from a conveyor belt to a truck. Brainless manual labor, in other words. They also required me to assign inventions, which being a desperate and relatively poor student, I did. I also mentally committed not to ever invent a damn thing while working for them. I moved boxes from A to B, as efficiently and as well as I could, but I didn't view the overall process as something to be optimized. They stated up front they weren't paying me for that, and what's more, would gleefully steal any such ideas from me, so I didn't bother thinking of them.
It's not ideal, but that's one way to handle it. If you're a low-paid drone, be a low paid drone. And, of course, get a better job as soon as you can. I didn't stay with that one long, but to be perfectly honest, there were other reasons than that.
Conversely, if you're a well compensated professional who is paid to invent things, then yes, things you're paid to invent should belong to your employer. They're taking the risk that they pay you $X/year whether or not you succeed in solving some problem or other. Things not at all related to the work you are paid for them for should not belong to them. If you're a rocket scientist who develops a new process for brewing beer on your own time, not using company resources, that should belong 100% to you.
And in the final analysis, the owner may well not be held liable. Still, I'd not run one of these things. Yes, I understand they can be used for good and noble purposes. They're also used for awful ones. When "the man" gets wind of that and follows the trail of bits to your servers, you will be raided. You may not be prosecuted, but your kit is absolutely now evidence. Of course you might be prosecuted, and then you better be able to afford a good lawyer and hope for a technologically competent judge and jury. You might be served with a search warrant that turns your Tor exit node into a great big log server so they can keep tracking back to the actual criminals.
My backup plan is simply not to run a Tor exit node. Nowhere near worth the hassle.
*eyeroll*
There have been plenty of drugs that work well in rats but don't work in humans, or would kill them. Don't get yourself in a lather over the fact that something worked in rats or a petri dish but isn't on your drug store shelf. It's 99.999% likely it's because it wouldn't help you or would kill you.
The ones I've been involved in included a statistician in the experimental design. The statistician helps you figure out, among other things, how many test subjects you're going to need. Yes, it's possible that sometimes you get to the end and have results that are suggestive that there might be an effect, but it's not statistically significant, which means you need to do the whole thing over with more test subjects.
What GP may not be understanding is that placebo studies on humans don't mean you get sugar water. In cancer therapy, for example, you would get the standard treatment regimen plus sugar water. The test group would get the standard treatment and something else. No IRB is going to pass any protocol that involves putting the control group at greater risk than they would have been if they didn't enroll in the study.
In the real world, experiments are more complicated. Having done them, I understand this. There is this thing called measurement error, for example. There's the fact that measurements are often a factor of human opinion. Is that tumor 8 or 9mm? I used to measure tumors in mm, by the way, and trust me, they're rarely ever exactly 8 or 9. When you're measuring something like how long an organism is disease free, you're assessing something. It's not as simple as whether or not the test subject impacted a field at 120 mph after his parachute didn't deploy.
So, how do you insure you don't inadvertently round up the placebo group and round down the trial group? Don't tell the people running the experiment which is which. How do you insure they don't outright lie to get more funding? Don't tell them which is which. Double blind studies are important simply because they prevent the people who can nudge an experiment one way or another accidentally from having any basis on which to do so.
In your silly example, the scientist's buddies, Jim and Sally, gets placebo parachutes. Not wanting them to die, the scientist tips them off and they refuse to jump at the last minute. Your scientist uses the data to "prove" that real parachutes promote risky behavior through some as yet unexplained mechanism. Or, if your scientist assigns parachutes himself, he assigns them to the sickest patients because they need it most. This fails your parachute example, but only because it's a stupid example. In the real world, the tested treatment is hoped to be better, but it may not a lot better. It may not be enough better to overcome being given a pool of artificially sicker patients, which results in throwing out a treatment that actually is better than what we're doing now.
A friend of mine was diagnosed with a particularly nasty variety that had a 0% survival rate. She went from "Hey, what's this weird yet painless lump in my belly?" to heart failure in 6 months. That was 13 years ago. She was 20. My uncle had prostate cancer ~5 years ago and is fine. My grandmother had some kind of breast cancer 10-15 years ago and is fine now. My father-in-law had one of those near-100% cure skin cancers removed a few years ago. Time will tell, but he's almost certainly fine.
I'm not at all saying that cancer isn't a brutal disease that kills people. It is. I just don't want someone to read this, get diagnosed, and think they're a goner. They might be. They might not.
I'm sorry about your dad.
Cancer is a lot of different but related diseases, though. Some of them are quite treatable and curable. I have a few members of my extended family who had cancer 5+ years ago and are cancer free now. I went to high school with a kid who had cancer. He's still alive and doing well today, and that was a long time ago. Of course, I also know people who have lost this battle. It's not a death sentence for everyone, though.
Oh, I don't mind the guy doing this one bit. I mind web sites with a huge audience (slashdot and CNN) publishing this as anything but one desperate man's cry for help. I read this first on CNN, which described it as an open source "cure" for cancer. As if the one thing that's been missing in all the thousands of trials and billions of dollars spent trying to cure cancer was one man's complete medical record.
Yes. I also read your fourth.
Or perhaps we need to just stop bailing them out when they fail, and start jailing them when what they've done is simple fraud?
Some might say that's a symptom of an at least moderately naive person. Popular opinion is all well and good, but you should really understand the reasoning behind popular opinion and judge it sound on your own before committing your life savings to it.
I truly don't mean to kick you while you're down. I'm sorry this happened to you. But still, I think it's worth saying that following the herd is not always a good idea.
Sure it is. Maybe you mean it's not enough for an arrest or search warrant. This guy was already being investigated merely because he lived in the right region.
You are wrong. They don't sequence and compare your entire genome.
It's not a mystery, but it is inappropriate. Drives me nuts when companies pull this. If I buy your PC, I expect it to work and support all the standards you claim it does. That includes attaching other hardware that adheres to the same standards. I appreciate that there's a dicey issue in there of determining who is at fault when something doesn't work, but that doesn't justify artificially forcing a bunch of hardware not to work. When you do that, YOU are the problem by definition, as you are the party causing it not to work.
NASA has employees. Those employees have things like SSNs and disabilities and other such things that go in personnel files. It's one thing to say that all NASA's mission data should be completely open, and quite another to say that means everyone who works there should expect the public to be pawing through their data when that data would be afforded protection at any other employer.
I'm not a SLC citizen, but if the average police officer makes ~$40,000/year (I googled) and we let them drive around cars ($20,000 minimum) and make it legal for them to use deadly force (what's your life worth?), then I'm ok with spending $1,000 for a camera to document what really happened.
...of uniform density.
I loved that class. :-)
I think I read somewhere that he started having an affair after taking the CIA post, and therefore quite likely after passing whatever poly required. He might well have had problems when trying to renew.
The response *should* be: "Hahahaha! Go ahead."
I wouldn't be upset to have everyone who threatens to secede or emigrate thown out. I'm tired of the bluster. If you're leaving, leave. If not, stfu.
Said no CEO of any publicly traded corporation ever.
Exactly true. The same is true of any of the Garmin, Polar, or whatever other brand you like GPS fitness watches. They record exactly where and when you are and a bunch of other data (depending on model). The key is simple: if you don't want this sort of data recorded about you and stored on a web site, don't buy and use a device that records and stores data like this on a web site.
I understand when people get their panties in a bunch when some device does this unexpectedly, but this really isn't one of those times. The guy in TFS just bought a device that records his physical activity, shares said data with his girlfriend, and then got caught cheating on her because of it. This isn't an unexpected betrayal by technology. The guy was just a dumbass.
This is pretty incomprehensible, but I'd just like to point out that many billions of computers capable of providing a perfect host for one human mind have been built. Each one consumes about 10-20 watts. It hasn't been done in silicon yet, but assuming it will require insane amounts of energy is not at all realistic.
Yes, it was a dumb thing to do. No, these knuckleheads shouldn't get a pass for doing it. This is actually why i never let cell phone vendors move my info to the new phone. They SHOULD simply move data from A to B without retaining or examining the data in any way. I don't trust them to. And there aren't nekkid pictures of anyone on my phone anyway.