who's the numbnuts who thought it would be a great idea to make this information available to anyone who asks for it?
Changing the color of a link you've visited has been around forever. Changing the style of a link you've visited to one that can send information back to the server eg "background-image:url(/visited.pl?site=slashdot)", that's newer.
Thats perfectly fine and well, but can you put two different schemas in two different boxes? no, you can't.
Depending on what you're trying to achieve with that, you could store the data with partitioning and network file systems (not that I'd risk my data that way). But can you actually do hr.employee.id=job.task.employee on mysql when hr and job are "databases" on different servers?
Anyway, if you really have an external database (that may be somewhere entirely different) there's DBlink and its friend DBI-Link.
Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being "tough on criminals" and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up.
That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they're a minor? That's sort of a major piece of evidence...
"This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson (naked and petrified), who -- as we all know -- is a minor. You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we don't actually have to prove that she's a minor for you to convict!"
It gets ruled on over and over, apparently prosecutors and lawmakers just ignore the rulings and keep hoping that the entire supreme court gets Alzheimer's for the umpteenth case and let it slide. It's almost as popular as getting your video game ban laws stricken down (its been what, 8 states? 10? And yet states keep trying, probably thinking that the supreme court justices won't mind because the legislators think "hurr durr we r speshul!"
The problem is that HL7 is a message format standard. For the message content, you're on your own.
Re:Who keeps the records?
on
IT and Health Care
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Have medical complications that it would be just great if the Doctors treating you had access to?
Buy a damn medalert bracelet. A million times faster than triage staff trying to figure out whether you've given your medical records to google or microsoft and what your userid is to get them back.
Easy: If you're short on space and have to choose between something your readers can read for free online anywhere (newswire, syndicated columns, etc), and something they can only get from you (local news, investigative reporting), go with what makes your paper unique and adds value not available elsewhere.
Well of course it leaked information. After all, all an evil dictator would need to do is launch a missile, then wait to see if the launch showed up in the meteor report or if his country was turned into a glassy bowl. If the latter, try a different way of launching a missile.
On a more serious note, if you had a separate meteor detection system, you COULD identify the locations and such of the satellites by comparing your data. For instance, my satellite at location x picked up the explosion at time t.0000003, and the US satellite picked it up at t.0000006 making it.0000003 light seconds farther from the site. Or my satellite at location z is picking up meteorites that the US satellites are not, indicating that location z is probably not observed by the US satellite and therefore a good place to launch from.
And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that, when a user launches an application, keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop?
Actually, as a user of a dual-head setup, having the focus stolen from where I'm working by a program launching is annoying as hell. In my experience in the Windows environment, Outlook 2002 is one of the worst culprits. When receiving a lot of headers over IMAP (eg turning the computer on after a 3 day weekend with 500 or so new spam messages) it takes a couple of minutes to start up, and grabs the focus from whatever I'm trying to do every 30 seconds or so. Web browsers have a real problem with this too. I've set the homepage to about:blank because when I open a browser, the first thing I usually do is type a URL, not search google. But with google as a home page, I manage to type four or five letters into the URL input before google steals the focus. Google isn't alone on this, I can type my username and half my password before the last little gif loads on my bank's site, causing the last half of my password to overwrite the username.
Then the answer is for those applications which need special access to use the existing functionality of the system to provide that (eg O_EXCL and telling the user to shut off their other applications if it fails) rather than crippling 99.9% of the applications that don't give a damn.
After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go
Less the $5000 they're permitted to steal from you thanks to highly unconstitutional Civil Forfeiture laws that the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about because the government stuck the word "civil" in the title and therefore it's not a criminal proceeding and they don't have to deal with any of that stupid due process bullshit.
wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets
I'll buy "promote" but when was the last time a wireless carrier ever "developed" a handset? And no, I don't count taking a good handset someone else made and crippling all of its features with a shitty firmware overwrite that turns the phone to crap.
As soon as those numbers start being used in fraudulent purchases, you have an existing mechanism for recovering your money.
Why should I have the burden and costs of recovering my money over and over and over again because Bank of Stupid (or 50 other banks I've never heard of and never did business with, and have no possible way of determining whether they are or have been a party to frauds like this) kept selling my credit card number to thieves?
a cost which they will pass on to consumers.
So some bank I've never heard of will charge credit card thieves more for the list of credit card numbers, or charge other people I've never heard of more to protect their thieving clients, causing them to go out of business? Hold on a second, let me get out the world's smallest violin...
Maybe if we just passed a law stating that you can't sell personally assigned (CC#) or identifiable (Name/address/etc) information to others rather than continuously dancing around the issue, no matter how you received that information, nobody would worry about the cost of compliance, because the only cost would be not doing it.
That's just it, I haven't. How did this strange bank get ahold of my name and number? Who is responsible for getting it to them? Did $27 (well, times however many people got the check) paid 11 years after the fact really show the people involved the error of their ways? From what I've found of the lawsuit, it was only against the porn company, leading me to believe that the bank made a tidy little sum from its part in this crime. (And others? Who else did this bank sell my number to?)
It just seems like lots of pro-regulation people only see "reduced fraud" without "increased burden" which translates directly to "increased costs."
That's a tough one, but reducing fraud also translates to "reduced costs". The problem is that for most of the companies (like the aforementioned bank) the "costs" apply to someone else entirely, so why should they bother with the burden?
Sadly, it's not even close to a stretch at all (aside from the silliness of receiving a punch). I just got a check last week from the FTC claiming that waaaaay back in 1998 a bank apparently sold a list of 3 million credit card numbers for the purpose of "scrubbing" internet transactions. They sold the numbers of other banks' members, so "not doing business with them" would not have gotten you off the list.
Slashdot Mirror
You just discard the old snapshots
So is throwing away snapshots to save the data like throwing a floppy in the trash can to eject it?
who's the numbnuts who thought it would be a great idea to make this information available to anyone who asks for it?
Changing the color of a link you've visited has been around forever. Changing the style of a link you've visited to one that can send information back to the server eg "background-image:url(/visited.pl?site=slashdot)", that's newer.
Thats perfectly fine and well, but can you put two different schemas in two different boxes? no, you can't.
Depending on what you're trying to achieve with that, you could store the data with partitioning and network file systems (not that I'd risk my data that way). But can you actually do hr.employee.id=job.task.employee on mysql when hr and job are "databases" on different servers?
Anyway, if you really have an external database (that may be somewhere entirely different) there's DBlink and its friend DBI-Link.
What a coincidence! I use the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers for my encryption key too!
Assuming makes an ass out of you and... well, just you, actually. I don't see how I'm involved at all.
But where do we draw the line?
For all of the failings of the the War on (Some) Drugs, the law is actually quite specific on the location of that line.
Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being "tough on criminals" and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up.
That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they're a minor? That's sort of a major piece of evidence...
"This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson (naked and petrified), who -- as we all know -- is a minor. You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we don't actually have to prove that she's a minor for you to convict!"
Jonnie Cochran would be so proud.
It gets ruled on over and over, apparently prosecutors and lawmakers just ignore the rulings and keep hoping that the entire supreme court gets Alzheimer's for the umpteenth case and let it slide. It's almost as popular as getting your video game ban laws stricken down (its been what, 8 states? 10? And yet states keep trying, probably thinking that the supreme court justices won't mind because the legislators think "hurr durr we r speshul!"
The problem is that HL7 is a message format standard. For the message content, you're on your own.
Have medical complications that it would be just great if the Doctors treating you had access to?
Buy a damn medalert bracelet. A million times faster than triage staff trying to figure out whether you've given your medical records to google or microsoft and what your userid is to get them back.
Put to Joe Bag on while you're going down on her. Doesn't interrupt the flow at all.
So when do you put on your dental dam?
what are you going to do?
Easy: If you're short on space and have to choose between something your readers can read for free online anywhere (newswire, syndicated columns, etc), and something they can only get from you (local news, investigative reporting), go with what makes your paper unique and adds value not available elsewhere.
Well of course it leaked information. After all, all an evil dictator would need to do is launch a missile, then wait to see if the launch showed up in the meteor report or if his country was turned into a glassy bowl. If the latter, try a different way of launching a missile.
On a more serious note, if you had a separate meteor detection system, you COULD identify the locations and such of the satellites by comparing your data. For instance, my satellite at location x picked up the explosion at time t.0000003, and the US satellite picked it up at t.0000006 making it .0000003 light seconds farther from the site. Or my satellite at location z is picking up meteorites that the US satellites are not, indicating that location z is probably not observed by the US satellite and therefore a good place to launch from.
And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that, when a user launches an application, keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop?
Actually, as a user of a dual-head setup, having the focus stolen from where I'm working by a program launching is annoying as hell. In my experience in the Windows environment, Outlook 2002 is one of the worst culprits. When receiving a lot of headers over IMAP (eg turning the computer on after a 3 day weekend with 500 or so new spam messages) it takes a couple of minutes to start up, and grabs the focus from whatever I'm trying to do every 30 seconds or so. Web browsers have a real problem with this too. I've set the homepage to about:blank because when I open a browser, the first thing I usually do is type a URL, not search google. But with google as a home page, I manage to type four or five letters into the URL input before google steals the focus. Google isn't alone on this, I can type my username and half my password before the last little gif loads on my bank's site, causing the last half of my password to overwrite the username.
Then the answer is for those applications which need special access to use the existing functionality of the system to provide that (eg O_EXCL and telling the user to shut off their other applications if it fails) rather than crippling 99.9% of the applications that don't give a damn.
I never said I didn't think art was beautiful or that I hated it, but the opposite of entertaining is not ugly, it's boring.
After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go
Less the $5000 they're permitted to steal from you thanks to highly unconstitutional Civil Forfeiture laws that the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about because the government stuck the word "civil" in the title and therefore it's not a criminal proceeding and they don't have to deal with any of that stupid due process bullshit.
Art is always entertaining
Maybe for some people, but I'm not very entertained by various colors on canvas.
wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets
I'll buy "promote" but when was the last time a wireless carrier ever "developed" a handset? And no, I don't count taking a good handset someone else made and crippling all of its features with a shitty firmware overwrite that turns the phone to crap.
As soon as those numbers start being used in fraudulent purchases, you have an existing mechanism for recovering your money.
Why should I have the burden and costs of recovering my money over and over and over again because Bank of Stupid (or 50 other banks I've never heard of and never did business with, and have no possible way of determining whether they are or have been a party to frauds like this) kept selling my credit card number to thieves?
a cost which they will pass on to consumers.
So some bank I've never heard of will charge credit card thieves more for the list of credit card numbers, or charge other people I've never heard of more to protect their thieving clients, causing them to go out of business? Hold on a second, let me get out the world's smallest violin...
Maybe if we just passed a law stating that you can't sell personally assigned (CC#) or identifiable (Name/address/etc) information to others rather than continuously dancing around the issue, no matter how you received that information, nobody would worry about the cost of compliance, because the only cost would be not doing it.
So you've found out where the punch came from
That's just it, I haven't. How did this strange bank get ahold of my name and number? Who is responsible for getting it to them? Did $27 (well, times however many people got the check) paid 11 years after the fact really show the people involved the error of their ways? From what I've found of the lawsuit, it was only against the porn company, leading me to believe that the bank made a tidy little sum from its part in this crime. (And others? Who else did this bank sell my number to?)
It just seems like lots of pro-regulation people only see "reduced fraud" without "increased burden" which translates directly to "increased costs."
That's a tough one, but reducing fraud also translates to "reduced costs". The problem is that for most of the companies (like the aforementioned bank) the "costs" apply to someone else entirely, so why should they bother with the burden?
take a good hard look at both the people building the road and the folks verifying that it's up to code
I'll get right on that, I'll have my secretary send stern letters to Doe Construction and Doe Inspection.
-- Signed, Representative Doe.
which means you have to be behind the vehicle throwing rocks.
Which you are, once you've passed them.
Boy uh, that's a stretch.
Sadly, it's not even close to a stretch at all (aside from the silliness of receiving a punch). I just got a check last week from the FTC claiming that waaaaay back in 1998 a bank apparently sold a list of 3 million credit card numbers for the purpose of "scrubbing" internet transactions. They sold the numbers of other banks' members, so "not doing business with them" would not have gotten you off the list.
Needless to say, some porn company purchased the list and used it to fraudulently charge a lot of people a lot of money. What a punch in the face!