Unless it advises a potential patient to a more effective treatment that leaves him alive instead of dead at the end.
If I never hear about Lipitor maybe I never bother getting a cholesterol screening and then die of heart disease at 37 instead of going to my doctor at 35 and saying, "Hey, I heard about this Lipitor thing and that men from age 35 should have cholesterol screenings."
Should it not be the physician's responsibility to notify their patients of such things? I don't expect people that call me for tech support to know that they should do this or that, so why should my physician rely on me to tell him which drugs I need?
I'm under the impression it was originally planned to replace all your contacts email addresses with the new and improved friendxyz@facebook.com email addresses.. so they can, you know, route all of your email and use it for harvesting yet more information from you.
The scary thing is that I think you're absolutely right. If this is the case, though, then they're going way beyond what they should be allowed to do.
He's not the only one - just one of the most visible. I estimate that a very large portion of "corporate america" has only gotten where they are today because of the large amount of dumb fucks in the world.
While the sarcasm isn't lost on me here, the more that people post stuff like this, the more sheeople will see it and the sarcasm WILL be lost on them. And they'll start to believe it. When that happens to enough of them it will start to be a common viewpoint and we *will* have the police state referred to.
Another swimming example of the genius of the free market.
I don't think this represents a "free market", but that people will sneak around and break the rules for their own benefit if there's a reasonable chance they won't get caught or, if they do get caught, the penalties are sufficiently minor. I do it. They do it. I'd wager that everyone does it from time to time. As far as I can tell, it has to be a part of our instincts, otherwise there's no rationale for it. It's not a survival tactic - politicians are well paid (compared to minimum wage employees as opposed to star athletes). It might even be that at some subconscious level, we (as a species) feel that it is easier to live with regret than desire, but that's only my personal speculation and, even if true, would only apply to those that genuinely feel that they are doing something wrong in the first place.
I can't blame a dog for naturally wanting to bark when the doorbell rings. However, I can train him that if he does then he'll get hit with a rolled up newspaper or some other negative consequence. Eventually the dog will get it. Unfortunately, in the real world, these "dogs" are also the ones that make the rules. Who is going to voluntarily punish themselves, especially if they don't think they're doing anything wrong? I can honestly say that I've only done that once in my life and I knew what I was doing was wrong when I did it - I just didn't comprehend the full consequences of the action before I carried it out.
If a police officer, in his normal line of duties, were to ask me some questions, I have every right to choose whether or not to cooperate and provide him the information he seeks. I can either answer him or tell him to put me under arrest and get me a lawyer. Really, I don't even have to acknowledge his presence as long as I do nothing to obstruct him directly.
What I see going on in TFA is pretty much the same thing by analogy. The "citizen" is Google and the "police" are the government. IANAL, obvioiusly, but given that corporations are treated as citizens and that police are, in fact, a part of the government, then yes, I can totally see Google cooperating with investigations if they choose to. They're also free to tell the government to smeg off, but who wants to antagonize Big Brother?
Personally, I'd assume there was an "or else" clause in any request from the government whether or not its been implied, but that's just opinion.
An interesting anecdote - a "larger than I would've imagined" portion of the game designers I've talked to have very little knowledge of code, physics, or shaders. They might know a little bit at a high level, but not enough to actually make anything happen.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that designer != coder, although those that can fill both roles have my respect.:)
Different strokes for different folks, yes? I spend my working hours yielding results. I prefer to enjoy my personal time, and that frequently involves blowing up bad guys (and sometimes good guys, depending on my mood) with plasma rays. Granted, I can't see the allure of games like Angry Birds - they have very little mental challenge to them, but again, different strokes for different folks.:)
Really? My experience has been quite the opposite. I got a C=64 as a kid and when I learned I could control it through writing programs, I was hooked. When I got older, the fascination never wore off. To this day, I find it just as entertaining. I'm a programmer both by hobby and profession. Some days I wonder how it is I can live in a world where I can be well paid for doing something I'd be doing at home anyway.
Granted, I don't expect everyone's situation to be the same, but if one truly does enjoy the work, I can't see it getting old at all. Repetitive? Sure... Frustrating? Definitely... Maybe I'm just weird, though. (Well, I'm definitely weird for sure, but whatever...)
When my current contract expires, I'll not be renewing through Verizon.
Re:TFA's Scientist's take on Gattaca problem
on
Sequencing the Unborn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The caveat to this is that "ethical" is opinionated and everyone's is different. Even if the laws of your area are completely aligned with exactly how you feel about the ethical implications, there will be other areas that have vastly different laws. Even within any given area, there will be people who think the law doesn't apply to them and take things into their own hands.
I don't think they're desperate to hang onto that business at all. It seems most likely that this is HP's way of making a failing business unit turn a hefty profit instead.
I hope these huge corporations all sue each other into bankruptcy and allow a new generation of corporations rise from the ashes, much wiser from the lessons learned from the dinosaurs that made themselves extinct before them.
So you give no credence to diversion or sacrifice tactics? You can lose a battle and still win the war. I'd even go as far as to argue that some cases might require you to lose a battle (intentionally or otherwise) in order to obtain your objective.
This is, of course, assuming we're not talking about to-the-death battles. In that case, I agree with you completely.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it advises a potential patient to a more effective treatment that leaves him alive instead of dead at the end.
If I never hear about Lipitor maybe I never bother getting a cholesterol screening and then die of heart disease at 37 instead of going to my doctor at 35 and saying, "Hey, I heard about this Lipitor thing and that men from age 35 should have cholesterol screenings."
Should it not be the physician's responsibility to notify their patients of such things? I don't expect people that call me for tech support to know that they should do this or that, so why should my physician rely on me to tell him which drugs I need?
+1 Funny
(I don't have any real mod points to spend, so you get a fake one. Enjoy!)
This would please a great many of us, I'm sure.
[snip]...When you install an application such as Facebook, you are forced to grant more permissions than is good for you...[snip]
Disagree. You aren't forced into anything. No one is forcing you to install Facebook on your phone.
Truth.
I'm under the impression it was originally planned to replace all your contacts email addresses with the new and improved friendxyz@facebook.com email addresses .. so they can, you know, route all of your email and use it for harvesting yet more information from you.
The scary thing is that I think you're absolutely right. If this is the case, though, then they're going way beyond what they should be allowed to do.
He's not the only one - just one of the most visible. I estimate that a very large portion of "corporate america" has only gotten where they are today because of the large amount of dumb fucks in the world.
Unfortunately, they're going to end up dragging the rest of us down with them.
While the sarcasm isn't lost on me here, the more that people post stuff like this, the more sheeople will see it and the sarcasm WILL be lost on them. And they'll start to believe it. When that happens to enough of them it will start to be a common viewpoint and we *will* have the police state referred to.
Another swimming example of the genius of the free market.
I don't think this represents a "free market", but that people will sneak around and break the rules for their own benefit if there's a reasonable chance they won't get caught or, if they do get caught, the penalties are sufficiently minor. I do it. They do it. I'd wager that everyone does it from time to time. As far as I can tell, it has to be a part of our instincts, otherwise there's no rationale for it. It's not a survival tactic - politicians are well paid (compared to minimum wage employees as opposed to star athletes). It might even be that at some subconscious level, we (as a species) feel that it is easier to live with regret than desire, but that's only my personal speculation and, even if true, would only apply to those that genuinely feel that they are doing something wrong in the first place.
I can't blame a dog for naturally wanting to bark when the doorbell rings. However, I can train him that if he does then he'll get hit with a rolled up newspaper or some other negative consequence. Eventually the dog will get it. Unfortunately, in the real world, these "dogs" are also the ones that make the rules. Who is going to voluntarily punish themselves, especially if they don't think they're doing anything wrong? I can honestly say that I've only done that once in my life and I knew what I was doing was wrong when I did it - I just didn't comprehend the full consequences of the action before I carried it out.
If a police officer, in his normal line of duties, were to ask me some questions, I have every right to choose whether or not to cooperate and provide him the information he seeks. I can either answer him or tell him to put me under arrest and get me a lawyer. Really, I don't even have to acknowledge his presence as long as I do nothing to obstruct him directly.
What I see going on in TFA is pretty much the same thing by analogy. The "citizen" is Google and the "police" are the government. IANAL, obvioiusly, but given that corporations are treated as citizens and that police are, in fact, a part of the government, then yes, I can totally see Google cooperating with investigations if they choose to. They're also free to tell the government to smeg off, but who wants to antagonize Big Brother?
Personally, I'd assume there was an "or else" clause in any request from the government whether or not its been implied, but that's just opinion.
But it does seem completely accurate.
An interesting anecdote - a "larger than I would've imagined" portion of the game designers I've talked to have very little knowledge of code, physics, or shaders. They might know a little bit at a high level, but not enough to actually make anything happen.
:)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that designer != coder, although those that can fill both roles have my respect.
Different strokes for different folks, yes? I spend my working hours yielding results. I prefer to enjoy my personal time, and that frequently involves blowing up bad guys (and sometimes good guys, depending on my mood) with plasma rays. Granted, I can't see the allure of games like Angry Birds - they have very little mental challenge to them, but again, different strokes for different folks. :)
Really? My experience has been quite the opposite. I got a C=64 as a kid and when I learned I could control it through writing programs, I was hooked. When I got older, the fascination never wore off. To this day, I find it just as entertaining. I'm a programmer both by hobby and profession. Some days I wonder how it is I can live in a world where I can be well paid for doing something I'd be doing at home anyway.
Granted, I don't expect everyone's situation to be the same, but if one truly does enjoy the work, I can't see it getting old at all. Repetitive? Sure... Frustrating? Definitely... Maybe I'm just weird, though. (Well, I'm definitely weird for sure, but whatever...)
Wait... are we talking about Microsoft or Hollywood?
Damn me and my quick-post to condemn Verizon. I would've modded you up.... imaginary +1 Insightful for you anyway! :)
When my current contract expires, I'll not be renewing through Verizon.
The caveat to this is that "ethical" is opinionated and everyone's is different. Even if the laws of your area are completely aligned with exactly how you feel about the ethical implications, there will be other areas that have vastly different laws. Even within any given area, there will be people who think the law doesn't apply to them and take things into their own hands.
I don't think they're desperate to hang onto that business at all. It seems most likely that this is HP's way of making a failing business unit turn a hefty profit instead.
I hope these huge corporations all sue each other into bankruptcy and allow a new generation of corporations rise from the ashes, much wiser from the lessons learned from the dinosaurs that made themselves extinct before them.
One would hope, anyway.
It doesn't necessarily have to be as fast if it can have a better bandwidth.
So you give no credence to diversion or sacrifice tactics? You can lose a battle and still win the war. I'd even go as far as to argue that some cases might require you to lose a battle (intentionally or otherwise) in order to obtain your objective.
:)
This is, of course, assuming we're not talking about to-the-death battles. In that case, I agree with you completely.
Kind of off-topic, but there are strategic reasons in which one might intentionally choose to fight a losing battle.
Well said. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks TV and movies are completely not entertaining anymore.