Precisely because we do not know that particular qualifications the person may or may not have, which I also believe you are placing undue stress on in light of epidemiological training receiving over the course of obtaining an MD/DO and compounded by a lack of undergraduate level epidemiology programs in general, I am cautioning you to temper your view of what the term "expert" would mean for such a person. I believe there is more gray area here than you are willing to accept, but it may simply be the case that our perspectives will differ on this point.
My goal is still to encourage you to review more materials on this topic instead of working to find means of discounting a view without further data. This might be a good start.
Why are you assuming the physician in question worked exclusively at the free clinic? This is quite unlikely. I have known many physicians who worked rounds at free clinics in addition to their duties at other medical facilities in various metropolitan areas, but I cannot recall having known a physician who only did free clinic work for any prolonged period of time. I have seen a couple of cases where doctors who were very financially secure (not the normal "paying off medical school, dealing with other debt as well just like everyone else" conditions) only worked free clinics in urban or very rural areas for a matter of months, this does not appear to be the norm. Residencies are also typically much more balanced in the demographic mix sense.
Even assuming a physician only works at a free clinic, it seems unlikely that he would have no communication with other physicians servicing alternate socioeconomic groups. This really goes back to my request that you perform a bit of research before voicing what appear to be unfounded suppositions.
This is a view that has come into vogue fairly recently, but in terms of practical impact it is generally considered unfounded. Johnson & Johnson has a long demonstrated history of massive spending on advertising and lobbying efforts promoting the safety of Tylenol, while working to suppress and discredit evidence of harm wherever possible. This has also extended into legal efforts such as this example from 1988 and large volumes of new litigation in 2013.
While I fully acknowledge the existence of people (who are in fact scum) who would prefer to see addicts die, their actual influence is minimal compared to the billions spent by companies like Johnson & Johnson. However, I do suspect there exists some overlap between the two groups.
Rather than repeat it in its entirety, I'll refer you to my other reply in this thread. My intention here is less to scold and more to encourage you to perform any measure of research before casting blind aspersions on the credibility of any (admittedly secondhand) physician statement. I freely note that I am not a medical doctor; are you? Presuming you are not, we both have access to a wealth of published materials and the opportunity to discuss them, including discussions on the merits with practicing physicians should we wish. It should be noted that many epidemiologists are physicians, but many hold alternate degrees in the sciences and public health in lieu of an MD/DO.
I've read the referenced publication twice in its entirety. You are attempting to minimize the key point "census tracts with lower median incomes, more racial/ethnic minorities, and more immigrants had higher rates of pediatric tuberculosis" by separating the factors for your convenience. I never stated that illegal immigration was the only factor, but it is nonetheless intimately linked with the rate of transmission of tuberculosis. I'll leave it to you to consult additional studies (CDC, etc) that demonstrate similar results. If you are inclined to disagree with the methodology and statistics associated with this or any other studies, you should cite specific objections and include contrary data or alternate interpretation of supplied data. Otherwise, nobody should take you seriously, as you're not adding anything to the conversation other than unfounded conjecture.
I'm confused why you seem to think I would disagree with your view that we should immunize everyone. In fact, I fully agree with that position, but you have again attempted to divert attention from a legitimate factor. I suspect this is because of your personal views on immigration, but I would encourage you to question where your priorities are in this case. Is reduction of disease transmission in the United States your actual goal here, or is there another agenda you feel ranks higher in terms of social good? If it is the latter, on what terms have you arrived at that decision, and have you considered tradeoffs and interrelated concerns involved with the picture as a whole?
Codeine is an opiate and is generally indicated for mild to moderate pain reduction, while paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a non-opioid analgesic. While acetaminophen is commonly combined with an opioid such as codeine or hydrocodone in many pain management medications (especially in the United States), choosing an opioid/ibuprofen combination is safer in terms of reduced risk for hepatotoxicity. In addition to its action as an analgesic, ibuprofen also has significant anti-inflammatory properties, although as with any medication various risks and side effects should be considered. Unfortunately, the PR/lobby/legal machines at Johnson & Johnson (maker of Tylenol, the most common acetaminophen brand) have gone to great lengths to downplay hepatic risks associated with acetaminophen and portay it as superior to ibuprofen. Results will vary on a case by case basis, but in my case acetaminophen in nearly useless for pain reduction. In contrast, I have found ibuprofen alone to be much more effective for many kinds of pain.
It should be noted that the GP cited potential respiratory complications but did not provide specifics, and thus any opioid medication (especially stronger formulations) might be contraindicated due to heightened risk of respiratory depression. All this said, I am not a medical doctor, and this is not medical advice; it is merely my own personal views on this topic. I believe the GP should perform as much personal research as possible, and then follow up with a physician to discuss his/her findings in detail before trying another medication. Any physician who is not receptive to such a detailed discussion should be avoided.
You may be interested in publications such as this: "An ecological study of tuberculosis transmission in California." If you're going to question the veracity of a statement, you should invest some effort into fact-finding on your own. The referenced publication is one of many you can find without much trouble.
You're still entirely missing the point, so please allow me to clear it up for you. In the scenario we're discussing, specifically the utility of hidden containers with respect to plausible deniability, the police already have access to the outer container. Either the key decryption passphrase was directly conveyed to them, or they had the device owner unlock the outer container to facilitate spot inspection of the device and the device owner complied given his belief that he will be protected by hidden containers. At this point, the device is confiscated. If the outer passphrase was not supplied, it matters little at this point, because the volume is unlocked and mounted. The outer container key will be extracted shortly thereafter as a result by any one of numerous means.
The police now proceed to inspect the digital media in question. In many cases, said analysis will rapidly identify media regions which are likely to represent "hidden containers", and interesting interactions between the owner of the device and law enforcement personnel will commence shortly thereafter.
What part of this is unclear? Perhaps you should explain the nature of your experience with cryptography, preferably with emphasis on practical applications pertinent to this conversation.
I'll paraphrase my reply to another poster here. I suggest we prosecute all current and former elected officials for every instance of dereliction of duty regarding the laws they swore to uphold and defend. We can start with the highest ranked members of the current and former administrations and work our way down and as far back as statutes of limitations permit. Do you take issue with this suggestion?
Note: I'm not the AC from the GP comment, but I feel the need to respond here.
You are frothing at the mouth at how bad the current president is, and yet conveniently forget how so many people thought the previous president was just as bad.
The moment Mr. Obama took the oath of office, he assumed responsibility for upholding the law. Nothing you've said changes the fact that he has grossly abused the law beyond recognition.
Hell idiots like you extol the virtues of even older presidents like Reagan, whats wrong with pointing out the foibles of someone more recent?
The problem is simply that you're not interested in having a productive discussion of what to do about corruption in government, and you choose to waste your keystrokes on childish "but the other guy was wrong too" games.
no different from those people you despise
You have offered no supporting evidence for that rather expansive assertion. For my part, I suggest we prosecute all current and former elected officials for every instance of dereliction of duty regarding the laws they swore to uphold and defend. We can start with the highest ranked members of the current and former administrations and work our way down and as far back as statutes of limitations permit. Do you take issue with this suggestion?
I suggest you take a much closer look at how power is consolidated in politics, and at how many of your elected officials greatly benefit from "career public service" for the duration of their lives (and their children's lives, in many cases). These points aside, you also appear to have a limited understanding of the fundamental desire for power over others; this is a characteristic that is frequently presented as a desire to "help" fellow citizens, when the end results are all too often anything but helpful.
I am certainly not opposed to people achieving great financial success, nor am I claiming that all or even most rich men desire elected office. It must still be noted that elected representatives, especially but certainly not limited to those holding certain federal offices, already heavily tend toward possession of far greater financial resources than the majority of the people they govern. The GGP suggestion that campaign contributions should be made illegal would only serve to further increase that trend, which is an outcome I believe NoKaOi would be unhappy with.
"Boss" Tweed serves as an interesting case study in some of these points. Unfortunately, while the sheer magnitude of his transgressions outstripped those of most of his contemporaries, his behavioral patterns remain disconcertingly common among politicians in the present day. This is an unfortunate side effect of basic human nature having remained wholly unchanged in the interim.
Your suggestion will only result in a cycle of election of candidates who already have ever-increasingly large sums of money to spend on their campaigns. Are you sure you've thought this through?
plainly opposite in many cases if they are trying to stop social improvements like immigration reform
This is a subjective statement. One person may consider a particular immigration reform position as representing social improvement, while another may view the position as damaging to the same society.
NGA is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (alternate Wikipedia source: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). It should be noted that while NGA and Google both supplied funding for the satellite, NGA's contribution was approximately USD $248M, while Google's portion of the funding was remitted through GeoEye (which was later purchased by DigitalGlobe in 2013) under a contract for which the terms have not been publicly disclosed. While the exact amount of Google-supplied capital is unknown, it may be safely assumed to be a considerable percentage of the balance of the project cost and thereby a de facto partial ownership arrangement, given the obvious market benefits afforded to Google through the deal (see also "GeoEye Reports Record 2009 Third Quarter Results" for interesting numbers). In a more fiscally transparent demonstration of the company's high interest in this field, Google entered into an agreement to purchase Skybox Imaging outright for USD $500M on June 10, 2014.
It should also be noted that Google acquired exclusive rights to GeoEye-1 imaging data for online mapping purposes, which is not equivalent to a broader exclusive general purpose license. Other companies would have been free to contract with GeoEye for non-online-mapping use of the data. The arrangement has invited questions from some parties concerning the enforceability of copyright claims on the data, as it is produced with 50% funding from the United States federal government. While it is understood that down-sampled (50 cm resolution) images are provided directly to Google and other companies partially at taxpayer expense, it is important to understand the applicability of exceptions in law to copyright terms on work produced by or supported by the U.S. government.
In reply to the question posed in your subject line, I suggest simply prepending "\" characters to each line of your beta. This should be sufficient to escape it in most shells. HTH, HAND.
GeoEye and DigitalGlobe merged in January of 2013. From launch to the present day, Google has maintained exclusive online mapping rights to the data produced by the GeoEye-1 satellite, often referred to as Google-1. The Google logo was on the Delta II rocket that put the satellite into orbit. While NGA and Google collaborated to provide funding in the amount of approximately USD $500M for the satellite and launch, it's a bit disingenuous to say Google shouldn't have been considered an owner.
PCI/DSS isn't simply about being able to claim nebulous adherence to "best practices"; it's about an organization's ability to maintain a business relationship with their customers and an upstream merchant account provider under certain agreed upon minimum standards for data security. Quoting PCI Data Storage Do’s and Don’ts:
Do not store sensitive authentication data contained in the payment card’s storage chip or full magnetic stripe, including the printed 3-4 digit card validation code on the front or back of the payment card after authorization.
This point in particular is not flexible in nature. Storing that specific information, or failing to take specific steps to secure the access perimeter and specific systems through which said information traverses, are quick routes to termination of a merchant agreement. Such failures may also expose a business to significant legal liability; litigation rapidly becomes impressively expensive in the event of a breach whereby it comes to light that the business in question failed to follow basic PCI/DSS tenets, and said legal proceedings may turn into an even greater circus if dominant upstream EFT players such as Visa, etc believe there is reason to assume negligence on the part of an auditing firm that supposedly delivered a satisfactory report on compliance to the errant business. Reference the recent Target debacle for a fine example of such complications.
There are no magic bullets, but there are baselines. Those baselines could certainly use significant improvement, but that doesn't matter much if the business servicing the consumer doesn't care to consider even basic adherence to agreed upon information security standards as a critical factor.
"Lousy" and "older and higher paid" are not mutually exclusive terms. However, I concede that the GP's message was somewhat diluted by the unfortunate inclusion of an errant apostrophe; grammar and composition are certainly relevant to this conversation.
Whoa there cowboy, maybe you'll be less testy if you hoover another rail of that Colombian mood enhancer off your desk. Gotta keep your blood levels even, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely because we do not know that particular qualifications the person may or may not have, which I also believe you are placing undue stress on in light of epidemiological training receiving over the course of obtaining an MD/DO and compounded by a lack of undergraduate level epidemiology programs in general, I am cautioning you to temper your view of what the term "expert" would mean for such a person. I believe there is more gray area here than you are willing to accept, but it may simply be the case that our perspectives will differ on this point.
My goal is still to encourage you to review more materials on this topic instead of working to find means of discounting a view without further data. This might be a good start.
Why are you assuming the physician in question worked exclusively at the free clinic? This is quite unlikely. I have known many physicians who worked rounds at free clinics in addition to their duties at other medical facilities in various metropolitan areas, but I cannot recall having known a physician who only did free clinic work for any prolonged period of time. I have seen a couple of cases where doctors who were very financially secure (not the normal "paying off medical school, dealing with other debt as well just like everyone else" conditions) only worked free clinics in urban or very rural areas for a matter of months, this does not appear to be the norm. Residencies are also typically much more balanced in the demographic mix sense.
Even assuming a physician only works at a free clinic, it seems unlikely that he would have no communication with other physicians servicing alternate socioeconomic groups. This really goes back to my request that you perform a bit of research before voicing what appear to be unfounded suppositions.
This is a view that has come into vogue fairly recently, but in terms of practical impact it is generally considered unfounded. Johnson & Johnson has a long demonstrated history of massive spending on advertising and lobbying efforts promoting the safety of Tylenol, while working to suppress and discredit evidence of harm wherever possible. This has also extended into legal efforts such as this example from 1988 and large volumes of new litigation in 2013.
While I fully acknowledge the existence of people (who are in fact scum) who would prefer to see addicts die, their actual influence is minimal compared to the billions spent by companies like Johnson & Johnson. However, I do suspect there exists some overlap between the two groups.
Rather than repeat it in its entirety, I'll refer you to my other reply in this thread. My intention here is less to scold and more to encourage you to perform any measure of research before casting blind aspersions on the credibility of any (admittedly secondhand) physician statement. I freely note that I am not a medical doctor; are you? Presuming you are not, we both have access to a wealth of published materials and the opportunity to discuss them, including discussions on the merits with practicing physicians should we wish. It should be noted that many epidemiologists are physicians, but many hold alternate degrees in the sciences and public health in lieu of an MD/DO.
I've read the referenced publication twice in its entirety. You are attempting to minimize the key point "census tracts with lower median incomes, more racial/ethnic minorities, and more immigrants had higher rates of pediatric tuberculosis" by separating the factors for your convenience. I never stated that illegal immigration was the only factor, but it is nonetheless intimately linked with the rate of transmission of tuberculosis. I'll leave it to you to consult additional studies (CDC, etc) that demonstrate similar results. If you are inclined to disagree with the methodology and statistics associated with this or any other studies, you should cite specific objections and include contrary data or alternate interpretation of supplied data. Otherwise, nobody should take you seriously, as you're not adding anything to the conversation other than unfounded conjecture.
I'm confused why you seem to think I would disagree with your view that we should immunize everyone. In fact, I fully agree with that position, but you have again attempted to divert attention from a legitimate factor. I suspect this is because of your personal views on immigration, but I would encourage you to question where your priorities are in this case. Is reduction of disease transmission in the United States your actual goal here, or is there another agenda you feel ranks higher in terms of social good? If it is the latter, on what terms have you arrived at that decision, and have you considered tradeoffs and interrelated concerns involved with the picture as a whole?
Codeine is an opiate and is generally indicated for mild to moderate pain reduction, while paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a non-opioid analgesic. While acetaminophen is commonly combined with an opioid such as codeine or hydrocodone in many pain management medications (especially in the United States), choosing an opioid/ibuprofen combination is safer in terms of reduced risk for hepatotoxicity. In addition to its action as an analgesic, ibuprofen also has significant anti-inflammatory properties, although as with any medication various risks and side effects should be considered. Unfortunately, the PR/lobby/legal machines at Johnson & Johnson (maker of Tylenol, the most common acetaminophen brand) have gone to great lengths to downplay hepatic risks associated with acetaminophen and portay it as superior to ibuprofen. Results will vary on a case by case basis, but in my case acetaminophen in nearly useless for pain reduction. In contrast, I have found ibuprofen alone to be much more effective for many kinds of pain.
It should be noted that the GP cited potential respiratory complications but did not provide specifics, and thus any opioid medication (especially stronger formulations) might be contraindicated due to heightened risk of respiratory depression. All this said, I am not a medical doctor, and this is not medical advice; it is merely my own personal views on this topic. I believe the GP should perform as much personal research as possible, and then follow up with a physician to discuss his/her findings in detail before trying another medication. Any physician who is not receptive to such a detailed discussion should be avoided.
I can't decide if this should be modded "funny" or "insightful." Either way, I've already commented in this story, so I can't mod it.
You may be interested in publications such as this: "An ecological study of tuberculosis transmission in California." If you're going to question the veracity of a statement, you should invest some effort into fact-finding on your own. The referenced publication is one of many you can find without much trouble.
Let's get a cup of coffee.
You're still entirely missing the point, so please allow me to clear it up for you. In the scenario we're discussing, specifically the utility of hidden containers with respect to plausible deniability, the police already have access to the outer container. Either the key decryption passphrase was directly conveyed to them, or they had the device owner unlock the outer container to facilitate spot inspection of the device and the device owner complied given his belief that he will be protected by hidden containers. At this point, the device is confiscated. If the outer passphrase was not supplied, it matters little at this point, because the volume is unlocked and mounted. The outer container key will be extracted shortly thereafter as a result by any one of numerous means.
The police now proceed to inspect the digital media in question. In many cases, said analysis will rapidly identify media regions which are likely to represent "hidden containers", and interesting interactions between the owner of the device and law enforcement personnel will commence shortly thereafter.
What part of this is unclear? Perhaps you should explain the nature of your experience with cryptography, preferably with emphasis on practical applications pertinent to this conversation.
I'll paraphrase my reply to another poster here. I suggest we prosecute all current and former elected officials for every instance of dereliction of duty regarding the laws they swore to uphold and defend. We can start with the highest ranked members of the current and former administrations and work our way down and as far back as statutes of limitations permit. Do you take issue with this suggestion?
Note: I'm not the AC from the GP comment, but I feel the need to respond here.
You are frothing at the mouth at how bad the current president is, and yet conveniently forget how so many people thought the previous president was just as bad.
The moment Mr. Obama took the oath of office, he assumed responsibility for upholding the law. Nothing you've said changes the fact that he has grossly abused the law beyond recognition.
Hell idiots like you extol the virtues of even older presidents like Reagan, whats wrong with pointing out the foibles of someone more recent?
The problem is simply that you're not interested in having a productive discussion of what to do about corruption in government, and you choose to waste your keystrokes on childish "but the other guy was wrong too" games.
no different from those people you despise
You have offered no supporting evidence for that rather expansive assertion. For my part, I suggest we prosecute all current and former elected officials for every instance of dereliction of duty regarding the laws they swore to uphold and defend. We can start with the highest ranked members of the current and former administrations and work our way down and as far back as statutes of limitations permit. Do you take issue with this suggestion?
I suggest you take a much closer look at how power is consolidated in politics, and at how many of your elected officials greatly benefit from "career public service" for the duration of their lives (and their children's lives, in many cases). These points aside, you also appear to have a limited understanding of the fundamental desire for power over others; this is a characteristic that is frequently presented as a desire to "help" fellow citizens, when the end results are all too often anything but helpful.
I am certainly not opposed to people achieving great financial success, nor am I claiming that all or even most rich men desire elected office. It must still be noted that elected representatives, especially but certainly not limited to those holding certain federal offices, already heavily tend toward possession of far greater financial resources than the majority of the people they govern. The GGP suggestion that campaign contributions should be made illegal would only serve to further increase that trend, which is an outcome I believe NoKaOi would be unhappy with.
"Boss" Tweed serves as an interesting case study in some of these points. Unfortunately, while the sheer magnitude of his transgressions outstripped those of most of his contemporaries, his behavioral patterns remain disconcertingly common among politicians in the present day. This is an unfortunate side effect of basic human nature having remained wholly unchanged in the interim.
Your suggestion will only result in a cycle of election of candidates who already have ever-increasingly large sums of money to spend on their campaigns. Are you sure you've thought this through?
plainly opposite in many cases if they are trying to stop social improvements like immigration reform
This is a subjective statement. One person may consider a particular immigration reform position as representing social improvement, while another may view the position as damaging to the same society.
NGA is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (alternate Wikipedia source: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). It should be noted that while NGA and Google both supplied funding for the satellite, NGA's contribution was approximately USD $248M, while Google's portion of the funding was remitted through GeoEye (which was later purchased by DigitalGlobe in 2013) under a contract for which the terms have not been publicly disclosed. While the exact amount of Google-supplied capital is unknown, it may be safely assumed to be a considerable percentage of the balance of the project cost and thereby a de facto partial ownership arrangement, given the obvious market benefits afforded to Google through the deal (see also "GeoEye Reports Record 2009 Third Quarter Results" for interesting numbers). In a more fiscally transparent demonstration of the company's high interest in this field, Google entered into an agreement to purchase Skybox Imaging outright for USD $500M on June 10, 2014.
It should also be noted that Google acquired exclusive rights to GeoEye-1 imaging data for online mapping purposes, which is not equivalent to a broader exclusive general purpose license. Other companies would have been free to contract with GeoEye for non-online-mapping use of the data. The arrangement has invited questions from some parties concerning the enforceability of copyright claims on the data, as it is produced with 50% funding from the United States federal government. While it is understood that down-sampled (50 cm resolution) images are provided directly to Google and other companies partially at taxpayer expense, it is important to understand the applicability of exceptions in law to copyright terms on work produced by or supported by the U.S. government.
In reply to the question posed in your subject line, I suggest simply prepending "\" characters to each line of your beta. This should be sufficient to escape it in most shells. HTH, HAND.
You may wish to consider retracting statement of willingness to stand corrected based on my last reply in this thread.
GeoEye and DigitalGlobe merged in January of 2013. From launch to the present day, Google has maintained exclusive online mapping rights to the data produced by the GeoEye-1 satellite, often referred to as Google-1. The Google logo was on the Delta II rocket that put the satellite into orbit. While NGA and Google collaborated to provide funding in the amount of approximately USD $500M for the satellite and launch, it's a bit disingenuous to say Google shouldn't have been considered an owner.
You beat me to the punch. Well played, sir. Discussion on this story is officially concluded.
PCI/DSS isn't simply about being able to claim nebulous adherence to "best practices"; it's about an organization's ability to maintain a business relationship with their customers and an upstream merchant account provider under certain agreed upon minimum standards for data security. Quoting PCI Data Storage Do’s and Don’ts:
Do not store sensitive authentication data contained in the payment card’s storage chip or full magnetic stripe, including the printed 3-4 digit card validation code on the front or back of the payment card after authorization.
This point in particular is not flexible in nature. Storing that specific information, or failing to take specific steps to secure the access perimeter and specific systems through which said information traverses, are quick routes to termination of a merchant agreement. Such failures may also expose a business to significant legal liability; litigation rapidly becomes impressively expensive in the event of a breach whereby it comes to light that the business in question failed to follow basic PCI/DSS tenets, and said legal proceedings may turn into an even greater circus if dominant upstream EFT players such as Visa, etc believe there is reason to assume negligence on the part of an auditing firm that supposedly delivered a satisfactory report on compliance to the errant business. Reference the recent Target debacle for a fine example of such complications.
There are no magic bullets, but there are baselines. Those baselines could certainly use significant improvement, but that doesn't matter much if the business servicing the consumer doesn't care to consider even basic adherence to agreed upon information security standards as a critical factor.
"Lousy" and "older and higher paid" are not mutually exclusive terms. However, I concede that the GP's message was somewhat diluted by the unfortunate inclusion of an errant apostrophe; grammar and composition are certainly relevant to this conversation.
Whoa there cowboy, maybe you'll be less testy if you hoover another rail of that Colombian mood enhancer off your desk. Gotta keep your blood levels even, you know.
I think you're probably right, and I'm not going to shed a tear when it happens. I might raise a toast, though.
Founder Bob Parsons, currently executive chairman, will be stepping down but remaining on the board of directors.
Well, there's your problem. Until Parsons is well and truly out of the business, I can't imagine there's going to be any serious turnaround.