They don't say that. That would be malpractice fodder. They do say things like "patient refuses to repair diet. Given age and history of heart disease patient is a bad candidate for transplant. Recommend hospice." (in short-hand jargon) followed by the patient's PCP coming in and writing "recommend treatment X, Y and Z." Because, you know, doctors disagree a lot. They express uncertainty. The admit that a patient may die. These are not things you generally tell the patient directly.
I have unfortunately had cause to review many medical files in my line of work. I think there are a few reasons why doctors would want to keep you from accessing your own records: First, they write notes to the other doctors / nurses / etc in your file that are not intended for patients - they don't pull punches on diagnoses. Second, you are the worst person to evaluate your own health - for the same reason that even a great lawyer should hire another lawyer to represent them rather than analyzing their own position - your fear of uncertainly and optimism bias make you a terrible self-evaluator. Third, doctors sometimes withhold records to obtain payment on a bill.
Ultimately, that record represents the doctor's thoughts and opinions concerning your health. They don't want you looking in over their shoulder.
What he proposes is what the law is throughout most of the globe. The exceptional state (the U.S.) has what is called "the American Rule" that each side bears their own Court costs and Attorneys' fees unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
-Adam
I used to have that issue with the Kinnect, but it went away a few patches ago. I love being able to just speak up and tell my xbox what to do. "Xbox, Recent, Netflix, etc..." Beats the crap out of having to find a controller in the dark during a movie marathon.
Trademarks don't have to be registered to be enforceable. They just need to be commonly associated with a particular brand, such that use by another in that same field is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace as to the origin of that product or service.
The police do/not/ carry a 30 round clip as a standard side arm. The police do/not/, in the ordinary course of business, carry a long-gun with a folding stock, laser sight, or the other hallmarks of "assault weapon" definitions as they have been used by the states. They/do/ have access to that equipment, because they're expected to go up against people/using those weapons/. The standard issue weapon of a police officer (leaving aside their "non-lethal" equipment) is a handgun. A pistol. When they encounter armed resistance they have access to larger weapons because it is their job to confront and overcome armed resistance. It takes far more firepower to go into a home / office / van / bunker, etc and force out a target than it does to stay in that location and hold off a would-be-attacker.
All of which is irrelevant. To the point I made, which was that the comment I responded to was a straw man.
so banning your access to firearms is not an infringement of rights
is a false premise, it sets up a straw man argument about gun control. This article is about interconnecting databases to more quickly identify felons and the mentally ill during the background check process. Are we really arguing that properly reporting who is a felon or metal patient is "banning access to firearms"?
All of which is a straw-man anyway, because "Assault Weapons" =/= "Gun" it is a specific category -- different legislatures have developed different definitions for "assault weapons" but none of those include -- say -- a pump action shotgun, or a revolver, or a glock 9mm . . . no one is saying "no guns assholes" they're saying "no 30 round clips" "no weapons that can be easily converted into fully automatic weapons" or... in other words... no weapons designed specifically to kill lots of people.
I know, it's a lot harder to address the argument that the President is actually making. But your straw man is on fire.
BS. GGP post was not referring to amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its the discredited Xth amendment stupidity. It doesn't work like that. This has been tested, and a war was fought on the issues. The Feds won.
Those errors included the software, but the biggest error was a basic failure to provide necessary information to their poll-watchers. Regardless of how you set up the software, if your boots on the ground don't know WTF they're supposed to accomplish for you -- you will fail.
Worse, someone will do something stupid and make you look like an asshole to boot.
Civil Disobedience includes as a pre-req the willingness to suffer the injustice of punishment to demonstrate the harm of the thing you're protesting. Ghandi got beat, many of his followers were killed. They continued and they won with increasing public support. MLK and his followers were beaten, the KKK started bombing their churches, dozens and dozens were hung from trees, freedom riders were beaten and arrested, counter-squatters were beaten and arrested, men and women died in the civil rights movement at the hands of state officials and racist hicks. In the end they won, because the outrage provoked by the injustice created pressure to fix the fucking problems. (n.b. The problems of racism and system poverty continue. Protest continues.)
Swartz could have accepted the 6 month offer, done his time, and then used the fact that he could not vote or own a gun as a point of argument for the rest of his life. The alternative he elected -- death -- includes the sentence the Gov't was offering, plus a lot more. By killing himself he insured that his voice, and his story, end. Within a year, most of you won't even remember his name. He could have been a force for change. Now he's not.
Shorter: Don't kill yourself. It is stupid and you help nothing by doing so.
What is the difference between walking into a restaurant you know doesn't serve "people like you" sitting down and occupying that space in the restaurant and sending packets en-mass in the hope of shutting down a TCP/IP connection? Both are intended to deny the target the ability to make use of their resource (a counter-stool v. fiber) to conduct business (sell food v. sell data).
Non-violent resistance works because you draw attention to an injustice. If you aren't arrested, aren't beaten, aren't persecuted -- then there's no outrage. It fails. Also, one would argue, there's not much of a problem to be addressed if the only way to keep a scheme in force is by not applying it... but I digress. You should not participate in the act if you aren't willing to accept the arrest and the punishment as both the price to be paid and the key motivator for change.
Slashdot Mirror
Except oil.
They don't say that. That would be malpractice fodder. They do say things like "patient refuses to repair diet. Given age and history of heart disease patient is a bad candidate for transplant. Recommend hospice." (in short-hand jargon) followed by the patient's PCP coming in and writing "recommend treatment X, Y and Z." Because, you know, doctors disagree a lot. They express uncertainty. The admit that a patient may die. These are not things you generally tell the patient directly.
If I want my client's medical record, I will get it, in short order. This doesn't expand the amount of information available to a lawyer.
I have unfortunately had cause to review many medical files in my line of work. I think there are a few reasons why doctors would want to keep you from accessing your own records: First, they write notes to the other doctors / nurses / etc in your file that are not intended for patients - they don't pull punches on diagnoses. Second, you are the worst person to evaluate your own health - for the same reason that even a great lawyer should hire another lawyer to represent them rather than analyzing their own position - your fear of uncertainly and optimism bias make you a terrible self-evaluator. Third, doctors sometimes withhold records to obtain payment on a bill.
Ultimately, that record represents the doctor's thoughts and opinions concerning your health. They don't want you looking in over their shoulder.
Not necessarily in this case. Anti-SLAPP act statutes in several states are harsh on the fees question.
Dude already addressed that in the line after the one you quoted.
What he proposes is what the law is throughout most of the globe. The exceptional state (the U.S.) has what is called "the American Rule" that each side bears their own Court costs and Attorneys' fees unless there is an agreement to the contrary. -Adam
I used to have that issue with the Kinnect, but it went away a few patches ago. I love being able to just speak up and tell my xbox what to do. "Xbox, Recent, Netflix, etc ..." Beats the crap out of having to find a controller in the dark during a movie marathon.
Ditto.
Trademarks don't have to be registered to be enforceable. They just need to be commonly associated with a particular brand, such that use by another in that same field is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace as to the origin of that product or service.
and there is no penalty for violating them.
This is dangerously false, at least in the United States (where Amazon lives). Google the Lanham Act.
All of which is irrelevant. To the point I made, which was that the comment I responded to was a straw man.
so banning your access to firearms is not an infringement of rights
is a false premise, it sets up a straw man argument about gun control. This article is about interconnecting databases to more quickly identify felons and the mentally ill during the background check process. Are we really arguing that properly reporting who is a felon or metal patient is "banning access to firearms"?
Be careful what you ask for. There are bullets not made of lead. Such as the famed "cop killer bullets."
Says the paid NRA hack ... er I mean Anonymous Coward.
All of which is a straw-man anyway, because "Assault Weapons" =/= "Gun" it is a specific category -- different legislatures have developed different definitions for "assault weapons" but none of those include -- say -- a pump action shotgun, or a revolver, or a glock 9mm . . . no one is saying "no guns assholes" they're saying "no 30 round clips" "no weapons that can be easily converted into fully automatic weapons" or ... in other words ... no weapons designed specifically to kill lots of people.
I know, it's a lot harder to address the argument that the President is actually making. But your straw man is on fire.
BS. GGP post was not referring to amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its the discredited Xth amendment stupidity. It doesn't work like that. This has been tested, and a war was fought on the issues. The Feds won.
*Not* a patent. This is a trademark.
Only for certain very particular meanings of "pissing" and "bushes."
Those errors included the software, but the biggest error was a basic failure to provide necessary information to their poll-watchers. Regardless of how you set up the software, if your boots on the ground don't know WTF they're supposed to accomplish for you -- you will fail.
Worse, someone will do something stupid and make you look like an asshole to boot.
The prosecutor offered him six months. Also, MLK was assassinated. Ghandi was beaten on multiple occasions.
This.
Civil Disobedience includes as a pre-req the willingness to suffer the injustice of punishment to demonstrate the harm of the thing you're protesting. Ghandi got beat, many of his followers were killed. They continued and they won with increasing public support. MLK and his followers were beaten, the KKK started bombing their churches, dozens and dozens were hung from trees, freedom riders were beaten and arrested, counter-squatters were beaten and arrested, men and women died in the civil rights movement at the hands of state officials and racist hicks. In the end they won, because the outrage provoked by the injustice created pressure to fix the fucking problems. (n.b. The problems of racism and system poverty continue. Protest continues.)
Swartz could have accepted the 6 month offer, done his time, and then used the fact that he could not vote or own a gun as a point of argument for the rest of his life. The alternative he elected -- death -- includes the sentence the Gov't was offering, plus a lot more. By killing himself he insured that his voice, and his story, end. Within a year, most of you won't even remember his name. He could have been a force for change. Now he's not.
Shorter: Don't kill yourself. It is stupid and you help nothing by doing so.
What company? The complaints here are about prosecutorial discretion -- that's the gov't, not a company.
What is the difference between walking into a restaurant you know doesn't serve "people like you" sitting down and occupying that space in the restaurant and sending packets en-mass in the hope of shutting down a TCP/IP connection? Both are intended to deny the target the ability to make use of their resource (a counter-stool v. fiber) to conduct business (sell food v. sell data).
I fact -- going to jail was the point.
Non-violent resistance works because you draw attention to an injustice. If you aren't arrested, aren't beaten, aren't persecuted -- then there's no outrage. It fails. Also, one would argue, there's not much of a problem to be addressed if the only way to keep a scheme in force is by not applying it... but I digress. You should not participate in the act if you aren't willing to accept the arrest and the punishment as both the price to be paid and the key motivator for change.
Good point.