So, the secretary that tells someone to drive back for another couple of hours after the weekend to get the records she could get in a minute right now is supposed to be "civilized"?
There are legitimate medical reasons why some patients shouldn't have access to all raw medical data.
It is not the doctor's job to decide what's "better" for a legally competent person. For example, a doctor may guess that a medical test result may make it likely that a patient will commit suicide, but the suicide is the patient's choice and the doctor has no moral right to interfere with it.
Neither "your" DNA nor "your" stem cells are patented. What is patented is useful applications of DNA sequences or stem cells. It's still questionable whether even that should be allowed (medical procedures, after all, are not supposed to be patentable), but it's very different.
About "confusing corporations and the government", corporations are just one of many special interests trying to use the government for rent seeking through regulations, licensing, and other restrictions; public sector unions, seniors, welfare recipients, renters, police, prison guards, cosmetologists, doctors, you name it, they are all doing it. You can't overhaul government and address this problem if you get hung up on just one of the many groups.
so I would understand the data. But honestly I don't see the need.
So what happens if the company goes out of business? Or if there is new research results that would allow you to select better treatments? Or if the device has some kind of error and you want to prove your case in court?
But there's another reason: Honestly one shouldn't go around tinkering or "hacking" an implanted device.
Getting data doesn't mean any active interference with the device. However, given that it's implanted into your own body, I don't see why you shouldn't have the right to control the device.
I suspect their refusal to allow access might be along the lines of hiding from potential liability if the product reacts or behaves improperly at any time.
And that is one of the many reasons why the data should be released.
What difference does it make who owns those industries? The question is whether Democratic voters put their money where their mouth is. Do they voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint significantly? Apparently not. Do they kick out or regulate industries that emit a lot of carbon? No, they don't do that either because they want the jobs. They just keep consuming and burning oil like everybody else. And Obama really has been the hypocrite in chief when he handed nearly a hundred billion dollars in tax payer money to GM... so that the company can keep dumping inefficient cars on the US market.
Most of the carbon that is in the atmosphere right now was emitted by Europeans, and the biggest emitter today is China. So by what criterion do you hold the US as primarily responsible for the state of the atmosphere?
But, yeah, keep trying to shift blame. Why can't the rest of the world be as perfect as the Germans, right? "Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen"?
None of the "regulations" proposed to combat global warming will make any difference, and not even the most progressive American or European voter would be willing to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. Therefore, all proposed regulations related to global warming are "pure ideology".
The conservatives need to change their stance on global warming.
Why? It seems to be working in throwing a monkey wrench into idiotic government policies.
We need to find the next Einstein or Tesla to think up solutions to global warming, not the next Mao or Lenin.
Nuclear and solar are perfectly good technologies; we're not going to get anything better. The government could help things along if it stopped subsidizing (directly and indirectly) carbon-based fuels. Nothing else is really needed.
In fact, most of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from Europe and China, and within the US, most of it comes from the big, industrialized areas controlled by Democrats. So, actually, in your way of looking at it, Republicans are burning in the hell created by Europeans, Chinese, and Democrats. Republicans would also have welcomed greater use of nuclear energy.
But, hey, it is of course the Republicans' fault if they don't stop you from emitting so much carbon (or eating so much or whatever other bad habits you may have).
Hansen is a PNAS member, meaning he can either skip peer review entirely or pick his reviewers. Even if the review process had been rigorous, peer review guarantees nothing about the correctness of a paper. Peer review simply means that the paper passes basic quality standards and editorial policies for the publication in question. If you want to judge by external factors, none of the authors are statisticians, so their statements about statistical anomalies amount to little more than opinion.
I don't know whether the hot summers have been due to global warming; I tend to believe so. But to claim that as a fact, I'd certainly like a valid statistical analysis from someone qualified to make such an analysis, not from a climate hack like Hansen.
Let me just stop you here. If Apple produced a unique combination of existing technologies in a way that would work better, that's insight and... that's patentable.
Combinations of known features are not patentable unless the combination represent technical innovation.
I don't have to have invented either the transistor or the radio to be able to patent the transistor radio. The only question would be whether everyone in the radio would have obviously seen the applicability of the transistor of if that applicability was a matter of unique insight.
Let's stick with that example. Building a radio out of transistors was not patentable; that was what transistor were invented for. Specific radio circuits, however, were patentable because they represented actual innovation. So, some combinations of features are patentable, while others aren't.
Apple keeps patenting the equivalent "a radio built out of transistors", a concept that was obvious and that was the whole point of developing transistors; and then Apple keeps screwing those inventors that actually do something technically novel, like develop novel transistor circuits.
Optimistic about what? That Apple will be able to continue to rip off innovators and inventors and then turn around and patent the fruits of other people's labor?
Sadly, cloned dinosaurs will probably be pretty fragile creatures. Not only are there bound to be tons of errors in the DNA, the maternal contributions from the surrogate mothers are going to be all wrong. And to top it all off, their symbiotic bacteria and environment are going to be entirely different, and they are going to be exposed to pathogens they have no resistance to. We're lucky if anybody can make those animals survive; they won't be taking over the world any time soon.
The UI doesn't give any visual indication of what is static text and what is actually an active button. It looks very pretty, but it isn't very usable.
In addition, outlook.com leaks your identity all over the Internet.
Transcriber was an early version of Calligrapher. You can get a new and improved version of Calligrapher for Android and use it with a pen on something like the Galaxy Note. Transcriber and Calligrapher both use dictionaries. Reviews for Calligrapher (which is already much improved over Transcriber) are generally poor http://tinyurl.com/bmblkxs
It's nice that it works for you, but for most people, Swiftkey or Swype seem to be the keyboards of choice. And your ideas of how it works are... imaginative.
You said nothing about labeling, and you were responding to a thread on regulation. But I'm glad that you now agree with me that regulation is too strong and that the FDA's powers should be limited to labeling in many cases, leaving the decision up to the end user. Unfortunately, that's not the case right now.
Palm devices were not designed that way at all. Not remotely. They didn't even have capacitive touchscreens.
A lot of software on Palm (and Windows Mobile) used finger touch on resistive displays because people (like me) were too lazy to pull out the pen.
They most certainly did not have a GUI based on animations.
They most certainly had lots of animations in their GUIs.
And they generally didn't use real time web interactions.
They had web browsers, chat, background updating, and tons more stuff. Heck, most phone platforms had multitasking long before iPhone.
In all 3 major regards that the iPhone was unique the Palm did the opposite.
So? Did I say the iPhone was a clone of Palms? Apple copied liberally from all major vendors: Nokia, Windows Mobile, and Palm. Recently, Apple has copied tons of stuff from Android. It's OK for Apple to copy other people, it's not OK to then turn around and sue. Apple has a long history of copying and then talking themselves into thinking they innovated, and it has got to stop.
No, Samsung had the internal memo that people hate the stylus and we need to get rid of the stylus
Yes, everybody hated the stylus. That's why it was obvious that people wanted to get rid of it, and as soon as screens became big enough, they did! Apple had nothing to do with it, they just jumped on the bandwagon, after other people had already started getting rid of the stylus.
You can get handwriting recognition for Android, but why would you want to? Swype or its clones are faster and more accurate.
There were plenty of touch screen phones and PDAs without physical keyboards long before iPhone came out. Many Windows Mobile phones and PDAs were designed that way, as were Palm devices. Getting rid of the stylus and keyboards wasn't some grand insight of Steve Jobs, it was just driven by cheaper and bigger LCD screens and better touch screens. Palm software was increasingly finger driven long before the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
Your patients might feel better if you take them a little more seriously in the future than you seem to.
Ah, so my inability to play professional football or win a beauty contest isn't actually related to my genetics, it's all bad teachers! Good to know!
So, the secretary that tells someone to drive back for another couple of hours after the weekend to get the records she could get in a minute right now is supposed to be "civilized"?
It is not the doctor's job to decide what's "better" for a legally competent person. For example, a doctor may guess that a medical test result may make it likely that a patient will commit suicide, but the suicide is the patient's choice and the doctor has no moral right to interfere with it.
Neither "your" DNA nor "your" stem cells are patented. What is patented is useful applications of DNA sequences or stem cells. It's still questionable whether even that should be allowed (medical procedures, after all, are not supposed to be patentable), but it's very different.
About "confusing corporations and the government", corporations are just one of many special interests trying to use the government for rent seeking through regulations, licensing, and other restrictions; public sector unions, seniors, welfare recipients, renters, police, prison guards, cosmetologists, doctors, you name it, they are all doing it. You can't overhaul government and address this problem if you get hung up on just one of the many groups.
So what happens if the company goes out of business? Or if there is new research results that would allow you to select better treatments? Or if the device has some kind of error and you want to prove your case in court?
Getting data doesn't mean any active interference with the device. However, given that it's implanted into your own body, I don't see why you shouldn't have the right to control the device.
You're also a fool.
The same justification has been used to restrict access to many kinds drugs, resulting in great profits for both doctors and drug companies.
And that is one of the many reasons why the data should be released.
What difference does it make who owns those industries? The question is whether Democratic voters put their money where their mouth is. Do they voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint significantly? Apparently not. Do they kick out or regulate industries that emit a lot of carbon? No, they don't do that either because they want the jobs. They just keep consuming and burning oil like everybody else. And Obama really has been the hypocrite in chief when he handed nearly a hundred billion dollars in tax payer money to GM... so that the company can keep dumping inefficient cars on the US market.
Most of the carbon that is in the atmosphere right now was emitted by Europeans, and the biggest emitter today is China. So by what criterion do you hold the US as primarily responsible for the state of the atmosphere?
But, yeah, keep trying to shift blame. Why can't the rest of the world be as perfect as the Germans, right? "Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen"?
None of the "regulations" proposed to combat global warming will make any difference, and not even the most progressive American or European voter would be willing to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. Therefore, all proposed regulations related to global warming are "pure ideology".
Why? It seems to be working in throwing a monkey wrench into idiotic government policies.
Nuclear and solar are perfectly good technologies; we're not going to get anything better. The government could help things along if it stopped subsidizing (directly and indirectly) carbon-based fuels. Nothing else is really needed.
In fact, most of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from Europe and China, and within the US, most of it comes from the big, industrialized areas controlled by Democrats. So, actually, in your way of looking at it, Republicans are burning in the hell created by Europeans, Chinese, and Democrats. Republicans would also have welcomed greater use of nuclear energy.
But, hey, it is of course the Republicans' fault if they don't stop you from emitting so much carbon (or eating so much or whatever other bad habits you may have).
Hansen is a PNAS member, meaning he can either skip peer review entirely or pick his reviewers. Even if the review process had been rigorous, peer review guarantees nothing about the correctness of a paper. Peer review simply means that the paper passes basic quality standards and editorial policies for the publication in question. If you want to judge by external factors, none of the authors are statisticians, so their statements about statistical anomalies amount to little more than opinion.
I don't know whether the hot summers have been due to global warming; I tend to believe so. But to claim that as a fact, I'd certainly like a valid statistical analysis from someone qualified to make such an analysis, not from a climate hack like Hansen.
That's still a good deal to have my entire collection upgraded to 256kpbs.
Combinations of known features are not patentable unless the combination represent technical innovation.
Let's stick with that example. Building a radio out of transistors was not patentable; that was what transistor were invented for. Specific radio circuits, however, were patentable because they represented actual innovation. So, some combinations of features are patentable, while others aren't.
Apple keeps patenting the equivalent "a radio built out of transistors", a concept that was obvious and that was the whole point of developing transistors; and then Apple keeps screwing those inventors that actually do something technically novel, like develop novel transistor circuits.
Optimistic about what? That Apple will be able to continue to rip off innovators and inventors and then turn around and patent the fruits of other people's labor?
Sadly, cloned dinosaurs will probably be pretty fragile creatures. Not only are there bound to be tons of errors in the DNA, the maternal contributions from the surrogate mothers are going to be all wrong. And to top it all off, their symbiotic bacteria and environment are going to be entirely different, and they are going to be exposed to pathogens they have no resistance to. We're lucky if anybody can make those animals survive; they won't be taking over the world any time soon.
So, can I upload my music, have it upgraded and tagged by Amazon, then download the improved MP3s and quit the service?
The UI doesn't give any visual indication of what is static text and what is actually an active button. It looks very pretty, but it isn't very usable.
In addition, outlook.com leaks your identity all over the Internet.
Not recommended.
Transcriber was an early version of Calligrapher. You can get a new and improved version of Calligrapher for Android and use it with a pen on something like the Galaxy Note. Transcriber and Calligrapher both use dictionaries. Reviews for Calligrapher (which is already much improved over Transcriber) are generally poor http://tinyurl.com/bmblkxs
It's nice that it works for you, but for most people, Swiftkey or Swype seem to be the keyboards of choice. And your ideas of how it works are... imaginative.
You said nothing about labeling, and you were responding to a thread on regulation. But I'm glad that you now agree with me that regulation is too strong and that the FDA's powers should be limited to labeling in many cases, leaving the decision up to the end user. Unfortunately, that's not the case right now.
A lot of software on Palm (and Windows Mobile) used finger touch on resistive displays because people (like me) were too lazy to pull out the pen.
They most certainly had lots of animations in their GUIs.
They had web browsers, chat, background updating, and tons more stuff. Heck, most phone platforms had multitasking long before iPhone.
So? Did I say the iPhone was a clone of Palms? Apple copied liberally from all major vendors: Nokia, Windows Mobile, and Palm. Recently, Apple has copied tons of stuff from Android. It's OK for Apple to copy other people, it's not OK to then turn around and sue. Apple has a long history of copying and then talking themselves into thinking they innovated, and it has got to stop.
Yes, everybody hated the stylus. That's why it was obvious that people wanted to get rid of it, and as soon as screens became big enough, they did! Apple had nothing to do with it, they just jumped on the bandwagon, after other people had already started getting rid of the stylus.
You can get handwriting recognition for Android, but why would you want to? Swype or its clones are faster and more accurate.
There were plenty of touch screen phones and PDAs without physical keyboards long before iPhone came out. Many Windows Mobile phones and PDAs were designed that way, as were Palm devices. Getting rid of the stylus and keyboards wasn't some grand insight of Steve Jobs, it was just driven by cheaper and bigger LCD screens and better touch screens. Palm software was increasingly finger driven long before the iPhone.