you've got it backwards, the Pre was just a little tablet. Think prototyping, it was a scale model for a future product.....which explains the build quality:-P
Actually, for most of these other shows you mention, they now hire consultants to make the display as accurate as possible (within the limits of dramaturgy requirements, nobody wants to see a cop fill out reports or show docs hook up the 100th dialysis patient).
They do hire consultants, but it's not to make sure things are realistic, it's so if there's a realistic alternative to what they're doing that will still work in the scene they'll know about it. Having consultants doesn't stop anyone from going ahead and doing what they think makes for a more interesting story just because it's unrealistic on a technical level. CSI is a perfect, and egregious, example. IRL those guys are basically lab-technicians, on TV they're chasing bad-guys through Vegas and carrying guns.
Everyone can understand why cops chase a robber and how a shootout works. Everyone can understand why the operation room gets hectic when you hear the flatline beep. But computers?
That's exactly the point, you *think* you know how those things work, but for someone who actually *is* a cop, or a heart-surgeon, the portrayals are just as unrealistic in many (most?) cases as uploading a virus to an alien computer, or breaking encryption just by putting a gun to a "hacker's" head. Think about it, with your shoot-out example. Usually, *if* things get to the point of shooting, it's over in seconds with only a few shots fired. In Hollywoods version, everyone goes through clips like they're playing DOOM, there's running, driving, maybe a little swimming, an exploding car or two, and any people who actually get shot fly 20 feet through the air as if they've been hit by a truck rather than a 9mm round which would just cause them to fall down. Even the footage on "Worlds Wildest Police Chases" doesn't compare with what you see in a lot of cop movies, and those clips represent the *craziest* stuff that happens.
Yes, there are *some* realistic portrayals of cops and heart-surgeons, but there are some realistic portrayals of technology too. It's just more fun to beat up on the crazy stuff:)
yeah, I hate how I can only get software for my MacBook from a locked-down app-store, and how all my music is DRM'd 'cause there's no other choice.....oh, waitaminute, none of that's actually true.
but the fact is, doing a scene where a sysadmin bangs around in a terminal typing commands just isn't fun for the viewer. The reason we laugh so hard at these things though is because technology is our thing. It's true for almost anything in an entertainment-oriented (as opposed to educational) movie. Try some of the following:
Watch a few cop movies with actual cops. Watch some hospital-based TV shows with some doctors, nurses and paramedics. Watch a couple of movies that focus on car chases/stunts with some mechanics. The list goes on and on. What you'll see though is, those people will have the same general reaction to Hollywood depictions of their areas of expertise that we have regarding use of computers/technology. Accuracy and entertainment just don't always go well together.
If we get find the government involved in buying video game consoles, the prices WILL go up. This will make a nice experiment. Let's make it so that insurance covers them. We'll have $1000 Wiis before you know it. It will then be called a failure of the "free market".
How do you figure that? The government buys lots of things, and generally in much greater bulk than they could conceivably buy Wii consoles in. Laptops, monitors, pens, paper, bullets, cars....the list goes on and on. Since we're not paying $10,000 for a Dell laptop, or $4 per round of 9mm ammunition due to government purchases, why do you think the Wii would be affected this way? This also has nothing to do with the free market. Government purchases are just as much a part of the free market as any other purchase, so long as they don't legislate an arbitrary price and force the manufacturer to sell it at that price.
Maybe you missed the memo, but Palm is now on Verizon and soon to be on AT&T.
I love the Pre, and I knew everything about it before it went on sale, but that's because I'm a gadget junkie. Palm/Sprint/Verizon/AT&T have screwed up marketing this thing from day one. Palm went with the weird albino girl talking metaphysics and leaving everyone with the feeling she was advertising some kind of new-age book or something. Sprint was a little better, at least showing the Pre in ads, but I don't think any of those ads really showcased the Pre, more of a mention among other points. Verizon and AT&T? I don't think I've seen any major advertising pushing the Pre from them, they tend to focus on their networks (download while calling for AT&T, coverage area for Verizon) and spend less time on individual phones. Ultimately, I blame Palm for this. Apple didn't try to rely on AT&T to get their message out, they went straight for the customer with ads that were entertaining and informative, as far as commercials go, about the iPhone. Palm put out 3 commercials that left people confused about what the product even was, let alone why they'd want it......
I think you just missed the release of DrPodder, which IIRC came out around then and does what you were looking for. I agree, the iTunes thing was stupid, and so was/is the automatic streaming of mp3 files. The only real option before podder was to download the podcasts in advance as mp3s, and save them for later....
You're assuming when he says it's a good UI he's talking about eye-candy, but the most important element of a good UI is the functionality, they're not separate topics. WebOS *does* allow you to do what you want/need in a simple manner, while being visually appealing at the same time. Having used WinMo, Blackberry, iPhone and Android devices, I can honestly say I can't think of a whole lot that any of them do that's not as easy or easier to do in WebOS (with the exception of cut/copy/paste, which still needs some serious work in WebOS- iPhone does this much more nicely).
If it makes you feel any better, I've had a Pre since day one (Sprint), and thought the same thing about that door. I still think they could have come up with something better there, but one year later it's still attached and I'm not the most gentle person around when it comes to phones.....
Offhand, I'd say that this illegal alien must be using someone else's SSN to gain said employment. Where did he get it? Since most people don't want to share theirs with someone else, there's a good chance that it's stolen. Now, since this guy is completely imaginary anyway, lets further suppose that in order to get to this respectable job, he buys a car, in the process taking out a loan, again using this SSN. I imagine a bank account, a few credit cards, all the usual stuff that someone who has a respectable job does. Then, disaster strikes, layoff. Our intrepid hero is unable to find work right away (like many legal residents), and falls behind on his car payments, racks up credit-card late fees, falls behind on the rent leading to an eviction. Oddly, Rich Smith, living 500 miles away, is somewhat unhappy when he looks at his credit report, which lists all of these things, and finds that he can no longer take loans himself because his credit rating has dropped like a rock. Our intrepid adventurer though, is free to start over, walking away from this debt, and picks up a new SSN because the old one just doesn't work that well for him anymore.
Download the Google Wardrive client to your PDA, and pre-cracked WEP/WPA2-TKIP keys will be automatically loaded as necessary, providing you with high-speed Wifi connectivity wherever you go! This service is totally free!*
er, except that they're not cracking anything, let alone WEP/WPA. Being worried that they're going to start breaking into your network because they mapped it is like being worried that the phone-book is going to start coming with lockpicks so people can break into your house and drink your beer.
It should be obvious. Your router is broadcasting, and Google is listening (and recording some of it.)
It wasn't obvious, in that I wasn't sure if you were under the impression that Google was monitoring your actual traffic (which would be bad), or just talking about the connection information.
According to federal law, you are generally allowed to receive public broadcasts (IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.) But this law was formed when the speed of data was much slower--when it was infeasible for a single entity to listen to EVERYTHING and aggregate it. It's worth revisiting whether or not we, as a society, want this to be acceptable.
That's all irrelevant. You're beaming a signal to the public, and that signal is intended to be received by anyone within range. If you don't want the public (which Google is a part of) to know you have a wireless router, it's your problem to shield that signal, not theirs to purposely pretend it's not there. The number on the front of your house is similar, it's there to be displayed to the public. Map companies routinely update maps of physical locations to reflect the addresses that are present. How is this different than Garmin pointing out that 312 Main Street is located at coordinates xxxxx? The only major differences I see are that a) You can hide your router's presence more effectively than you can hide your actual house from public view (meaning, don't do wireless, go wired), and b) If it really bugs you that your router's location has been mapped, you can get another router with a different MAC address much more easily than you can change your street address.
Of course, it's only an issue because there's already a jurisdiction at the federal level for this. One could argue that the FCC has too much power and shouldn't be allowed to control such things in the first place, but that's out of the scope of my point.
I'm not sure how the FCC would be involved here at all. The router is broadcasting a signal, as designed and doing so in a way that's approved for class B electronics. Google is receiving that signal, as intended, also using approved class B electronics. What happens to the data isn't an issue for the FCC. Maybe the FTC could step in, if they were somehow violating existing privacy laws (which AFAIK they aren't), or Congress could create new legislation, but first I'd like to see how this is a big problem that requires even more laws than we already have.
An entity listening to broadcasts in the 2.4Ghz range in a small area is probably not a problem. An entity with the ability to listen to these broadcasts across the entire US? That's something worth rethinking. Maybe it's a problem, and maybe it's not. I really don't know. But due to the scale, it's a slightly different situation.
Okay, I'm confused. What do you think Google is doing here? Define "listening to broadcasts". While it's true that Google's listening to your router as it shouts at the top of its lungs "HERE I AM, NOTICE ME, NOTICE ME!!!!" like a drunk girl at a dance-club at 2 a.m., and noting its location, Google is not actually monitoring your traffic at that time, or at any other time. Hell, if you really want to screw with them, start an exchange where you and a bunch of other people randomly swap routers every once in a while (just don't expect wifi based geolocation apps to work very well for you). Ultimately though, if you don't want people in public spaces (like out in the street) knowing anything about your wifi, you have two choices- hardwire everything, or shield your house so your transmissions don't reach the public.
The article, which is all we have to go on, implies there, and elsewhere that the researchers knew they did not have informed consent to perform extra research beyond the scope of the diabetes research.
I don't think it implies that at all, but I guess it's all in how you read it. The researchers themselves state again and again that they believe they were acting within the ethical bounds of the project, and in the article published in Nature (I don't have a link handy, but someone further down provided the text) they further contend that the Havasupai were unlikely to win in court before the University pulled the plug. What I do see though is a university that is trying hard to position itself as a center for "Native American Studies", which will (by necessity) go out of its way not to alienate those same Native Americans. It's not sinister on the university's part, but it does muddy the waters a whole lot since their actions precluded a nice, clear outcome to the whole thing.
Scary times, and even scarier when people like those at Comedy Central are determined to prove their cowardice to the world.
I'm not sure that's fair. These people aren't self-proclaimed freedom-fighters, they're people who want to broadcast cartoons, stand-up comedy and puppets who tell fart jokes. Expecting them to put their lives on the line is a little much. It's no more reasonable for us to expect them to take that risk than it would be for me to tell you that you should start a website called "PicturesOfMohammad.com". If you wanted to do something like that, fine, great even, but I wouldn't fault you for not wanting to risk having your car explode the next time you try to start it just because it'd prove a point.
Unfortunately, if they can't understand the consent form then they can't give informed consent, can they? This could be remedied by helping them to understand the consent form, which was done. However, if you purposefully mislead people, then again, they didn't give informed consent at all.
I agree, that's tricky, but ultimately it comes down to it being done in good-faith. If this was explained to the people (which seems to be the case), and if the people seemed to understand and agree at the time (which I see no evidence against), then the researchers acted in good faith. Just because they didn't foresee certain consequences (such as their creation myth being busted) doesn't mean that they did not give informed consent.
If I sign a paper before surgery that states the doctor has my permission to remove my appendix because it is infected, then I have given him informed consent. But, once in there, he can't just decide that my gall bladder, also an extraneous organ, looks like something his research students could use in their doctoral theses.
I think that's a poor example. These people signed on for broadly defined "medical/behavioral" studies. Their main interest was the diabetes study, and if that's all they were interested in giving consent for, they should have said so.
They didn't just use the DNA for something the Havasupai didn't want them to use it for. Doctoral students and other researchers effectively made a profit from the DNA which was obtained in an unethical manner.
Grad students are researchers. That's how a lot of research gets done. Who do you think would be doing this work, when it's a university who shows up at your door and says "We'd like to study your genetics"? Further, what's wrong with profiting from this research (either by gaining a degree, or monetarily)? Lets say they actually came up with a cure for diabetes during the course of the study. Are they then barred from marketing this new drug? If so, how does anyone get this treatment? Like it or not, volunteers are the basis for medical study, people profit from the results of the research, and hopefully, overall, life improves all around due to new treatments.
That's just nonsense. The consent form said the samples were to be used for medical research. That's what they were used for. Your examples would be applicable if the samples were used for criminal checks, or market-research, but that's not the case.
In Sony's case, OtherOS was a feature that was present, and in some cases motivated people to purchase the unit. There is no comparison here.
Clauses that say a contract can be unilaterally modified at any time are generally invalid on their face, and since that's again not what happened here, not relevant.
HIPAA has nothing to do with this. Patient confidentiality was not broken during any of the studies. If you're aware of some other state or federal law you feel is applicable, go ahead and cite it, but good luck searching, 'cause I don't think you'll find anything.
That would be true, but TFA says: Roughly 100 tribe members who gave blood from 1990 to 1994 signed a broad consent that said the research was to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.”
Yes, Diabetes was their primary motivation, but they signed on for more than that. The problem seems to be that they didn't like what happened later and regretted that decision.
From the looks of the article, it seems more like a case where the people were told but didn't understand the ramifications of their decision: The consent form was purposely simple, Dr. Markow said, given that English was a second language for many Havasupai, and few of the tribe’s 650 members had graduated from high school. They were always given the opportunity to ask questions, she said, and students were also instructed to explain the project and get written and verbal consent from donors. So, were they mislead, or is this more of a type of "buyers remorse"? There are plenty of places where the local population is uneducated and unlikely to fully understand genetic testing, should we stop studying them, and in the process deny them the good (potential treatments for disease that they suffer from) to protect them from "the bad" (the possibility that their world-view will be challenged, or that the data will be applied to larger studies)?
Also, one of the big issues here seems to be that the findings contradict their folklore: Another article, suggesting that the tribe’s ancestors had crossed the frozen Bering Sea to arrive in North America, flew in the face of the tribe’s traditional stories that it had originated in the canyon and was assigned to be its guardian. Listening to the investigators, Ms. Tilousi felt a surge of anger, she recalled. But in Supai, the initial reaction was more of hurt. Though some Havasupai knew already that their ancestors most likely came from Asia, “when people tell us, ‘No, this is not where you are from,’ and your own blood says so — it is confusing to us,” Rex Tilousi said. “It hurts the elders who have been telling these stories to our grandchildren.” So science showed that their fable about springing from the ground in this canyon was, at best, unlikely. So what. We don't accept that the Earth is the center of the universe, that sex with virgins cures disease, that human sacrifice improves crop yield, or that it's turtles all the way down, why should we care about this story either. I'm not inclined to "turn off" science just because results show that a stone-age story is just a story.
No, it's obvious that since it's a picture of Muhammad in a bear suit, they must have drawn Muhammad first, and then drawn the bear suit over him. Otherwise, it'd just be a picture of a bear-suit, and nothing to be upset about.
I've seen the church help the homeless, the down on their luck. I've seen them talk people through the most difficult times in their life.
I've seen that too, and the goal generally seems to be to bring those people to the church, helping them is marketing. I'll be more impressed when I find out about a church that goes out and just sets up a stand that says "Free food for the homeless" and doesn't mention their religion, or even that they're a church, and just helps people for the sake of helping them.
Maybe your step-father actually does this, I don't know, but if he does that makes him an exception, not the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
you've got it backwards, the Pre was just a little tablet. Think prototyping, it was a scale model for a future product.....which explains the build quality :-P
They do hire consultants, but it's not to make sure things are realistic, it's so if there's a realistic alternative to what they're doing that will still work in the scene they'll know about it. Having consultants doesn't stop anyone from going ahead and doing what they think makes for a more interesting story just because it's unrealistic on a technical level. CSI is a perfect, and egregious, example. IRL those guys are basically lab-technicians, on TV they're chasing bad-guys through Vegas and carrying guns.
That's exactly the point, you *think* you know how those things work, but for someone who actually *is* a cop, or a heart-surgeon, the portrayals are just as unrealistic in many (most?) cases as uploading a virus to an alien computer, or breaking encryption just by putting a gun to a "hacker's" head. Think about it, with your shoot-out example. Usually, *if* things get to the point of shooting, it's over in seconds with only a few shots fired. In Hollywoods version, everyone goes through clips like they're playing DOOM, there's running, driving, maybe a little swimming, an exploding car or two, and any people who actually get shot fly 20 feet through the air as if they've been hit by a truck rather than a 9mm round which would just cause them to fall down. Even the footage on "Worlds Wildest Police Chases" doesn't compare with what you see in a lot of cop movies, and those clips represent the *craziest* stuff that happens.
Yes, there are *some* realistic portrayals of cops and heart-surgeons, but there are some realistic portrayals of technology too. It's just more fun to beat up on the crazy stuff :)
yeah, I hate how I can only get software for my MacBook from a locked-down app-store, and how all my music is DRM'd 'cause there's no other choice.....oh, waitaminute, none of that's actually true.
but the fact is, doing a scene where a sysadmin bangs around in a terminal typing commands just isn't fun for the viewer. The reason we laugh so hard at these things though is because technology is our thing. It's true for almost anything in an entertainment-oriented (as opposed to educational) movie. Try some of the following:
Watch a few cop movies with actual cops.
Watch some hospital-based TV shows with some doctors, nurses and paramedics.
Watch a couple of movies that focus on car chases/stunts with some mechanics.
The list goes on and on. What you'll see though is, those people will have the same general reaction to Hollywood depictions of their areas of expertise that we have regarding use of computers/technology. Accuracy and entertainment just don't always go well together.
If we get find the government involved in buying video game consoles, the prices WILL go up. This will make a nice experiment. Let's make it so that insurance covers them. We'll have $1000 Wiis before you know it. It will then be called a failure of the "free market".
How do you figure that? The government buys lots of things, and generally in much greater bulk than they could conceivably buy Wii consoles in. Laptops, monitors, pens, paper, bullets, cars....the list goes on and on. Since we're not paying $10,000 for a Dell laptop, or $4 per round of 9mm ammunition due to government purchases, why do you think the Wii would be affected this way?
This also has nothing to do with the free market. Government purchases are just as much a part of the free market as any other purchase, so long as they don't legislate an arbitrary price and force the manufacturer to sell it at that price.
I love the Pre, and I knew everything about it before it went on sale, but that's because I'm a gadget junkie. Palm/Sprint/Verizon/AT&T have screwed up marketing this thing from day one. Palm went with the weird albino girl talking metaphysics and leaving everyone with the feeling she was advertising some kind of new-age book or something. Sprint was a little better, at least showing the Pre in ads, but I don't think any of those ads really showcased the Pre, more of a mention among other points. Verizon and AT&T? I don't think I've seen any major advertising pushing the Pre from them, they tend to focus on their networks (download while calling for AT&T, coverage area for Verizon) and spend less time on individual phones.
Ultimately, I blame Palm for this. Apple didn't try to rely on AT&T to get their message out, they went straight for the customer with ads that were entertaining and informative, as far as commercials go, about the iPhone. Palm put out 3 commercials that left people confused about what the product even was, let alone why they'd want it......
I think you just missed the release of DrPodder, which IIRC came out around then and does what you were looking for. I agree, the iTunes thing was stupid, and so was/is the automatic streaming of mp3 files. The only real option before podder was to download the podcasts in advance as mp3s, and save them for later....
You're assuming when he says it's a good UI he's talking about eye-candy, but the most important element of a good UI is the functionality, they're not separate topics. WebOS *does* allow you to do what you want/need in a simple manner, while being visually appealing at the same time. Having used WinMo, Blackberry, iPhone and Android devices, I can honestly say I can't think of a whole lot that any of them do that's not as easy or easier to do in WebOS (with the exception of cut/copy/paste, which still needs some serious work in WebOS- iPhone does this much more nicely).
If it makes you feel any better, I've had a Pre since day one (Sprint), and thought the same thing about that door. I still think they could have come up with something better there, but one year later it's still attached and I'm not the most gentle person around when it comes to phones.....
Offhand, I'd say that this illegal alien must be using someone else's SSN to gain said employment. Where did he get it? Since most people don't want to share theirs with someone else, there's a good chance that it's stolen. Now, since this guy is completely imaginary anyway, lets further suppose that in order to get to this respectable job, he buys a car, in the process taking out a loan, again using this SSN. I imagine a bank account, a few credit cards, all the usual stuff that someone who has a respectable job does. Then, disaster strikes, layoff. Our intrepid hero is unable to find work right away (like many legal residents), and falls behind on his car payments, racks up credit-card late fees, falls behind on the rent leading to an eviction. Oddly, Rich Smith, living 500 miles away, is somewhat unhappy when he looks at his credit report, which lists all of these things, and finds that he can no longer take loans himself because his credit rating has dropped like a rock.
Our intrepid adventurer though, is free to start over, walking away from this debt, and picks up a new SSN because the old one just doesn't work that well for him anymore.
President Obama, is that you?
(Sadly necessary disclaimer: It's a JOKE folks)
except what you did wasn't a joke, it was a Poe, and therefore not whooshable
er, except that they're not cracking anything, let alone WEP/WPA. Being worried that they're going to start breaking into your network because they mapped it is like being worried that the phone-book is going to start coming with lockpicks so people can break into your house and drink your beer.
It wasn't obvious, in that I wasn't sure if you were under the impression that Google was monitoring your actual traffic (which would be bad), or just talking about the connection information.
That's all irrelevant. You're beaming a signal to the public, and that signal is intended to be received by anyone within range. If you don't want the public (which Google is a part of) to know you have a wireless router, it's your problem to shield that signal, not theirs to purposely pretend it's not there. The number on the front of your house is similar, it's there to be displayed to the public. Map companies routinely update maps of physical locations to reflect the addresses that are present. How is this different than Garmin pointing out that 312 Main Street is located at coordinates xxxxx? The only major differences I see are that a) You can hide your router's presence more effectively than you can hide your actual house from public view (meaning, don't do wireless, go wired), and b) If it really bugs you that your router's location has been mapped, you can get another router with a different MAC address much more easily than you can change your street address.
I'm not sure how the FCC would be involved here at all. The router is broadcasting a signal, as designed and doing so in a way that's approved for class B electronics. Google is receiving that signal, as intended, also using approved class B electronics. What happens to the data isn't an issue for the FCC. Maybe the FTC could step in, if they were somehow violating existing privacy laws (which AFAIK they aren't), or Congress could create new legislation, but first I'd like to see how this is a big problem that requires even more laws than we already have.
Okay, I'm confused. What do you think Google is doing here? Define "listening to broadcasts". While it's true that Google's listening to your router as it shouts at the top of its lungs "HERE I AM, NOTICE ME, NOTICE ME!!!!" like a drunk girl at a dance-club at 2 a.m., and noting its location, Google is not actually monitoring your traffic at that time, or at any other time. Hell, if you really want to screw with them, start an exchange where you and a bunch of other people randomly swap routers every once in a while (just don't expect wifi based geolocation apps to work very well for you).
Ultimately though, if you don't want people in public spaces (like out in the street) knowing anything about your wifi, you have two choices- hardwire everything, or shield your house so your transmissions don't reach the public.
I don't think it implies that at all, but I guess it's all in how you read it. The researchers themselves state again and again that they believe they were acting within the ethical bounds of the project, and in the article published in Nature (I don't have a link handy, but someone further down provided the text) they further contend that the Havasupai were unlikely to win in court before the University pulled the plug. What I do see though is a university that is trying hard to position itself as a center for "Native American Studies", which will (by necessity) go out of its way not to alienate those same Native Americans. It's not sinister on the university's part, but it does muddy the waters a whole lot since their actions precluded a nice, clear outcome to the whole thing.
I'm not sure that's fair. These people aren't self-proclaimed freedom-fighters, they're people who want to broadcast cartoons, stand-up comedy and puppets who tell fart jokes. Expecting them to put their lives on the line is a little much. It's no more reasonable for us to expect them to take that risk than it would be for me to tell you that you should start a website called "PicturesOfMohammad.com". If you wanted to do something like that, fine, great even, but I wouldn't fault you for not wanting to risk having your car explode the next time you try to start it just because it'd prove a point.
okay, I concede your point :)
I agree, that's tricky, but ultimately it comes down to it being done in good-faith. If this was explained to the people (which seems to be the case), and if the people seemed to understand and agree at the time (which I see no evidence against), then the researchers acted in good faith. Just because they didn't foresee certain consequences (such as their creation myth being busted) doesn't mean that they did not give informed consent.
I think that's a poor example. These people signed on for broadly defined "medical/behavioral" studies. Their main interest was the diabetes study, and if that's all they were interested in giving consent for, they should have said so.
Grad students are researchers. That's how a lot of research gets done. Who do you think would be doing this work, when it's a university who shows up at your door and says "We'd like to study your genetics"? Further, what's wrong with profiting from this research (either by gaining a degree, or monetarily)? Lets say they actually came up with a cure for diabetes during the course of the study. Are they then barred from marketing this new drug? If so, how does anyone get this treatment? Like it or not, volunteers are the basis for medical study, people profit from the results of the research, and hopefully, overall, life improves all around due to new treatments.
That's just nonsense. The consent form said the samples were to be used for medical research. That's what they were used for. Your examples would be applicable if the samples were used for criminal checks, or market-research, but that's not the case.
In Sony's case, OtherOS was a feature that was present, and in some cases motivated people to purchase the unit. There is no comparison here.
Clauses that say a contract can be unilaterally modified at any time are generally invalid on their face, and since that's again not what happened here, not relevant.
HIPAA has nothing to do with this. Patient confidentiality was not broken during any of the studies. If you're aware of some other state or federal law you feel is applicable, go ahead and cite it, but good luck searching, 'cause I don't think you'll find anything.
That would be true, but TFA says:
Roughly 100 tribe members who gave blood from 1990 to 1994 signed a broad consent that said the research was to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.”
Yes, Diabetes was their primary motivation, but they signed on for more than that. The problem seems to be that they didn't like what happened later and regretted that decision.
From the looks of the article, it seems more like a case where the people were told but didn't understand the ramifications of their decision:
The consent form was purposely simple, Dr. Markow said, given that English was a second language for many Havasupai, and few of the tribe’s 650 members had graduated from high school. They were always given the opportunity to ask questions, she said, and students were also instructed to explain the project and get written and verbal consent from donors.
So, were they mislead, or is this more of a type of "buyers remorse"? There are plenty of places where the local population is uneducated and unlikely to fully understand genetic testing, should we stop studying them, and in the process deny them the good (potential treatments for disease that they suffer from) to protect them from "the bad" (the possibility that their world-view will be challenged, or that the data will be applied to larger studies)?
Also, one of the big issues here seems to be that the findings contradict their folklore:
Another article, suggesting that the tribe’s ancestors had crossed the frozen Bering Sea to arrive in North America, flew in the face of the tribe’s traditional stories that it had originated in the canyon and was assigned to be its guardian.
Listening to the investigators, Ms. Tilousi felt a surge of anger, she recalled. But in Supai, the initial reaction was more of hurt. Though some Havasupai knew already that their ancestors most likely came from Asia, “when people tell us, ‘No, this is not where you are from,’ and your own blood says so — it is confusing to us,” Rex Tilousi said. “It hurts the elders who have been telling these stories to our grandchildren.”
So science showed that their fable about springing from the ground in this canyon was, at best, unlikely. So what. We don't accept that the Earth is the center of the universe, that sex with virgins cures disease, that human sacrifice improves crop yield, or that it's turtles all the way down, why should we care about this story either. I'm not inclined to "turn off" science just because results show that a stone-age story is just a story.
No, it's obvious that since it's a picture of Muhammad in a bear suit, they must have drawn Muhammad first, and then drawn the bear suit over him. Otherwise, it'd just be a picture of a bear-suit, and nothing to be upset about.
I've seen that too, and the goal generally seems to be to bring those people to the church, helping them is marketing. I'll be more impressed when I find out about a church that goes out and just sets up a stand that says "Free food for the homeless" and doesn't mention their religion, or even that they're a church, and just helps people for the sake of helping them.
Maybe your step-father actually does this, I don't know, but if he does that makes him an exception, not the rule.
Nope, Verizon's network is CDMA, iPhone is GSM.....