It's not inevitable if medical records stay private.
Where's the profit in that? Industry has no desire in private medical information, they need to monetize it, and you would be impeding their free speech by denying them the ability to market a drug to them.
*sigh* I'm not seriously making that argument, but someone will.
I'm betting that under the right circumstances, every human on the planet has the capacity for violence.
And this will never show you a causal relationship, because it will turn into a debate about nature vs nurture. How much about how you turn out is pre-programmed, and how much is a result of your life experiences? Should we think child soldiers were more inclined to violence? Or the circumstances of their life helped bring it about?
And further, what would you do about it? Brand children as potentially violent because of a genetic marker? And what happens when someone without the marker ends up being violent?
This is just someone looking to assign blame. This will (in my best guess) provide almost zero predictive value, even if there are such markers.
even events like hurricanes, where there is no scientific consensus on the matter - are as big a problem as the "I don't believe in global warming" crowd.
Well, the problem with that statement is that except for the "I do not believe in global warming" crowd, there's an awful lot of scientific consensus on the topic.
Pig manure. It may sound crazy, but it works. Stop by your local pig farm on the way to your outdoor event and have a quick roll in the barnyard.
I think anybody who has ever lived near/driven past a pig farm would suggest that, while this may or may nor keep the insects away, it sure as hell will keep the people away from you.
When something is dated several millenia before the birth of civilization
See, the problem is 10,000 years ago isn't before the birth of civilization, it's just before civilization as we know it and have historically understood it.
People have tended to believe the Sumerians and Babylonians were the first civilizations, but there's mounting evidence that there were things going on that predates that by quite a bit.
The whole point is the more they discover, they more they are pushing back the 'birth of civilization'.
If that is not known, then how can you claim that these prices are set "above" that value?
They used to be $9.99 on Amazon, they became $12.99-$14.99 after the deal with Apple saying nobody could sell it for less than them.
So, the price was definitely artificially higher to consumers as a result of this deal.
We have no idea of what the 'correct' price is, but that the prices became inflated as a direct result of this is the whole point -- but there was an existing level you can compare to that no longer was available.
Do you have an interpretation which doesn't get us to artificially inflated prices?
Anyone with 1/16th of a brain knows not to store locally important data on another continent.
And yet, people have been doing it.
NSA fears are just an excuse the sysadmins can use to convince their bosses to make the right decision.
Well, then sadly the people who have been making the business decisions do not have that 1/16th of a brain required to see the risks inherent in these services -- or they were so focused on short-term savings they stopped looking at the risks.
It's been known for years that this was a risk, but companies kept doing it anyway.
Now that it's been spelled out in black and white that it's not just a risk but a reality, companies are going to have to re-evaluate if they still think it's worth doing.
I can't even figure out on what specious basis you're claiming that people are surprised.
The entire tone of TFA is one of "what happens now". It's full of things like:
Will tourists balk at visiting us because they fear U.S. monitoring? Will overseas business owners think twice about trading with us because they fear that their communications might be intercepted and used for commercial gain by American competitors? Most chilling of all: Will foreigners stop using the products and services of California technology and media companies â" Facebook, Google, Skype, and Apple among them â" that have been accomplices (they say unwillingly) to the federal surveillance?
I'm not saying nobody didn't see this as a possible outcome -- but it certainly reads like now that people are realizing the potential scope of the impact they're wondering what they can do to mitigate it.
Even before this was revealed many people were already saying that, due to the PATRIOT Act, you shouldn't be trusting these companies with your data. Now it's been confirmed. US based cloud services might suddenly find a lot of doors closed to them -- it's not a surprise in the "wow, who saw that coming?" send, but people are acting like the "what next" part is coming as a surprise.
Hell, I'd go so far as to say that a lot of these companies should have been saying to themselves "if this ever gets out, there is a real chance of business risk". Now that it has, there is. If they didn't have a plan in place for what to do, then that's their problem.
e.g. European companies getting wary of hosting their stuff on a U.S.-based cloud provider.
Which, sadly, is something people have already been warning about for some time.
That the PATRIOT act allowed the US to force US based companies to provide them this data has been known for some time. Many governments have policies which say you can't put anything into the cloud because it has a good chance of hitting a US controlled server and you would potentially have them accessing it.
Ever before this revelation came out, many people were pointing out that this was a very real possibility and likely already happening.
Now that it's been confirmed, people are suddenly realizing just how bad an idea it always was. But people have been identifying this as a risk for some time now.
If you demonstrate that your industry is an arm of state surveillance, why would you be surprised that when this is revealed people stop trusting you?
Every other country in the world now more or less has to assume that these American companies can (and will) provide their data for US national intelligence -- at which point the logical choice is to stop using those US companies.
Much like if companies from another country were found to be enabling widespread spying on US citizens, there would be outcry in the US and backlash.
I don't see why anybody should be surprised that if you undermine trust, there will be consequences.
Some of these companies were already very casual with what they were collecting (eg Google and the wifi passwords when doing Street View). If they were likely handing this kind of stuff over to the US government, even less so.
Once damaged, trust is a very difficult thing to get back. If Google and everyone else though they were under scrutiny for their privacy policies before, then they should really expect a lot more of it.
LOL, on the bright side, some of us with older i-devices only have access to Google Maps because they stopped giving us updates before they changed to Apple Maps.
I'll trade you my now unsupported first-gen iPad for your phone.;-)
Hmm in general yes, you need a free and open exchange of money in order to exchange ideas beyond a certain scale.
But that doesn't mean I need to give you my money when I disagree with you and think you're an idiot. I won't prevent you from selling your stuff to other people, but I sure as hell won't reward you by buying it.
"You have no right to expect people you have publicly stated are evil and should have no rights to buy your product."
You do have that right if you value civility and free speech.
Wait, you have a right to my money? What right would that be again? It's my money, I have a finite amount of it, and it is my right to spend it on what I want for whatever reason I choose. If I think you're an offensive prick, that is going to factor into my decision.
I have the right to disagree with you and withhold my money from you -- I'm under no obligation to give you money for any reason whatsoever. And if your free speech offends me, my remedy is to not buy your crap by exercising my freedom of choice.
If you don't like that fact, then you should refrain from so publicly making those claims if you don't want to live with the consequences of me thinking you're an asshole. If you campaign and say I shouldn't have rights, my rational response as a consumer is to not buy your stuff.
Do you think Jews should buy from Nazi's because it would be mean? Why should they provide money to people who hate them? Good luck with that.
Because I don't believe it's right to punish people for their peaceful opinions, even when I have the power to do so, even when it involves money.
Peaceful? Really? "... any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down...". This man actively spouted that these people are evil and deserve no rights, and you think they should reward him by seeing his film?
I'm not saying he should be arrested for the stuff he says, but he can damned well live with the fact that he has offended people who don't wish to spend money on his product.
Your mentality is unstable and uncivil.
Wow, an ad homenim attack -- here's one for you: You sir, are a fucking moron and a douchebag.
Not spending my money on the product of your labor when I disagree with you is my right. Expecting that I will buy your crap when you spout hatred towards me is irrational and childish.
I don't owe him or anybody else a living, and expecting that I should spend money his stuff is stupid.
Why do you want to punish people for their opinion in a way that has nothing at all to do with the opinion?
Because that's one of the things available to you to protest.
You think that's how free and open exchange of ideas works, that you're supposed to financially punish everybody you disagree with, instead of just voicing your own opinion? It's totally insane.
So, you think a free and open exchange of ideas should translate into a free and open exchange of money? That people should somehow enrich him because it has nothing at all to do with his very vocal political views?
Why should they reward him?
I don't support gay marriage, but honestly it's never even occurred to me to boycott movies by director who do support gay marriage.
Has it occurred to you there are people who do exactly this? Christian groups have called on the boycott of banks because they supported gay pride events. It's hardlyanisolatedoccurence. Hell, when people started boycotting Chik-A-Fil a bunch of other people started deliberately going there.
So, you think if you actively works against, say, purple people having rights, that purple people should enrich you in other endeavors? Why exactly? Out of kindness or stupidity? You have no right to expect people you have publicly stated are evil and should have no rights to buy your product.
But let's not pretend that Christians and other groups don't actively boycott things which they deem offensive. People choose to vote with their wallets all the time -- do you really think if Al Qaeda released a feature film that people should go see it? Why would you line the pockets of someone who hates you?
I'm sorry, but Orson Scottt Card is publicly on record as being a douchebag who campaigned against the rights of other people. To expect that group of people to say "oh well, the one has nothing to do with the other " and go to his movie is ridiculous.
OSC is free to hold his bigoted opinions, and people are free to choose to not pay money to see this movie. He's an idiot if he thinks 'tolerance' means people should forget about what he's done in the past and pay money to see it.
This amounts to "waaah, I hated those people for so long and now they won't give me money". Well, duh!
Just go back to the YouTube home screen in the app, press menu and select "sign out". Yeah, did that. And the next time you launch YouTube on the Nexus 7, it re-attaches the account without asking you.
Which is why I've disabled the damned app altogether.
either you didn't have a Google+ account and one was created (more precisely, your Google account was "upgraded" to a Google+ account), or you did have one and just didn't realize that it was being used for YouTube.
Yes, it used the existing Google account as a login.
I've been studiously avoiding Google+ because a) it's yet another pointless social media turd, and b) because Google+ has a real name policy I don't agree with. Why the hell should I be required to use my full name on the internet to satisfy some asshole in marketing? Fuck that.
I like some of Google's stuff, but they've been more and more aggressively pushing me towards the rest of their shit, and acting in a way that I don't want or trust.
And, no, I don't want Google to propagate my search results, browser history, and marketing crap everywhere I go. In fact, some times I want to not have Google track a single thing I do.
And, in the end, over the last few years Google has become hostile to privacy -- and I don't necessarily trust the intentions of your glorious leader. So google analytics is blocked at the firewall.
Google is entity that I can't fully escape, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna drink the Kool-Aid and sign up for every damned thing they make.
Also, you realize that your "yawns" just make you look like a pretentious douche with no real counter-argument, right?
Don't much care... there's certain groups I have no interest in debating because it's pointless.
On certain points, people have Undying Faith in how right they are, and a rational counter-argument serves no purpose. Because they believe these things with a zeal that isn't open for change.
So you'll excuse me if I see no point in debating gun control who believes the world would be safer if everyone was walking around with guns. Because nothing at all I say is going to sway him, and he will cite the same arguments that I think are flawed and irrational. He will assert my reasoning is flawed and untenable, and probably go through another round of appeal to authority and other like minded sources.
The same applies to rabid believers in anything -- there's shockingly little room for discourse and counter-arguments on things that people inflexibly take as axiomatic.
Ever tried to make a counter argument to someone on the topic of god, economics, evolution, abortion, sports teams, operating systems, or music?
There are contexts where you can try to debate such things, but mostly it devolves into screeching. I have no interest in debating someone's entire epistemology here on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the profit in that? Industry has no desire in private medical information, they need to monetize it, and you would be impeding their free speech by denying them the ability to market a drug to them.
*sigh* I'm not seriously making that argument, but someone will.
I'm betting that under the right circumstances, every human on the planet has the capacity for violence.
And this will never show you a causal relationship, because it will turn into a debate about nature vs nurture. How much about how you turn out is pre-programmed, and how much is a result of your life experiences? Should we think child soldiers were more inclined to violence? Or the circumstances of their life helped bring it about?
And further, what would you do about it? Brand children as potentially violent because of a genetic marker? And what happens when someone without the marker ends up being violent?
This is just someone looking to assign blame. This will (in my best guess) provide almost zero predictive value, even if there are such markers.
Well, the problem with that statement is that except for the "I do not believe in global warming" crowd, there's an awful lot of scientific consensus on the topic.
So, if we get another one like these in our lifetime, what then?
NASA just says oops and people keep pretending like there isn't climate change happening?
I think anybody who has ever lived near/driven past a pig farm would suggest that, while this may or may nor keep the insects away, it sure as hell will keep the people away from you.
Pig shit smells as bad as human shit.
If this were a newspaper where the 'editor in chief' was responsible for that, sure.
I'm not convinced that 'editor' at Slashdot meets the same level of rigor. In fact, I'm quite certain it doesn't.
Big enough to traverse on your hands and knees, I assume, with a couple of spots to stop and have a rest? ;-)
See, the problem is 10,000 years ago isn't before the birth of civilization, it's just before civilization as we know it and have historically understood it.
People have tended to believe the Sumerians and Babylonians were the first civilizations, but there's mounting evidence that there were things going on that predates that by quite a bit.
The whole point is the more they discover, they more they are pushing back the 'birth of civilization'.
Or something even older but more widespread than we've liked to believe.
There's, what, 100K years or more before what we call 'civilization' happened -- for all we know, this was common knowledge a very very long time ago.
The more they realize that there was a lot more known by pre-historic people than we've suspected.
Mankind had many thousands of years to try to do things before we had a written history, and everyone likes to believe those cultures were oblivious.
But it seems the more they look at this, the more things like agriculture, building, and some understanding of astronomy was a lot more widespread.
It didn't just suddenly start with the Egyptians.
They used to be $9.99 on Amazon, they became $12.99-$14.99 after the deal with Apple saying nobody could sell it for less than them.
So, the price was definitely artificially higher to consumers as a result of this deal.
We have no idea of what the 'correct' price is, but that the prices became inflated as a direct result of this is the whole point -- but there was an existing level you can compare to that no longer was available.
Do you have an interpretation which doesn't get us to artificially inflated prices?
Oh come on, you of all people should have snuck in a "now get off my damned lawn" in there. ;-)
So they should stop all forms of research until there are no sick people left? I'm sure they're not bumping critical patients to do this work.
Sometimes in the process of learning how some of these things work, you can stumble on ways to help with other things.
And yet, people have been doing it.
Well, then sadly the people who have been making the business decisions do not have that 1/16th of a brain required to see the risks inherent in these services -- or they were so focused on short-term savings they stopped looking at the risks.
It's been known for years that this was a risk, but companies kept doing it anyway.
Now that it's been spelled out in black and white that it's not just a risk but a reality, companies are going to have to re-evaluate if they still think it's worth doing.
The entire tone of TFA is one of "what happens now". It's full of things like:
I'm not saying nobody didn't see this as a possible outcome -- but it certainly reads like now that people are realizing the potential scope of the impact they're wondering what they can do to mitigate it.
Even before this was revealed many people were already saying that, due to the PATRIOT Act, you shouldn't be trusting these companies with your data. Now it's been confirmed. US based cloud services might suddenly find a lot of doors closed to them -- it's not a surprise in the "wow, who saw that coming?" send, but people are acting like the "what next" part is coming as a surprise.
Hell, I'd go so far as to say that a lot of these companies should have been saying to themselves "if this ever gets out, there is a real chance of business risk". Now that it has, there is. If they didn't have a plan in place for what to do, then that's their problem.
Which, sadly, is something people have already been warning about for some time.
That the PATRIOT act allowed the US to force US based companies to provide them this data has been known for some time. Many governments have policies which say you can't put anything into the cloud because it has a good chance of hitting a US controlled server and you would potentially have them accessing it.
Ever before this revelation came out, many people were pointing out that this was a very real possibility and likely already happening.
Now that it's been confirmed, people are suddenly realizing just how bad an idea it always was. But people have been identifying this as a risk for some time now.
This is a self inflicted injury.
If you demonstrate that your industry is an arm of state surveillance, why would you be surprised that when this is revealed people stop trusting you?
Every other country in the world now more or less has to assume that these American companies can (and will) provide their data for US national intelligence -- at which point the logical choice is to stop using those US companies.
Much like if companies from another country were found to be enabling widespread spying on US citizens, there would be outcry in the US and backlash.
I don't see why anybody should be surprised that if you undermine trust, there will be consequences.
Some of these companies were already very casual with what they were collecting (eg Google and the wifi passwords when doing Street View). If they were likely handing this kind of stuff over to the US government, even less so.
Once damaged, trust is a very difficult thing to get back. If Google and everyone else though they were under scrutiny for their privacy policies before, then they should really expect a lot more of it.
I can't even to take a guess at the pronunciation of this one ... sproo-ick? Sp-royk? Sprik?
LOL, on the bright side, some of us with older i-devices only have access to Google Maps because they stopped giving us updates before they changed to Apple Maps.
I'll trade you my now unsupported first-gen iPad for your phone. ;-)
But that doesn't mean I need to give you my money when I disagree with you and think you're an idiot. I won't prevent you from selling your stuff to other people, but I sure as hell won't reward you by buying it.
Wait, you have a right to my money? What right would that be again? It's my money, I have a finite amount of it, and it is my right to spend it on what I want for whatever reason I choose. If I think you're an offensive prick, that is going to factor into my decision.
I have the right to disagree with you and withhold my money from you -- I'm under no obligation to give you money for any reason whatsoever. And if your free speech offends me, my remedy is to not buy your crap by exercising my freedom of choice.
If you don't like that fact, then you should refrain from so publicly making those claims if you don't want to live with the consequences of me thinking you're an asshole. If you campaign and say I shouldn't have rights, my rational response as a consumer is to not buy your stuff.
Do you think Jews should buy from Nazi's because it would be mean? Why should they provide money to people who hate them? Good luck with that.
Peaceful? Really? "... any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down ...". This man actively spouted that these people are evil and deserve no rights, and you think they should reward him by seeing his film?
I'm not saying he should be arrested for the stuff he says, but he can damned well live with the fact that he has offended people who don't wish to spend money on his product.
Wow, an ad homenim attack -- here's one for you: You sir, are a fucking moron and a douchebag.
Not spending my money on the product of your labor when I disagree with you is my right. Expecting that I will buy your crap when you spout hatred towards me is irrational and childish.
I don't owe him or anybody else a living, and expecting that I should spend money his stuff is stupid.
Because that's one of the things available to you to protest.
So, you think a free and open exchange of ideas should translate into a free and open exchange of money? That people should somehow enrich him because it has nothing at all to do with his very vocal political views?
Why should they reward him?
Has it occurred to you there are people who do exactly this? Christian groups have called on the boycott of banks because they supported gay pride events. It's hardly an isolated occurence. Hell, when people started boycotting Chik-A-Fil a bunch of other people started deliberately going there.
So, you think if you actively works against, say, purple people having rights, that purple people should enrich you in other endeavors? Why exactly? Out of kindness or stupidity? You have no right to expect people you have publicly stated are evil and should have no rights to buy your product.
But let's not pretend that Christians and other groups don't actively boycott things which they deem offensive. People choose to vote with their wallets all the time -- do you really think if Al Qaeda released a feature film that people should go see it? Why would you line the pockets of someone who hates you?
I'm sorry, but Orson Scottt Card is publicly on record as being a douchebag who campaigned against the rights of other people. To expect that group of people to say "oh well, the one has nothing to do with the other " and go to his movie is ridiculous.
OSC is free to hold his bigoted opinions, and people are free to choose to not pay money to see this movie. He's an idiot if he thinks 'tolerance' means people should forget about what he's done in the past and pay money to see it.
This amounts to "waaah, I hated those people for so long and now they won't give me money". Well, duh!
Yes, it used the existing Google account as a login.
I've been studiously avoiding Google+ because a) it's yet another pointless social media turd, and b) because Google+ has a real name policy I don't agree with. Why the hell should I be required to use my full name on the internet to satisfy some asshole in marketing? Fuck that.
I like some of Google's stuff, but they've been more and more aggressively pushing me towards the rest of their shit, and acting in a way that I don't want or trust.
And, no, I don't want Google to propagate my search results, browser history, and marketing crap everywhere I go. In fact, some times I want to not have Google track a single thing I do.
And, in the end, over the last few years Google has become hostile to privacy -- and I don't necessarily trust the intentions of your glorious leader. So google analytics is blocked at the firewall.
Google is entity that I can't fully escape, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna drink the Kool-Aid and sign up for every damned thing they make.
What China officially calls an "autonomous region" has little bearing on reality.
Tibet is, according to that designation, an Autonomous Region -- and in practice, there's no autonomy whatsoever from the Chinese government.
Just because it's part of official propaganda doesn't mean you should take it on face value.
Don't much care ... there's certain groups I have no interest in debating because it's pointless.
On certain points, people have Undying Faith in how right they are, and a rational counter-argument serves no purpose. Because they believe these things with a zeal that isn't open for change.
So you'll excuse me if I see no point in debating gun control who believes the world would be safer if everyone was walking around with guns. Because nothing at all I say is going to sway him, and he will cite the same arguments that I think are flawed and irrational. He will assert my reasoning is flawed and untenable, and probably go through another round of appeal to authority and other like minded sources.
The same applies to rabid believers in anything -- there's shockingly little room for discourse and counter-arguments on things that people inflexibly take as axiomatic.
Ever tried to make a counter argument to someone on the topic of god, economics, evolution, abortion, sports teams, operating systems, or music?
There are contexts where you can try to debate such things, but mostly it devolves into screeching. I have no interest in debating someone's entire epistemology here on Slashdot.