1000 people get a concerned call from their doctor, telling them that their test came back with a possible positive for a certain type of cancer. These 1000 people are inconvenienced somewhat, becoming nervous, concerned, and worried, as do their friends and family members. They go in for further, more specific testing, and 995 find out that they do not, in fact, have cancer. They are relieved and continue about their lives. 5 of these people do have cancer, and have their lives possibly saved as a result of having it detected. You believe that the moderate discomfort and cumulative worrying of those 995 people outweighs the life-saving potential for those 5? I think nearly all 995 people would agree that it was worth the inconvenience, since one of those 5 positives could have been them.
Speed limits are a spurious example, since speeding does not kill. Bad driving kills, and I would be very much in favour of banning all poor drivers to save lives.
So, basically, you're suggesting that early detection has not caused a reduction in the number of cancer deaths? Are you serious? Clearly not, since you're posting anonymously.
Testing for cancers that are common, and for cancers to which a person would be predisposed, is a damn good idea. Early detection saves lives.
I'm not advocating for testing unnecessarily, just that some bad results will always happen.
And I would put forth that someone who takes their life because a doctor has told them they *may* have cancer probably had some underlying issues to begin with.
The incidence of false positives should not preclude testing altogether, that's all I'm saying.
I don't think that's a salient example, since knowing that a child is stillborn in the womb can be determined with certainty. Cancer cannot, usually, and I think 100 false positives - where in most cases the doctors and technicians will be somewhat cagey in their language with the patient - in order to get 1 actual positive is worth it.
To put it another way... Yeah, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Yeah, and seatbelts cost more lives than they save.
It may cost more money to institute screening programs and chase false positives, but cancer survivability numbers have been increasing steadily for the last forty years BECAUSE of early detection, not in spite of it. In fact, I remember a statistic from a few years ago that showed more people were surviving all cancers in straight numbers, not just per capita. That's some increase!
I'll take the possible side-effects of false positives over the known repercussions of no positives any day.
Imagine... The seat of fascism and imperialism for the majority of the last three centuries coming together and out-doing the (self-appointed) leaders of the free world in protection of its citizens' rights... This really is the weirdest world in the world.
I'm not sure why I'm going to reply to this, except that I hope you MIGHT learn something. Here goes:
Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.
Umm... They still do bust the people inside, not the house, yes? The people are the ones who committed the crimes, not the house? Same deal. You can confiscate and investigate a known computer or network device WITH A WARRANT, in order to find out who was responsible, if you can. If you can't, and you are lacking evidence, nobody will be found guilty. That's the idea, anyway.
What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.
It is useful, but not the end-all. All it tells them is the what and the where, but not the who. They still have to investigate, get warrants, etc., and they can't get those without evidence of illicit activity.
The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded. 'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@%!@#^%!@%' Get the fuck over yourself. My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.
In the legal sense, which is to say 'the one we were and are discussing', you can't tie them together without a warrant and an investigation. Sorry.
Privacy has nothing to do with illegal activity, incidentally. While all felons might want privacy, not all people who want privacy are felons. Everyone has their own reasons for privacy, and it's written in the constitution that everyone has a right to that privacy, not just the innocent.
Seems logical to me. An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one. It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.
If I remember correctly, they didn't stop filming because they couldn't watch, but because it was conceivable they'd be charged with being an accessory.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you didn't understand it. Read it again - seriously.
Quit posting on Slashdot (though I thank you for your defense) and find that lost city of gold!
EXACTLY. God... At least *someone* understands me.
Sarcasm. Look it up.
Wireless sync? Yes? Please?
And add some 3G support to the Touch while you're at it, Apple!!
1 + 1 = 2.
Your mother.
Let's break that down for a second:
1000 people get a concerned call from their doctor, telling them that their test came back with a possible positive for a certain type of cancer. These 1000 people are inconvenienced somewhat, becoming nervous, concerned, and worried, as do their friends and family members. They go in for further, more specific testing, and 995 find out that they do not, in fact, have cancer. They are relieved and continue about their lives. 5 of these people do have cancer, and have their lives possibly saved as a result of having it detected. You believe that the moderate discomfort and cumulative worrying of those 995 people outweighs the life-saving potential for those 5? I think nearly all 995 people would agree that it was worth the inconvenience, since one of those 5 positives could have been them.
Speed limits are a spurious example, since speeding does not kill. Bad driving kills, and I would be very much in favour of banning all poor drivers to save lives.
Did read TFA.
So, basically, you're suggesting that early detection has not caused a reduction in the number of cancer deaths? Are you serious? Clearly not, since you're posting anonymously.
Testing for cancers that are common, and for cancers to which a person would be predisposed, is a damn good idea. Early detection saves lives.
I'm not advocating for testing unnecessarily, just that some bad results will always happen.
And I would put forth that someone who takes their life because a doctor has told them they *may* have cancer probably had some underlying issues to begin with.
The incidence of false positives should not preclude testing altogether, that's all I'm saying.
I don't think that's a salient example, since knowing that a child is stillborn in the womb can be determined with certainty. Cancer cannot, usually, and I think 100 false positives - where in most cases the doctors and technicians will be somewhat cagey in their language with the patient - in order to get 1 actual positive is worth it.
To put it another way... Yeah, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Yeah, and seatbelts cost more lives than they save.
It may cost more money to institute screening programs and chase false positives, but cancer survivability numbers have been increasing steadily for the last forty years BECAUSE of early detection, not in spite of it. In fact, I remember a statistic from a few years ago that showed more people were surviving all cancers in straight numbers, not just per capita. That's some increase!
I'll take the possible side-effects of false positives over the known repercussions of no positives any day.
Why'd you have to bring that up? My dentist just commended my for ceasing the teeth-gnashing over that. Dammit!
Amen, brother.
Uh... that is... Touché.
Touché.
I mean, really... That's like awarding a Nobel Prize for *Attempted* Chemistry!
Here are some examples of ink blots, and patient reaction.
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg
He said 'science', not 'science fiction'.
Not TFA says 'review' and not 'grant'. The volunteers are going to produce reports, not grant funds. Sheesh.
Imagine... The seat of fascism and imperialism for the majority of the last three centuries coming together and out-doing the (self-appointed) leaders of the free world in protection of its citizens' rights... This really is the weirdest world in the world.
No, but your house address *can* change. My IP hasn't changed in two years.
I'm not sure why I'm going to reply to this, except that I hope you MIGHT learn something. Here goes:
Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.
Umm... They still do bust the people inside, not the house, yes? The people are the ones who committed the crimes, not the house? Same deal. You can confiscate and investigate a known computer or network device WITH A WARRANT, in order to find out who was responsible, if you can. If you can't, and you are lacking evidence, nobody will be found guilty. That's the idea, anyway.
What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.
It is useful, but not the end-all. All it tells them is the what and the where, but not the who. They still have to investigate, get warrants, etc., and they can't get those without evidence of illicit activity.
The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded. 'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@%!@#^%!@%' Get the fuck over yourself. My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.
In the legal sense, which is to say 'the one we were and are discussing', you can't tie them together without a warrant and an investigation. Sorry.
Privacy has nothing to do with illegal activity, incidentally. While all felons might want privacy, not all people who want privacy are felons. Everyone has their own reasons for privacy, and it's written in the constitution that everyone has a right to that privacy, not just the innocent.
Seems logical to me. An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one. It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.
If I remember correctly, they didn't stop filming because they couldn't watch, but because it was conceivable they'd be charged with being an accessory.