Note: This is NOT a flame. I really feel this way.
I agree with the poster above. People DO need to practice discretion in what they read on the web.
That said, why in the hell do I need a UN agency to tell me which sites are factual? And what does oversite mean? Does WHO get to tell the site what they can and cannot post? Anyone ever hear of the first amendment in the US? Fine, if the rest of the world wants WHO to censor their health information, let them have it. But in the US, we have the right to publish what and when we want, as long as it's not libelous, inciting riots, etc.
I think as a consumer, I can make an informed decision as to where I get my medical information. I don't need UN bureaucrats filtering/approving/officially stamping medical info for me.
I mean, what's next, the UN's WAO (World Auto Organization) that will have censorship rights over any auto-related site?
God, people are sheep. Always looking for someone else to tell them what's safe, what to do, what to say, what not to say.
We often think that we've removed ourselves from the evolutionary chain.
Radiation emitting phones are a good example of how this is not true. If you think about it, we've introduced a new variable into our environment that can adversely affect us. Those with genetics making them less likely to be affected by radiation beamed into their brain will go on without batting an eye (or getting brain cancer so to speak). Those who are more susceptible to the effects of low-level radiation will begin to be removed from the gene pool.
We haven't removed ourselves from evolution. We're just changing the path we are taking by introducing new variables into our environment.
I once came back to a yellow cubicle. And I mean yellow. My co-workers had covered EVERY surface with yellow Post-It notes. Then they arranged the keys on my keyboard (the QWERTY LINE) to read: FEAR US!
Have YOU ever unstuck about 10^4 Post-It notes? It's a Zen-like experience!
Statistically, you are more likely to get into an accident given your age. Insurance premiums are based not only on your past performance, but statistically in your demographic group, what your future performance may be. And in your demographic group, you are more likely to be in/cause an accident. Insurers pay lots of money to actuaries/statisticians to determine this.
However, your case is different from that of someone being genetically tested. Your auto premiums are based upon YOUR past/predicted future performance as a driver, something over which you have control. Your driving habits are within your control. Genetically though, if you are predisposed to some disease, you have no control over that. That's where the unfairness sets in. As you age, your car premiums will go down based on your age AND your continued good performance. But the unlucky cluck who tests positive for a disease-causing gene, will pay high premiums the remainer of his or her life. That person is the true victim.
Insurance is supposed to be a shared risk pool. That is, we're all throwing money in together for the possibility that we may get sick in the future. If another person gets sick and draws from the pool, that's the intent of the system. If I'm A+ healthy, then I don't draw from the pool and my premiums subsidize those who are sick.
This is not a BAD THING! This is the way the system is supposed to work. If insurance companies are allowed to screen out (via huge premiums) those who are most likely to have a disease occur, then you're left with a pool of healthy people paying somewhat less premiums (don't let the insurers fool you into thinking they're going to drastically lower rates) while the insurers make out like big dogs raking in profits off of healthy people.
And those screened out by genetic testing (screened out again by higher premiums that will likely not be affordable)? They'll go on a government program of insurance, which means, if you're healthy, you're going to be paying for them anyway with your taxes.
My bet is that the marginal cost that you'll pay in higher premiums by disallowing genetic profiling will be much less than the additional taxes you pay to support a bloated government health bureaucracy built to handle those people who were screened out.
The why? of this is what's bugging me. The only thing I can figure out is that Sun is basically splitting it's hardware market into two tiers: expensive (Sun hardware) vs. cheaper (Cobalt). May that's what they're doing. Aiming Solaris at shops that can't afford top-quality Sun equipment.
To sum up: I think they're aiming at getting Solaris into the lower-end hardware market to compete against Linux.
I'm not surprised we're seeing a resurrection of Luddite ideals. There are real fears in the general population concerning technologies and unfortunately, the technologists in their zeal to push further/faster are not taking enough time to assuage those fears or listen intently to what the general population is saying. For example:
Biotechnology - we see great promise from this technology for medical purposes, but there is great fear about biotech's impact of the environment and our food supply. As seen with the recent Taco Bell gene-altered corn incident, errors can and will be made. Food is so basic to our well being that I wouldn't be surprised by a backlash/revolution against biotech.
Nanotechnology - Again, great hopes such as nanotech medical devices to clean clogged arteries. But the visions of nanotech weaponry, unbridled nanotech reproduction, and nanotech self-evolution that permeate nanotech discussions is generating fear in the general population.
Net technology - Want the laundry list? Carnivore, Amazon-style different pricing, tracking of financial transactions across websites when you purchase merchandise, name lists being sold when privacy was promised, etc.
These are just few examples but here's the point. The fear is justified because people are rightfully discerning that technologies are being developed/used that directly (and increasingly adversely) impact their lives and this application of technology to (or against) their lives is out of their own personal control. People are beginning to feel victimized by technology, and not empowered by it. Victimization on a mass basis (and technology is giving us the ability to victimize people in numbers never seen before) is the stuff from which revolutions are wraught, even Luddite revolutions.
it lowers the cost of entry for these games. Consoles are cheaper than PCs, so the initial dollar outlay to participate will be less.
I would imagine, given the huge number of consoles out there and their low cost, these online gaming companies are going to see a massive boom in participation when the console players are included.
Shit, now that I have to take down my 486/Linux firewall doing NAT, each of my workstations at home is going to need an IP.
Let's see. My ISP charges $5 per IP times 3 workstations, that's $15 smackeroos. Thanks IBM.
Heh.
My main concern is the underlying premise of the FBI's actions, whether it uses Carnivore or Altivore. They are willing to abuse the privacy of the people for the safety of the people, in the name of prevention.
Of course the FBI is saying that they'll use the system for monitoring of current investigations, but they have also stated that they would use it for crime prevention. I repeat, prevention. They are willing to sacrifice our privacy in the name of "preventing" future crimes which have yet to happen.
Does anyone see the problem here? The FBI is presenting us a black, cloudy future filled with terrorists and super-criminals using emails for evil purposes, and we, as responsible citizens, should forgo our privacy to help prevent this sordid future scenario the FBI is presenting us.
It's much like an insurance salesman selling disability insurance. He's going to scare the hell out of you about a future possible disability in order to get your money. Even though, statistically, disabililty insurance taken as a whole over the entire population, is rarely needed.
I, for one, am willing to forgo the FBI's Carnivore insurance policy. I'm not willing to pay the premiums.
Of course I do. But do you realize that not all of us run "free" distros and want to recompile our own kernels every other month? I was speaking of the general attitude that security rests with the user. Boxed distros/OSes and other boxed software was my target.
This is the stupidest idea continually propagated by us geeks. I'm not flaming here!
Why should I have to continously check every new phrickin' software product I install for security problems?
This is analagous to everytime I buy a car, I've got to get under my car and inspect it's braking system, it's steering system, it's fuel system, etc. so the damned car doesn't send me and my family careening over a cliff or exploding on us.
For God's sake, this industry has GOT to start getting things right BEFORE they phrickin' ship. We need a Consumers Reports or UL type-testing system so the software user can reasonably expect they're getting a quality product.
Passing testing security off to the user is lame, lame, lame.
I don't know if these two corporate names sound funny to you, but hearing Micron vs. Rambus sounds alot like Godzilla vs. Mothra.
For example, "Rambus was resting deep beneath the ocean, the warm salty waters healing it after its fight with Mothra. Soon, though, the citizens of Tokyo would be rushing frantic through the streets. Why? Unbenownst to them, an evil Sony game developer, trying to learn the secret of MS's new Xbox gamestation, opened the case of a development version of the Xbox, stolen from Redmond.
Sadly, the Gatesians had rigged all development copies of the Xbox with a failsafe device, that would irradiate every chip inside the box as well as anything within a 20 foot radius.
Within that 20 foot radius was the developer and a small fly that flew onto the Xbox's main CPU when the radiation hit. Thus born of the radiation was "Micron", a 50 foot fly with the brains of a Pentium III.
And as monsters are wont, Micron began destroying and gobling up small software and hardware companies throughout Tokyo, eventually awakening Rambus from its sleep to emerge from the ocean deeps to fight Micron in the streets of Tokyo."
First off, I'm not a M$ defender by any means. But I have a few questions:
This is one gentleman's assessment. How else have the infrastructure claims been corroborated?
Has anyone else validated that M$ instructed its units not to use MS WIN 2K because of instability issues?
What is this person's work history? Why did they leave?
Does this person have any bones to grind with M$? Being an "ex" employee sometimes raises a red flag that the employee may have motivation to dissemble to damage the corp they have left.
These are just some of the types of questions that need to be asked before reports like these are believed immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: This is NOT a flame. I really feel this way.
I agree with the poster above. People DO need to practice discretion in what they read on the web.
That said, why in the hell do I need a UN agency to tell me which sites are factual? And what does oversite mean? Does WHO get to tell the site what they can and cannot post? Anyone ever hear of the first amendment in the US? Fine, if the rest of the world wants WHO to censor their health information, let them have it. But in the US, we have the right to publish what and when we want, as long as it's not libelous, inciting riots, etc.
I think as a consumer, I can make an informed decision as to where I get my medical information. I don't need UN bureaucrats filtering/approving/officially stamping medical info for me.
I mean, what's next, the UN's WAO (World Auto Organization) that will have censorship rights over any auto-related site?
God, people are sheep. Always looking for someone else to tell them what's safe, what to do, what to say, what not to say.
EMUSE.NET
I mean, a 50-year-old machine that delivered suppositories to constipated soldiers? Sounds like something you'd want to be rid of. ;)
EMUSE.NET
Of course it will. Have you seen the kids with cell phones today?
EMUSE.NET
We often think that we've removed ourselves from the evolutionary chain.
Radiation emitting phones are a good example of how this is not true. If you think about it, we've introduced a new variable into our environment that can adversely affect us. Those with genetics making them less likely to be affected by radiation beamed into their brain will go on without batting an eye (or getting brain cancer so to speak). Those who are more susceptible to the effects of low-level radiation will begin to be removed from the gene pool.
We haven't removed ourselves from evolution. We're just changing the path we are taking by introducing new variables into our environment.
EMUSE.NET
I once came back to a yellow cubicle. And I mean yellow. My co-workers had covered EVERY surface with yellow Post-It notes. Then they arranged the keys on my keyboard (the QWERTY LINE) to read: FEAR US!
Have YOU ever unstuck about 10^4 Post-It notes? It's a Zen-like experience!
EMUSE.NET
Statistically, you are more likely to get into an accident given your age. Insurance premiums are based not only on your past performance, but statistically in your demographic group, what your future performance may be. And in your demographic group, you are more likely to be in/cause an accident. Insurers pay lots of money to actuaries/statisticians to determine this.
However, your case is different from that of someone being genetically tested. Your auto premiums are based upon YOUR past/predicted future performance as a driver, something over which you have control. Your driving habits are within your control. Genetically though, if you are predisposed to some disease, you have no control over that. That's where the unfairness sets in. As you age, your car premiums will go down based on your age AND your continued good performance. But the unlucky cluck who tests positive for a disease-causing gene, will pay high premiums the remainer of his or her life. That person is the true victim.
EMUSE.NET
Insurance is supposed to be a shared risk pool. That is, we're all throwing money in together for the possibility that we may get sick in the future. If another person gets sick and draws from the pool, that's the intent of the system. If I'm A+ healthy, then I don't draw from the pool and my premiums subsidize those who are sick.
This is not a BAD THING! This is the way the system is supposed to work. If insurance companies are allowed to screen out (via huge premiums) those who are most likely to have a disease occur, then you're left with a pool of healthy people paying somewhat less premiums (don't let the insurers fool you into thinking they're going to drastically lower rates) while the insurers make out like big dogs raking in profits off of healthy people.
And those screened out by genetic testing (screened out again by higher premiums that will likely not be affordable)? They'll go on a government program of insurance, which means, if you're healthy, you're going to be paying for them anyway with your taxes.
My bet is that the marginal cost that you'll pay in higher premiums by disallowing genetic profiling will be much less than the additional taxes you pay to support a bloated government health bureaucracy built to handle those people who were screened out.
EMUSE.NET
Man, that would be great!
EMUSE.NET
Sun's Planning (to) Acquire Redhat Computing? Sun's Pretty Angry (at) Redhat's Cancellation? Sun's Petty Architecture; Redhat Cancels? Owwww.
EMUSE.NET
The why? of this is what's bugging me. The only thing I can figure out is that Sun is basically splitting it's hardware market into two tiers: expensive (Sun hardware) vs. cheaper (Cobalt). May that's what they're doing. Aiming Solaris at shops that can't afford top-quality Sun equipment.
To sum up: I think they're aiming at getting Solaris into the lower-end hardware market to compete against Linux.
EMUSE.NET
These are just few examples but here's the point. The fear is justified because people are rightfully discerning that technologies are being developed/used that directly (and increasingly adversely) impact their lives and this application of technology to (or against) their lives is out of their own personal control. People are beginning to feel victimized by technology, and not empowered by it. Victimization on a mass basis (and technology is giving us the ability to victimize people in numbers never seen before) is the stuff from which revolutions are wraught, even Luddite revolutions.
EMUSE.NET
it lowers the cost of entry for these games. Consoles are cheaper than PCs, so the initial dollar outlay to participate will be less.
I would imagine, given the huge number of consoles out there and their low cost, these online gaming companies are going to see a massive boom in participation when the console players are included.
EMUSE.NET
The original posting by Cmdr Taco said IBM. He changed it to CISCO later.
EMUSE.NET
You try to make a joke and you get moderated as offtopic. Sheesh!
I know, I know, this is offtopic too. Screw it.
EMUSE.NET
Shit, now that I have to take down my 486/Linux firewall doing NAT, each of my workstations at home is going to need an IP. Let's see. My ISP charges $5 per IP times 3 workstations, that's $15 smackeroos. Thanks IBM. Heh.
EMUSE.NET
My main concern is the underlying premise of the FBI's actions, whether it uses Carnivore or Altivore. They are willing to abuse the privacy of the people for the safety of the people, in the name of prevention.
Of course the FBI is saying that they'll use the system for monitoring of current investigations, but they have also stated that they would use it for crime prevention. I repeat, prevention. They are willing to sacrifice our privacy in the name of "preventing" future crimes which have yet to happen.
Does anyone see the problem here? The FBI is presenting us a black, cloudy future filled with terrorists and super-criminals using emails for evil purposes, and we, as responsible citizens, should forgo our privacy to help prevent this sordid future scenario the FBI is presenting us.
It's much like an insurance salesman selling disability insurance. He's going to scare the hell out of you about a future possible disability in order to get your money. Even though, statistically, disabililty insurance taken as a whole over the entire population, is rarely needed.
I, for one, am willing to forgo the FBI's Carnivore insurance policy. I'm not willing to pay the premiums.
EMUSE.NET
but it should make for some interesting in-flight posts to rec.aviation during a crash.
EMUSE.NET
Then put anything you want in the box and ship it. No one at the border will want to touch the thing. Heh.
EMUSE.NET
and the murderer leaves a hat with an "official" Olypmic logo at the murder scene.
Boy, is this anonymous athlete they used to sample DNA going to be in trouble!
EMUSE.NET
being sued by Metallica, a Crabgrass League band.
EMUSE.NET
so that you can be cool looking AND read your Linux watch's readout.
EMUSE.NET
Of course I do. But do you realize that not all of us run "free" distros and want to recompile our own kernels every other month? I was speaking of the general attitude that security rests with the user. Boxed distros/OSes and other boxed software was my target.
EMUSE.NET
This is the stupidest idea continually propagated by us geeks. I'm not flaming here!
Why should I have to continously check every new phrickin' software product I install for security problems?
This is analagous to everytime I buy a car, I've got to get under my car and inspect it's braking system, it's steering system, it's fuel system, etc. so the damned car doesn't send me and my family careening over a cliff or exploding on us.
For God's sake, this industry has GOT to start getting things right BEFORE they phrickin' ship. We need a Consumers Reports or UL type-testing system so the software user can reasonably expect they're getting a quality product.
Passing testing security off to the user is lame, lame, lame.
EMUSE.NET
I don't know if these two corporate names sound funny to you, but hearing Micron vs. Rambus sounds alot like Godzilla vs. Mothra.
For example, "Rambus was resting deep beneath the ocean, the warm salty waters healing it after its fight with Mothra. Soon, though, the citizens of Tokyo would be rushing frantic through the streets. Why? Unbenownst to them, an evil Sony game developer, trying to learn the secret of MS's new Xbox gamestation, opened the case of a development version of the Xbox, stolen from Redmond.
Sadly, the Gatesians had rigged all development copies of the Xbox with a failsafe device, that would irradiate every chip inside the box as well as anything within a 20 foot radius.
Within that 20 foot radius was the developer and a small fly that flew onto the Xbox's main CPU when the radiation hit. Thus born of the radiation was "Micron", a 50 foot fly with the brains of a Pentium III.
And as monsters are wont, Micron began destroying and gobling up small software and hardware companies throughout Tokyo, eventually awakening Rambus from its sleep to emerge from the ocean deeps to fight Micron in the streets of Tokyo."
No more caffiene for me today. Thanks.
EMUSE.NET
These are just some of the types of questions that need to be asked before reports like these are believed immediately.
EMUSE.NET