It looks as though this second bill (dealing with the creation of privacy impact analyses) would do little more than increase the mountains of paperwork required for the creation of new laws. So, the law would require agencies to create these reports, and then release "to the public." How on earth would this help _anything at all_? The public can read laws now, we can decide whether or not the law limits our privacy--and then we can protest if see fit. Its not as though the law will provide a new means whereby to protest, it's just making lawmakers butcher a few hundred more trees every year to help build the image of some Georgia senator.
The only possible use I could see for these 'privacy impact reports' is in the press, where such documents would provide easily quotable material. But is that really enough reason to add to the crippling bureaucracy already in place?
Dean Kamen = Wonko the Sane :)
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
"Oh yes,'' he said, ``they come and see me. They sit right here. They sit right where you're sitting.''
He was talking of the angels with the golden beards and green wings and Dr Scholl sandals.
``They eat nachos which they say they can't get where they come from. They do a lot of coke and are very wonderful about a whole range of things.''
``Do they?'' said Arthur. ``Are they? So, er... when is this then? When do they come?''
He gazed out at the Pacific as well. There were little sandpipers running along the margin of the shore which seemed to have this problem: they needed to find their food in the sand which a wave had just washed over, but they couldn't bear to get their feet wet. To deal with this problem they ran with an odd kind of movement as if they'd been constructed by somebody very clever in Switzerland.
Fenchurch was sitting on the sand, idly drawing patterns in it with her fingers.
``Weekends, mostly,'' said Wonko the Sane, ``on little scooters. They are great machines.'' He smiled."
- Douglas Adam "So long and thanks for all the fish"
So...it appears that you are attempting to refute his point with sarcasm.
This is completely valid, and i agree with you that at some points Katz may have been a bit overdramatic in his claims. However, I believe that if you looked more closely at the actual point he was trying to make, you would realize the error in your refutation. One must remember at all times that terrorism is defined as both 'acts of terror,' _and_ 'the use of terror to achieve political goals.' After all, the ultimate object of terrorism is not simply to blow up buildings and kill people, but to achieve a particular political goal. The recent anthrax scares are not meant to cause mass deaths in the United States, cutaneous anthrax simply isn't an effective enough bioweapon for that to occur, but rather to instill terror in the American people. Thus, by "transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news," the 'Hypermedia' helps to accomplish the terrorists' goals. Keeping these points in mind, one can easily see that "learning to cope with the Hypermedia" _is_ absolutely critical if we wish to maintain the cohesion of our nation. Next time, try to look at the deeper message beneath the sentence before you attack its superficial phrasing.
well...its fantastic that they are attempting to use neurons to bring into existence a new form of computing.
The technique they're using to bring about these results, however, was pioneered by the brothers Vacanti, as you can see in a recent story covered by discover magazine.
http://www.discover.com/july_01/featbros.html
Although I retain some measure of hope that this endeavour will meet success, it is of note that the scientists originally turned to stem cell research primarily because more conventional cells die quickly.
Thus, i am not exactly encouraged by the fact that they need to be propped up by artificial means to survive for sufficiently long periods of time.
Slashdot Mirror
but...hit the google cache
It looks as though this second bill (dealing with the creation of privacy impact analyses) would do little more than increase the mountains of paperwork required for the creation of new laws. So, the law would require agencies to create these reports, and then release "to the public." How on earth would this help _anything at all_? The public can read laws now, we can decide whether or not the law limits our privacy--and then we can protest if see fit. Its not as though the law will provide a new means whereby to protest, it's just making lawmakers butcher a few hundred more trees every year to help build the image of some
Georgia senator.
The only possible use I could see for these 'privacy impact reports' is in the press, where such documents would provide easily quotable material. But is that really enough reason to add to the crippling bureaucracy already in place?
"Oh yes,'' he said, ``they come and see me. They sit right here. They sit right where you're sitting.'' ... when is this then? When do they come?''
He was talking of the angels with the golden beards and green wings and Dr Scholl sandals.
``They eat nachos which they say they can't get where they come from. They do a lot of coke and are very wonderful about a whole range of things.''
``Do they?'' said Arthur. ``Are they? So, er
He gazed out at the Pacific as well. There were little sandpipers running along the margin of the shore which seemed to have this problem: they needed to find their food in the sand which a wave had just washed over, but they couldn't bear to get their feet wet. To deal with this problem they ran with an odd kind of movement as if they'd been constructed by somebody very clever in Switzerland.
Fenchurch was sitting on the sand, idly drawing patterns in it with her fingers.
``Weekends, mostly,'' said Wonko the Sane, ``on little scooters. They are great machines.'' He smiled."
- Douglas Adam "So long and thanks for all the fish"
So...it appears that you are attempting to refute his point with sarcasm.
This is completely valid, and i agree with you that at some points Katz may have been a bit overdramatic in his claims. However, I believe that if you looked more closely at the actual point he was trying to make, you would realize the error in your refutation. One must remember at all times that terrorism is defined as both 'acts of terror,' _and_ 'the use of terror to achieve political goals.' After all, the ultimate object of terrorism is not simply to blow up buildings and kill people, but to achieve a particular political goal. The recent anthrax scares are not meant to cause mass deaths in the United States, cutaneous anthrax simply isn't an effective enough bioweapon for that to occur, but rather to instill terror in the American people. Thus, by "transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news," the 'Hypermedia' helps to accomplish the terrorists' goals. Keeping these points in mind, one can easily see that "learning to cope with the Hypermedia" _is_ absolutely critical if we wish to maintain the cohesion of our nation. Next time, try to look at the deeper message beneath the sentence before you attack its superficial phrasing.
Public data on the low energy electron microscope was first published (as far as i know) in late 1995.
So...my question is: what the hell took these people so long!? i'm happy to finally see results from the
LEEM, a versatile tool that can be used in everything from cancer research to advanced molecular physics
with good effect. Hopefully this is just one of the many breakthroughs we'll see slashdotted as a result of the LEEM.
The technique they're using to bring about these results, however, was pioneered by the brothers Vacanti, as you can see in a recent story covered by discover magazine.
Although I retain some measure of hope that this endeavour will meet success, it is of note that the scientists originally turned to stem cell research primarily because more conventional cells die quickly.
Thus, i am not exactly encouraged by the fact that they need to be propped up by artificial means to survive for sufficiently long periods of time.