the rich use their state-granted and enforced control of capital
Poppycock. Wealth does not flow from the state. The state takes wealth in the form of labor and capital, and diverts it somewhere else - public works, war, the politician's pockets. But the state does not create wealth. All it does is print money. Wealth existed, firstly as a natural part of the land, and then was distributed according to the labor and efficiency of those who began working the land. Some people were more efficient than others and were able to build up surpluses. This accumulation of surplus represented the first real riches. The new wealthy individuals could barter and employ their excess to acquire the labor of others. It's all in Adam Smith, among other authors more intelligent than me. But books can't help you if you don't read them.
OK, look at it this way. If a rich man/corporation sends someone to approach a politician to lobby him, bribe him, or whatever, who is in the position of power? It's pretty clear to me that if you need something from me, and I have a choice between saying "yes" and "no", it's me that has the power, not you. Now the rich can afford to broker power for themselves because they can afford to pettition and buy politicians. But it's the politician that has the power, not the other way around. One day, for whatever reason, and usually when the rich man is over-extended, over-expended, and vulnerable, the politician can just change his mind.
The politician steals no wealth from the rich. He is the lickspittle and lackey of the socioeconomic elite - and lives or dies at their bidding. What passes for his riches? These are but crumbs, from the feasting tables of his masters.
In this we disagree. Because the goal of the politician is power, not capital. So while the rich continue having more "money" than the poor, what is money when the currency is debased? Power is to turn around to the rich man, and say "no, and if you continue I will bring the masses of the poor up against you". And what is the rich man going to do? Why do you think there is so much wealth "offshore", and why do you think the government is so desperate to seize it, outlaw it, and otherwise get its finger in it? Offshore wealth is a thorn in the politician's side, because it lets the wealthy keep some control over their destiny. But no, the politician is not the rich man's lackey at all. He will tolerate the rich man as long as the rich man does what he is told, and if not there are plenty of others willing to be rich men.
It would certainly effect change for Obama. For the country as a whole? Not so much. In fact, none at all. The track that the US - and much of the Western world - is currently on, will continue. There is so much momentum because of a mind-set. The mind-set of the corporate world. The mind set of the children brought up in a land of plenty, who have never experienced real war, or real hardship, or real famine. The mind set of corruption and lobbying. The mind-set of being fascinated with destruction and war machines and technology. You can vote out every single politician and nothing will change at all, because the politicans are merely a reflection of the society as a whole. They are the symptom, not the disease.
Please cite an example where a patient has died because he could not access the data cache on his pace-maker. You act as if these devices were not tested in extensive clinical trials before being sold to the public. The software works - it's not miraculous, but it works well enough that it can be demonstrated scientifically that your odds are better off having it implanted than not. You can do that without looking at the code, by looking at the end result. In two groups of similar patients, the group with the device had fewer adverse events than the group without the device. And in fact that's really the only thing that matters. If you're upset, then don't get one implanted. It's not obligatory.
What those of us with brains hope is that soon we will have a change of president.
Sorry buddy, but you're in the no brains group. What those of us with brains KNOW is that change of president or not, it makes no damned difference at all. We're serving poo for luch. You want it fried over-easy or sunny side up?
Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes.
No you're all wrong. Common folk are here to support the rich with their labor, because their labor is the only thing they have to offer that has value. The rich, on the other hand, use their capital to employ the labor of the common folk, in order to increase their wealth. This benefits the laborer, because he is paid a wage from which he can live. And it benefits the rich person, because he increases his capital. There. Now you have a fairly accurate picture of how the world works.
Now throw in the politician, whose job it is to steal both the wealth of the rich and the labor of the poor, in order to enrich themselves. And since there are many more poor people than rich people, it's easy for the politician to blame the rich man for the problems - most of which are caused by his theft. After all, when did a little division and discord do any harm in politics?
No, you see no reason for it to be a trade secret because it prevents you from winning the argument. Not the same. Go ask Coca Cola for their "secret formula". Or KFC for their secret "11 herbs and spices". Have fun.
Have you ever refused to give a patient information they asked for, even though you knew they were too ignorant to understand it?
No. I probably give them too much information in fact. As for "ignorant", I don't like that word. I wasn't born with a medical degree. A patient has no obligation to be an expert on his/her own body and health. So if a patient lacks education, it's my job to provide it. Not mock a patient for not knowing what he's not expected to know.
Have you ever forced a patient to go through with a procedure they were hesitant to undergo, despite your being certain that it was vital for their long-term survival?
I have never forced a conscious patient to do anything. I have performed life-saving procedures on unconscious patients in emergency situations without their permission. But apart from that I've never forced. Medicine is not about force. It's about educating, and helping a patient see why a particular treatment or procedure is in their best interest.
Because they're fucking human beings, and as such they're entitled to fuck their own lives up if they so choose. Your job is to lead them to water, not to drown them if they're too stupid to drink.
Where is this coming from? I don't see how it's pertinent to the discussion at all. Denying a patient access to information from a medical device is not forcing a patient to do anything, just like denying you the keys to the medicine cabinet where I keep the morphine and fentanyl is not "forcing you" to do anything. You are entitled to medical care, and you are entitled to ask me to do any appropriate medical procedure. However that's where it ends. You can't insist that your doctor do something illegal, immoral, or just plain unethical under the guise of patient "rights". A pacemaker is a proprietary device. If you want to build one yourself, go ahead. Make sure you clear all the government red tape before you use it in a human, though - including yourself. But their trade secrets are their trade secrets, and paying $20k for a device doesn't give you the right to fiddle with it. If you're so desperate to learn how it works then get a job at the pace-maker company.
Yeah this. Better yet if you're a windows user, get some virtualization software - virtual box and the like. Make yourself a linux virtual machine, download your stuff there using rtorrent, swap your stuff over to windows to use it...
Like I said, I'm no geologist. But surely the much lower gravity and atmospheric pressure has a lot to do with the size as well. Not the same popping a champagne cork at sea level and at the top of Mt. Everest, assuming you can keep the damned thing in at that altitude. I wonder how densely packed that big mountain is, compared to say - Earth.
this airplane doesn't collect very intimate details about me while I sit in it.
Playing the devil's advocate, there's not really anything intimate about your heart rate and the shape of your QRS complexes. It's not really "personally identifiable information", unlike say your name, DOB, passport number, destination, seat number, who you are travelling with, all your previous travel history and your credit card number kept by the airline, for example.
I personally wouldn't see a problem with it. After all it's only data. I can't speak for the implant maker though. Maybe they'll burn a CD for you one day, like they do with almost everything else. Ultrasound? Here, take this CD home. Angioplasty? Here, have a CD... Heck it could even be a selling point.
Neither does kicking automobile tires, but people seem to insist on doing it. I'm also sure a pressure gauge in the hands of joe 6-pack would do far more harm than good around airplane tires. What do you mean 230 PSI? No no there's too much pressure in those things!
You don't get to peek inside your machine to see for yourself it's a good one, just like the airline will not let you take a wrech to the jet engine or even kick the plane's tires.
I have one of these devices since last year after my (4th) heart attack. I am also a physician, so I would understand the data. But honestly I don't see the need. When I go get checked up, the Boston Scientific staff are more than happy to explain anything I ask - and I do ask some detailed questions. I am quite sure that the device and its software are proprietary and also trade secrets of the company.
But there's another reason: Honestly one shouldn't go around tinkering or "hacking" an implanted device. They come with limited battery life - most of which is covered by warranty (if my battery runs out before 10 years I get the device replaced and the procedure paid for by the company, anywhere in the world). Radio signals require energy, asking the device to read its cache requires energy, and the manufacturer would be put in a position where it might have to cover a warranty on a battery that didn't fail because of design, but because of tinkering. They can hardly say "no" and let the patient die. That, and of course what if the "hacker" manages to mistakenly change the machine's settings so it's firing inappropriately, draining the battery within days, or better yet firing and triggering a lethal arrhythmia. The company would be blamed (at least initially) for a "faulty" device. It's bad business, and I understand it.
I really don't feel like playing with my implant. I really don't feel like paying for someone else who wants to play with their implants, in the form of increased costs because the company has to set more aside for liability. I selected my device after both research into the company, the model, and this type of device as a whole. And my cardiologist's opinion. And a 2nd opinion. You can look at the statistics for the device, compiled in a scientific manner, and compare it to other devices, and that's it.
My thought exactly. I mean I'm not a geologist, but you'd sort of expect that the "largest volcano in the solar system" wasn't powered by an isolated puddle of magma. But ok, I realize there's a difference between proving something and speculating about it. They still won't get me to read the article though.
The problem was all the time and money invested in the little picture index thing that shows you meaningless data (a picture number) and actually hides the picture from you. There's nothing new about search boxes however. But wait, they'll remove those next.
Just because people don't complain about something doesn't mean it doesn't suck. You always complain when you hate the food at a restaurant? No. Lots of people keep their mouth shut, pay the bill, and make sure to never, ever go back. I don't think "lack of complaints" is a valid metric to measure whether an interface is any good or not. In fact the sheer volume of initial complaints should have been a big hint.
it will turn out that the final build of Windows 8 does have such restrictions.
But you will be able to remove said restrictions if you buy the Pro Gold Game of the Year Ultimate edition for $389 instead of the regular $89 "Vanilla" edition.
While I admire the desire to be really creative and shit and try to come up with a cool "new" interface, functionality still remains one of the key desirable attributes for a user interface. We can thank Apple and all the Apple wannabe copycats for useless, ridiculous new ways of doing things that are less accurate and more time consuming by design. Who said that dragging page after page of stacked thumbnails as if they were pages from a book is an improvement over a plain old list? Especially when the constraints are so narrow that you often end up "dragging" two at a time. Want an example? Here, go look for a specific picture on this site. Have fun. Oh it looks cute. It's not functional. You will waste time waving your mouse back and forth trying to get the picture you wanted. A UI is supposed to be something that helps you, not something you have to fight with.
Now I'm not saying this is how (formerly known as) Metro is going to work, I haven't used the beta, and I've only seen a couple screen-shots. But I understand that Microsoft is going for the "smart phone" look and feel, and that means lots of big colorful buttons you have to drag everywhere, and crap like this. And considering what they've done with "Ribbons" when they obfuscated their "Office" suite - and I'm talking about the 2007 version, I refuse to "upgrade" and see what else they managed to fuck up, I can't imagine this UI will be better. I remember an argument in the late 80's about how computers hadn't really lived up to their promise of greater productivity in the office. Well Microsoft, I guess we'll have to congratulate you for lowering the bar even more...
Slashdot Mirror
the rich use their state-granted and enforced control of capital
Poppycock. Wealth does not flow from the state. The state takes wealth in the form of labor and capital, and diverts it somewhere else - public works, war, the politician's pockets. But the state does not create wealth. All it does is print money. Wealth existed, firstly as a natural part of the land, and then was distributed according to the labor and efficiency of those who began working the land. Some people were more efficient than others and were able to build up surpluses. This accumulation of surplus represented the first real riches. The new wealthy individuals could barter and employ their excess to acquire the labor of others. It's all in Adam Smith, among other authors more intelligent than me. But books can't help you if you don't read them.
Well done, you almost quoted the official line verbatim. You forgot to add "baaa" at the end. Back to work, slave. The smart people are talking.
This is where you have been deceived.
OK, look at it this way. If a rich man/corporation sends someone to approach a politician to lobby him, bribe him, or whatever, who is in the position of power? It's pretty clear to me that if you need something from me, and I have a choice between saying "yes" and "no", it's me that has the power, not you. Now the rich can afford to broker power for themselves because they can afford to pettition and buy politicians. But it's the politician that has the power, not the other way around. One day, for whatever reason, and usually when the rich man is over-extended, over-expended, and vulnerable, the politician can just change his mind.
The politician steals no wealth from the rich. He is the lickspittle and lackey of the socioeconomic elite - and lives or dies at their bidding. What passes for his riches? These are but crumbs, from the feasting tables of his masters.
In this we disagree. Because the goal of the politician is power, not capital. So while the rich continue having more "money" than the poor, what is money when the currency is debased? Power is to turn around to the rich man, and say "no, and if you continue I will bring the masses of the poor up against you". And what is the rich man going to do? Why do you think there is so much wealth "offshore", and why do you think the government is so desperate to seize it, outlaw it, and otherwise get its finger in it? Offshore wealth is a thorn in the politician's side, because it lets the wealthy keep some control over their destiny. But no, the politician is not the rich man's lackey at all. He will tolerate the rich man as long as the rich man does what he is told, and if not there are plenty of others willing to be rich men.
It would certainly effect change for Obama. For the country as a whole? Not so much. In fact, none at all. The track that the US - and much of the Western world - is currently on, will continue. There is so much momentum because of a mind-set. The mind-set of the corporate world. The mind set of the children brought up in a land of plenty, who have never experienced real war, or real hardship, or real famine. The mind set of corruption and lobbying. The mind-set of being fascinated with destruction and war machines and technology. You can vote out every single politician and nothing will change at all, because the politicans are merely a reflection of the society as a whole. They are the symptom, not the disease.
Please cite an example where a patient has died because he could not access the data cache on his pace-maker. You act as if these devices were not tested in extensive clinical trials before being sold to the public. The software works - it's not miraculous, but it works well enough that it can be demonstrated scientifically that your odds are better off having it implanted than not. You can do that without looking at the code, by looking at the end result. In two groups of similar patients, the group with the device had fewer adverse events than the group without the device. And in fact that's really the only thing that matters. If you're upset, then don't get one implanted. It's not obligatory.
What those of us with brains hope is that soon we will have a change of president.
Sorry buddy, but you're in the no brains group. What those of us with brains KNOW is that change of president or not, it makes no damned difference at all. We're serving poo for luch. You want it fried over-easy or sunny side up?
Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.
But somehow fails to effect any change at all.
Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes.
No you're all wrong. Common folk are here to support the rich with their labor, because their labor is the only thing they have to offer that has value. The rich, on the other hand, use their capital to employ the labor of the common folk, in order to increase their wealth. This benefits the laborer, because he is paid a wage from which he can live. And it benefits the rich person, because he increases his capital. There. Now you have a fairly accurate picture of how the world works.
Now throw in the politician, whose job it is to steal both the wealth of the rich and the labor of the poor, in order to enrich themselves. And since there are many more poor people than rich people, it's easy for the politician to blame the rich man for the problems - most of which are caused by his theft. After all, when did a little division and discord do any harm in politics?
You're also a fool.
Perhaps I am. Do you feel better now?
No, you see no reason for it to be a trade secret because it prevents you from winning the argument. Not the same. Go ask Coca Cola for their "secret formula". Or KFC for their secret "11 herbs and spices". Have fun.
Have you ever refused to give a patient information they asked for, even though you knew they were too ignorant to understand it?
No. I probably give them too much information in fact. As for "ignorant", I don't like that word. I wasn't born with a medical degree. A patient has no obligation to be an expert on his/her own body and health. So if a patient lacks education, it's my job to provide it. Not mock a patient for not knowing what he's not expected to know.
Have you ever forced a patient to go through with a procedure they were hesitant to undergo, despite your being certain that it was vital for their long-term survival?
I have never forced a conscious patient to do anything. I have performed life-saving procedures on unconscious patients in emergency situations without their permission. But apart from that I've never forced. Medicine is not about force. It's about educating, and helping a patient see why a particular treatment or procedure is in their best interest.
Because they're fucking human beings, and as such they're entitled to fuck their own lives up if they so choose. Your job is to lead them to water, not to drown them if they're too stupid to drink.
Where is this coming from? I don't see how it's pertinent to the discussion at all. Denying a patient access to information from a medical device is not forcing a patient to do anything, just like denying you the keys to the medicine cabinet where I keep the morphine and fentanyl is not "forcing you" to do anything. You are entitled to medical care, and you are entitled to ask me to do any appropriate medical procedure. However that's where it ends. You can't insist that your doctor do something illegal, immoral, or just plain unethical under the guise of patient "rights". A pacemaker is a proprietary device. If you want to build one yourself, go ahead. Make sure you clear all the government red tape before you use it in a human, though - including yourself. But their trade secrets are their trade secrets, and paying $20k for a device doesn't give you the right to fiddle with it. If you're so desperate to learn how it works then get a job at the pace-maker company.
Yeah this. Better yet if you're a windows user, get some virtualization software - virtual box and the like. Make yourself a linux virtual machine, download your stuff there using rtorrent, swap your stuff over to windows to use it...
Like I said, I'm no geologist. But surely the much lower gravity and atmospheric pressure has a lot to do with the size as well. Not the same popping a champagne cork at sea level and at the top of Mt. Everest, assuming you can keep the damned thing in at that altitude. I wonder how densely packed that big mountain is, compared to say - Earth.
this airplane doesn't collect very intimate details about me while I sit in it.
Playing the devil's advocate, there's not really anything intimate about your heart rate and the shape of your QRS complexes. It's not really "personally identifiable information", unlike say your name, DOB, passport number, destination, seat number, who you are travelling with, all your previous travel history and your credit card number kept by the airline, for example.
I personally wouldn't see a problem with it. After all it's only data. I can't speak for the implant maker though. Maybe they'll burn a CD for you one day, like they do with almost everything else. Ultrasound? Here, take this CD home. Angioplasty? Here, have a CD... Heck it could even be a selling point.
Neither does kicking automobile tires, but people seem to insist on doing it. I'm also sure a pressure gauge in the hands of joe 6-pack would do far more harm than good around airplane tires. What do you mean 230 PSI? No no there's too much pressure in those things!
You don't get to peek inside your machine to see for yourself it's a good one, just like the airline will not let you take a wrech to the jet engine or even kick the plane's tires.
I have one of these devices since last year after my (4th) heart attack. I am also a physician, so I would understand the data. But honestly I don't see the need. When I go get checked up, the Boston Scientific staff are more than happy to explain anything I ask - and I do ask some detailed questions. I am quite sure that the device and its software are proprietary and also trade secrets of the company.
But there's another reason: Honestly one shouldn't go around tinkering or "hacking" an implanted device. They come with limited battery life - most of which is covered by warranty (if my battery runs out before 10 years I get the device replaced and the procedure paid for by the company, anywhere in the world). Radio signals require energy, asking the device to read its cache requires energy, and the manufacturer would be put in a position where it might have to cover a warranty on a battery that didn't fail because of design, but because of tinkering. They can hardly say "no" and let the patient die. That, and of course what if the "hacker" manages to mistakenly change the machine's settings so it's firing inappropriately, draining the battery within days, or better yet firing and triggering a lethal arrhythmia. The company would be blamed (at least initially) for a "faulty" device. It's bad business, and I understand it.
I really don't feel like playing with my implant. I really don't feel like paying for someone else who wants to play with their implants, in the form of increased costs because the company has to set more aside for liability. I selected my device after both research into the company, the model, and this type of device as a whole. And my cardiologist's opinion. And a 2nd opinion. You can look at the statistics for the device, compiled in a scientific manner, and compare it to other devices, and that's it.
It would beg the question of where the magnetic field whent though...
My thought exactly. I mean I'm not a geologist, but you'd sort of expect that the "largest volcano in the solar system" wasn't powered by an isolated puddle of magma. But ok, I realize there's a difference between proving something and speculating about it. They still won't get me to read the article though.
The problem was all the time and money invested in the little picture index thing that shows you meaningless data (a picture number) and actually hides the picture from you. There's nothing new about search boxes however. But wait, they'll remove those next.
Just because people don't complain about something doesn't mean it doesn't suck. You always complain when you hate the food at a restaurant? No. Lots of people keep their mouth shut, pay the bill, and make sure to never, ever go back. I don't think "lack of complaints" is a valid metric to measure whether an interface is any good or not. In fact the sheer volume of initial complaints should have been a big hint.
Your first hint should have been his reaction when asked "take a seat over there" and threw a chair across a stage.
it will turn out that the final build of Windows 8 does have such restrictions.
But you will be able to remove said restrictions if you buy the Pro Gold Game of the Year Ultimate edition for $389 instead of the regular $89 "Vanilla" edition.
While I admire the desire to be really creative and shit and try to come up with a cool "new" interface, functionality still remains one of the key desirable attributes for a user interface. We can thank Apple and all the Apple wannabe copycats for useless, ridiculous new ways of doing things that are less accurate and more time consuming by design. Who said that dragging page after page of stacked thumbnails as if they were pages from a book is an improvement over a plain old list? Especially when the constraints are so narrow that you often end up "dragging" two at a time. Want an example? Here, go look for a specific picture on this site. Have fun. Oh it looks cute. It's not functional. You will waste time waving your mouse back and forth trying to get the picture you wanted. A UI is supposed to be something that helps you, not something you have to fight with.
Now I'm not saying this is how (formerly known as) Metro is going to work, I haven't used the beta, and I've only seen a couple screen-shots. But I understand that Microsoft is going for the "smart phone" look and feel, and that means lots of big colorful buttons you have to drag everywhere, and crap like this. And considering what they've done with "Ribbons" when they obfuscated their "Office" suite - and I'm talking about the 2007 version, I refuse to "upgrade" and see what else they managed to fuck up, I can't imagine this UI will be better. I remember an argument in the late 80's about how computers hadn't really lived up to their promise of greater productivity in the office. Well Microsoft, I guess we'll have to congratulate you for lowering the bar even more...