It's not holding them accountable for their clinical decisions (which is the kind of accountable people think of in this case), it's all about accounting for billing purposes. Some of this data is useful for research purposes and yes some of it can be used to figure out what went wrong in a course of treatment. Unfortunately it also reduces doctor throughput and draws their attention away from the patient in front of them.
We need to look for solutions that reduce the time and attention required by this software as much as possible. Some of this is simply capturing data directly from medical notes, voice recognition and smarter software (ensuring you don't have to enter the same thing into two different bits of software). The rest is being brutal and removing unnecessary/unused information.
Speaking as someone who is sitting about 20 metres away from one of the major groups in this project, I invite you to look up the Sanger Institute and read our history. Remember the Human Genome Project? The race between a commercial effort to sequence and patent the Human genome and the academic effort to release it publicly? We were the ones doing the public release, and that data promised to be far more valuable to pharma than these animal genomes. So no I would not take that bet. Besides we have already released the first 15 and you can download them yourself (we also have works in progress available to download for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...).
Business doesn't exist in the absence of contract, contract doesn't exist in the absence of something to enforce that contract. The reason you can have a scalable system of 1000s of futures contracts on tons and tons of wheat is that you know someone is that the rules are enforced by a central body who has a police force and an army to back up their promises. In the end that is the essence pf what government is, it's the collectives way of stopping individuals "cheating" and gaining an advantage by failing to honour contract, stealing, slavery, child labour, murder, etc. Failure to do this induces a "prisoner's dilemma" mentality where cooperation by rational individuals is limited because of a lack of guarantees.
Unfortunately for free market puritans the collective will only enforce your deals with individuals if they get what they want enforced.
In the UK this would come under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Human Rights Act. RIPA is a criminal act and there are criminal sanctions for violating it, not something you can waive with a civil contract. Governments like to keep surveillance powers to themselves, there is an exception so you can monitor network traffic to debug network issues or check someone's mailbox for business related email (say whilst they're out of the office) but routine snooping like this would not fly under any of the exceptions to date.
I agree HTTP challenges leave much to be desired but DNS based challenges aren't really much better. The scenario where someone compromises your DNS provider and can both answer a DNS based challenge and redirect traffic is equally as nasty and not as unlikely as you suggest. The more likely scenario is still a similar domain name attack anyway, as it's a lot easier to do. If you're compromised you need to check certificate transparency records for that domain and force a revoke, use CAA, and key pinning.
It is likely most certificate authorities will adopt ACME soon, it will probably become pretty much ubiquitous for domain validated certificates. Other CA's have issued phishing certs, the reason why LE is being used is because it doesn't cost rather than because they're the only automated shop out there. I would argue that any trust that LE may have destroyed shouldn't have been there in the first place anyway. Certificate authorities should concern themselves with organisation validated or extended validated certificates only and DV should only be treated as verified at the DNS level as that's the only way to solve the problem in real time.
This is not a question of simple economics you make it out to be as it involves little or no actual increase in costs to the telcos, as most of them operate across the EU anyway, just as separate companies from one group. With this they merely take a loss in premium revenue, of course they could always put prices up to try and recover that but potential competition makes that scary. So what to do? Well there is one way to save money, consolidation and that was the EU's plan to begin with.
The EU don't really care about roaming as such, it's the principle of a single common market for selling services that they want. Right now if I buy from Amazon in the EU the majority of goods are being legally sold by Amazon EU S.a.r.L a consolidated entity for most of Amazon's EU sales. By contrast if I get a cellular contract in the EU I have to go to a different company in each country. By killing roaming the EU is actually trying to entice companies to merge their operations across countries and sell across the entire single market.
That is a possibility, some areas of NASA's research is more important to national security than protecting the borders from dodgy porn or similar. The exact nature of certain valving arrangements on liquid fuel rockets might be of interest to North Korea for example. Or some of their more advanced jet propulsion research might be of interest to Russia. The thing is that customs officer had no real good reason to search the phone and plenty of reasons why he shouldn't. Even if he did have the legal right to do it, it might not be the sensible thing to do.
Gas got that way because y'all invested pork in gas pipelines, processing and storage infrastructure for gas. Why not pumped storage instead? That way you benefit all forms of generation, also instant start.
If you believe it's sensible to have to obtain legal counsel to set up voluntary trade of digital goods—where nobody is forced to participate.
The thing is if you were trading in them like ordinary physical goods then that would be fine, but if you're selling out "licenses" which is essentially a rather complex contract, then yes getting a lawyer for different jurisdictions might be advisable. Dealing in international IP law is always going to be a mess because you're not selling something tangible and different countries have different rules and accepted customs. There have been attempts to harmonise law on this in the shape of TPP, Berne, etc but you're always going to anger someone because someone's law has to change.
Well they certainly got attention, shame that because of their actions it was the wrong kind. I do not particularly trust businesses from any country, as they all have security services and ways to lean on people. What I do trust is protocols, and if you break them you're out.
The problem is that if the enemy has some kind of new radar or algorithm that can undermine your stealth capability, they are going to do their best to keep this from you. Pilots then trained with absolute impunity in an aircraft may not then have practiced the skills necessary to deal with that radar. Also an unluckily even slightly damaged aircraft may lose stealth capability, something you also want to train for.
You use corner reflectors because you want to train people to use active and passive radar to track a target (like a MiG-21). A transponder ain't the kind of simulation you're after there because it's just squarking out an active position.
Blu-ray AACS was hacked years ago, mainly because the player keys kept leaking. However the truth is it doesn't really matter because streaming services made non-commercial piracy pretty much irrelevant economically (at least in the markets they care about). It's easier to pay Netflix or Amazon a lil fee and watch it straight on your TV than to pirate.
They still would come because they have nothing to lose, most of them have net assets of close to zero. The first generation tends to live hand to mouth. The people who make the money are the American factory owners and farmers who employ them. These are the people you would need to asset strip to stop employment of immigrants but if we think politicians are going to go after these people (their biggest donors) we are naive.
Incidentally if the U.S. did manage to deport all 11 million of them it would cause a massive economic implosion due to a drop in demand for basic goods. It would likely also cause a closure of US factories and increase the offshoring of US industry.
Bad advice if you're in the UK. The lawful business regulations secondary legislation for the regulation of investigatory powers act make it clear that if you have reason to believe an email is personal rather than business or discover in the course of looking at it then it is protected by the act. Being criminal law this isn't something you can waive away by contract. The flip side being that a surprising number of uk agencies can demand access to anyone's emails in performance of an investigation.
Given that your job is to protect the company from making loss as much as help it make profit, you can quite safely say no. For starters it's a legal quagmire because it's tied into rent, this gets a multiplier if you are a multi state operation, I imagine getting a legal opinion in every state you operate is going to cost you. Plus the time to maintain it, and that added service desk calls. Add to that how much it would cost to successfully defend at least one class action lawsuit by an ambitious college legal clinic and subtract the profit from the (small scale) contracts. You will most likely get a negative number. There's also likely to be a hit to your tenants goodwill, that's hard to put a price on but also financially important, unhappy tenants leave apartments in worse states when they leave.
We do all make Telomerase in some of our stem cells, just not in somatic cells and certain semi-differentiated stem cells. In fact someone knocked out Telomerase in mice and showed they hyperaged and lived only 6 months (rather than 3 years) without it (interestingly they also found you could rescue them by reintroducing telomarase). In short Telomarase seems to be part of the cellular ageing mechanism, rather than the organism level one. Whatever is causing organism level ageing relates to more than just telomeres.
Depends what kind of monopoly you mean, because of regulation, maybe not in a Network Neutrality kind of way but it's still a monopoly. All but one of those options above are going over BT's local loop and a lot of the smaller operators also buy their exchange hub backhaul from BT (Also Plusnet is BT). BT Openreach (the bare wires bit) is pretty much a local monopoly in most of the country and thus why they're so heavily regulated. It's pretty hard to say how they'd behave if they weren't, but you can bet if they had a choice they'd not be sharing that loop. Outside of the cities it is BT Wholesale that is most definitely a monopoly, the rural broadband project was pretty much a flop and all of the contracts went to BT. This means that the way BT Wholesale's price list is set up in turn sets the business model for anyone who buys bandwidth and lines from them.
Without something to anchor your 500-1000 number, who will know how outraged they need to be?
And without knowing what those investigators were doing neither number is particularly useful. That's 1000 investigators and their entire lab staff most of them being scientists doing useful research not administrators etc. Unfortunately this doesn't just affect the current generation of scientists, it affects the next generation too. Not all of these labs will close, but there will certainly be a lot less capacity to take students and post docs. How this will impact research is pretty hard to predict, unfortunately it looks a bit more like the blunderbuss approach than the precision cull of the herd with a rifle and scope.
BP hasn't been very British in quite a while, a better name might be "Standard Oil" given how many of the component companies it is made up of came from that particular operation. It gets called British whenever it's politically expedient.
Even if you could argue you have the Employee's compelled consent for this, you most definitely do not have the website's consent. If the website in question is based in a two-party consent wiretap state, I'm wondering if employers might in fact be committing a felony by tapping the website's communications back to the client?
"had" being the past participle. You had a way to get data from SWIFT without consent but it's likely that particular doorway is now firmly closed. It's possible that the NSA could attempt to penetrate SWIFT again, but the heightened security measures likely to be in place and the political risks of getting caught again so soon after being caught once mean that's a long term op which is unlikely to be approved in the near future. Realistically though it is unlikely SWIFT data access will actually be cut, and even if it were, they'd still be able to access it through friendly agencies such as SIS and DGSE. The point is it's embarrassing and it slows things down.
We deal with the result of a explosives test by searching for explosives, and if the person has no explosives on them it is not reasonable that the person has explosives on them. Every test has the potential for a false positive and a rational person recognises that and adjusts their beliefs accordingly. If you continue to believe someone you've searched has explosives after you'd searched them then you're more irrational than they are. You're denying the evidence of your own eyes because of a pre-existing belief. What are they going to do? Pray the explosives into existence?
Irrational thought is not just confined to the religious.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not holding them accountable for their clinical decisions (which is the kind of accountable people think of in this case), it's all about accounting for billing purposes. Some of this data is useful for research purposes and yes some of it can be used to figure out what went wrong in a course of treatment. Unfortunately it also reduces doctor throughput and draws their attention away from the patient in front of them.
We need to look for solutions that reduce the time and attention required by this software as much as possible. Some of this is simply capturing data directly from medical notes, voice recognition and smarter software (ensuring you don't have to enter the same thing into two different bits of software). The rest is being brutal and removing unnecessary/unused information.
Speaking as someone who is sitting about 20 metres away from one of the major groups in this project, I invite you to look up the Sanger Institute and read our history. Remember the Human Genome Project? The race between a commercial effort to sequence and patent the Human genome and the academic effort to release it publicly? We were the ones doing the public release, and that data promised to be far more valuable to pharma than these animal genomes. So no I would not take that bet. Besides we have already released the first 15 and you can download them yourself (we also have works in progress available to download for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...).
Once you die, do your GDPR rights disappear?
Yes, they do indeed disappear, similar to how you cannot be sued for defaming or libelling the dead.
Business doesn't exist in the absence of contract, contract doesn't exist in the absence of something to enforce that contract. The reason you can have a scalable system of 1000s of futures contracts on tons and tons of wheat is that you know someone is that the rules are enforced by a central body who has a police force and an army to back up their promises. In the end that is the essence pf what government is, it's the collectives way of stopping individuals "cheating" and gaining an advantage by failing to honour contract, stealing, slavery, child labour, murder, etc. Failure to do this induces a "prisoner's dilemma" mentality where cooperation by rational individuals is limited because of a lack of guarantees.
Unfortunately for free market puritans the collective will only enforce your deals with individuals if they get what they want enforced.
In the UK this would come under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Human Rights Act. RIPA is a criminal act and there are criminal sanctions for violating it, not something you can waive with a civil contract. Governments like to keep surveillance powers to themselves, there is an exception so you can monitor network traffic to debug network issues or check someone's mailbox for business related email (say whilst they're out of the office) but routine snooping like this would not fly under any of the exceptions to date.
I agree HTTP challenges leave much to be desired but DNS based challenges aren't really much better. The scenario where someone compromises your DNS provider and can both answer a DNS based challenge and redirect traffic is equally as nasty and not as unlikely as you suggest. The more likely scenario is still a similar domain name attack anyway, as it's a lot easier to do. If you're compromised you need to check certificate transparency records for that domain and force a revoke, use CAA, and key pinning.
It is likely most certificate authorities will adopt ACME soon, it will probably become pretty much ubiquitous for domain validated certificates. Other CA's have issued phishing certs, the reason why LE is being used is because it doesn't cost rather than because they're the only automated shop out there. I would argue that any trust that LE may have destroyed shouldn't have been there in the first place anyway. Certificate authorities should concern themselves with organisation validated or extended validated certificates only and DV should only be treated as verified at the DNS level as that's the only way to solve the problem in real time.
This is not a question of simple economics you make it out to be as it involves little or no actual increase in costs to the telcos, as most of them operate across the EU anyway, just as separate companies from one group. With this they merely take a loss in premium revenue, of course they could always put prices up to try and recover that but potential competition makes that scary. So what to do? Well there is one way to save money, consolidation and that was the EU's plan to begin with.
The EU don't really care about roaming as such, it's the principle of a single common market for selling services that they want. Right now if I buy from Amazon in the EU the majority of goods are being legally sold by Amazon EU S.a.r.L a consolidated entity for most of Amazon's EU sales. By contrast if I get a cellular contract in the EU I have to go to a different company in each country. By killing roaming the EU is actually trying to entice companies to merge their operations across countries and sell across the entire single market.
NASA more standing than the oldest US LEO?
That is a possibility, some areas of NASA's research is more important to national security than protecting the borders from dodgy porn or similar. The exact nature of certain valving arrangements on liquid fuel rockets might be of interest to North Korea for example. Or some of their more advanced jet propulsion research might be of interest to Russia. The thing is that customs officer had no real good reason to search the phone and plenty of reasons why he shouldn't. Even if he did have the legal right to do it, it might not be the sensible thing to do.
Gas got that way because y'all invested pork in gas pipelines, processing and storage infrastructure for gas. Why not pumped storage instead? That way you benefit all forms of generation, also instant start.
If you believe it's sensible to have to obtain legal counsel to set up voluntary trade of digital goods—where nobody is forced to participate.
The thing is if you were trading in them like ordinary physical goods then that would be fine, but if you're selling out "licenses" which is essentially a rather complex contract, then yes getting a lawyer for different jurisdictions might be advisable. Dealing in international IP law is always going to be a mess because you're not selling something tangible and different countries have different rules and accepted customs. There have been attempts to harmonise law on this in the shape of TPP, Berne, etc but you're always going to anger someone because someone's law has to change.
Well they certainly got attention, shame that because of their actions it was the wrong kind. I do not particularly trust businesses from any country, as they all have security services and ways to lean on people. What I do trust is protocols, and if you break them you're out.
The problem is that if the enemy has some kind of new radar or algorithm that can undermine your stealth capability, they are going to do their best to keep this from you. Pilots then trained with absolute impunity in an aircraft may not then have practiced the skills necessary to deal with that radar. Also an unluckily even slightly damaged aircraft may lose stealth capability, something you also want to train for.
You use corner reflectors because you want to train people to use active and passive radar to track a target (like a MiG-21). A transponder ain't the kind of simulation you're after there because it's just squarking out an active position.
Blu-ray AACS was hacked years ago, mainly because the player keys kept leaking. However the truth is it doesn't really matter because streaming services made non-commercial piracy pretty much irrelevant economically (at least in the markets they care about). It's easier to pay Netflix or Amazon a lil fee and watch it straight on your TV than to pirate.
They still would come because they have nothing to lose, most of them have net assets of close to zero. The first generation tends to live hand to mouth. The people who make the money are the American factory owners and farmers who employ them. These are the people you would need to asset strip to stop employment of immigrants but if we think politicians are going to go after these people (their biggest donors) we are naive. Incidentally if the U.S. did manage to deport all 11 million of them it would cause a massive economic implosion due to a drop in demand for basic goods. It would likely also cause a closure of US factories and increase the offshoring of US industry.
Bad advice if you're in the UK. The lawful business regulations secondary legislation for the regulation of investigatory powers act make it clear that if you have reason to believe an email is personal rather than business or discover in the course of looking at it then it is protected by the act. Being criminal law this isn't something you can waive away by contract. The flip side being that a surprising number of uk agencies can demand access to anyone's emails in performance of an investigation.
Given that your job is to protect the company from making loss as much as help it make profit, you can quite safely say no. For starters it's a legal quagmire because it's tied into rent, this gets a multiplier if you are a multi state operation, I imagine getting a legal opinion in every state you operate is going to cost you. Plus the time to maintain it, and that added service desk calls. Add to that how much it would cost to successfully defend at least one class action lawsuit by an ambitious college legal clinic and subtract the profit from the (small scale) contracts. You will most likely get a negative number. There's also likely to be a hit to your tenants goodwill, that's hard to put a price on but also financially important, unhappy tenants leave apartments in worse states when they leave.
We do all make Telomerase in some of our stem cells, just not in somatic cells and certain semi-differentiated stem cells. In fact someone knocked out Telomerase in mice and showed they hyperaged and lived only 6 months (rather than 3 years) without it (interestingly they also found you could rescue them by reintroducing telomarase). In short Telomarase seems to be part of the cellular ageing mechanism, rather than the organism level one. Whatever is causing organism level ageing relates to more than just telomeres.
Depends what kind of monopoly you mean, because of regulation, maybe not in a Network Neutrality kind of way but it's still a monopoly. All but one of those options above are going over BT's local loop and a lot of the smaller operators also buy their exchange hub backhaul from BT (Also Plusnet is BT). BT Openreach (the bare wires bit) is pretty much a local monopoly in most of the country and thus why they're so heavily regulated. It's pretty hard to say how they'd behave if they weren't, but you can bet if they had a choice they'd not be sharing that loop. Outside of the cities it is BT Wholesale that is most definitely a monopoly, the rural broadband project was pretty much a flop and all of the contracts went to BT. This means that the way BT Wholesale's price list is set up in turn sets the business model for anyone who buys bandwidth and lines from them.
Without something to anchor your 500-1000 number, who will know how outraged they need to be?
And without knowing what those investigators were doing neither number is particularly useful. That's 1000 investigators and their entire lab staff most of them being scientists doing useful research not administrators etc. Unfortunately this doesn't just affect the current generation of scientists, it affects the next generation too. Not all of these labs will close, but there will certainly be a lot less capacity to take students and post docs. How this will impact research is pretty hard to predict, unfortunately it looks a bit more like the blunderbuss approach than the precision cull of the herd with a rifle and scope.
BP hasn't been very British in quite a while, a better name might be "Standard Oil" given how many of the component companies it is made up of came from that particular operation. It gets called British whenever it's politically expedient.
Even if you could argue you have the Employee's compelled consent for this, you most definitely do not have the website's consent. If the website in question is based in a two-party consent wiretap state, I'm wondering if employers might in fact be committing a felony by tapping the website's communications back to the client?
I'm surprised Chrome users don't get errors as a result of Google's hardcoded certificate pinning?
"had" being the past participle. You had a way to get data from SWIFT without consent but it's likely that particular doorway is now firmly closed. It's possible that the NSA could attempt to penetrate SWIFT again, but the heightened security measures likely to be in place and the political risks of getting caught again so soon after being caught once mean that's a long term op which is unlikely to be approved in the near future. Realistically though it is unlikely SWIFT data access will actually be cut, and even if it were, they'd still be able to access it through friendly agencies such as SIS and DGSE. The point is it's embarrassing and it slows things down.
We deal with the result of a explosives test by searching for explosives, and if the person has no explosives on them it is not reasonable that the person has explosives on them. Every test has the potential for a false positive and a rational person recognises that and adjusts their beliefs accordingly. If you continue to believe someone you've searched has explosives after you'd searched them then you're more irrational than they are. You're denying the evidence of your own eyes because of a pre-existing belief. What are they going to do? Pray the explosives into existence?
Irrational thought is not just confined to the religious.