I can see you haven't read the fine article, have you? Well, of course not, since you would have click on the hyperlink which says exactly all you need to know to not post idiotic comments totally irrelevant to what the OP is talking about. People like you are a shame on/., they are like trolls and waste time of all these people replying to your comments adding to your comment like it was relevant because neither of them did read the article or even the summary.
Read my comments to others above. I have answered this question in detail. A criminal prosectution cannot be initiated by an individual. This is initiated by the general attorney or a representative. This attorney is due to the government, the same entity that is managing the healthcare system and paying for it, and has an interest to reduce the burden of the healthcare system on the budget.
You are talking theory, I am talking practice. Did you ever try to sue a doctor who has kill your mother without her consent? I did and the police never investigated the case because it is medical matter and the general attorney never sue anyone. And all this before this Supreme court decision while the doctors' actions were criminal.
Yes, but the decision to prosecute in first place is taken by the General Attorney which is a dependant of the government which itself has some interest into reducing the costs of the eldery on the health care system in Canada since it is paid by the government.
Sorry again to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. You are living in an ideal world, an utopia and want to believe it. The reality is papers are falsifiable and are actually falsified. I have the medical records of my mother which was killed by the doctor, and I was there when it happened, they lied to us to inject her a letal dose of morphin and another 'medication' which does not figure on the medical records. The medical records are wrong on many aspect, including the description of this episode. Accordingly to the medical records, they did inject her in an inexistent catheter. I was monitoring her vitals and it is very obvious she was dying for good when they gave her the last injection (unidentified substance on the medical records), her hearthbeat quickly fall and she died after 30 minutes.
They told us they were giving her morphin to help her sleep and recover. A plain lie in our face. I was there with four of my sisters. All witnesses and the police never investigated the case I reported to it.
I believe you don't know what you are talking about. I did try to sue a doctor for killing my own mother without her consent and before this judgment from the Supreme court of Canada. I then filed a complain to the police officiers and the province prosecutor refuses to sue. I remind you this was not even legal and this doctor did act so under the current criminal laws.
Do you know why the police refuses to even take the case? Because, living in province of Quebec, there was a legistlative debat to make assisted suicide legal and they do not want to interfer with it. You are very naive to believe suffice for a court to put some restrictions to have these restrictions actually followed in good faith by the authority that have all the interest to not follow it. You can produce hills of administrative papers and documents to make everything appearing as legal to everyone. The larger the amount, the lower are the chances someone will have enough time to go through it.
Supreme court of Canada is opening here a very dangerous door.
Of course, the money you pump into the system is limited and their own share is then as well. Usually, eldery people are not consuming doctors resources, they are consuming other resources in the health care system. The doctors do not make much money with eldery and there is not lack of patients neither. It is not like they will become unemployed if their patients deceases.
Vulnerable people which are the major target here are just that vulnerable and influencable. It is pretty much easy for care staff, doctors and other medical people to convince someone in this situation his life doesn't worth to be lived. It is also very easy for these people to make the life of these people miserable up to the point they will ask themselves for someone to terminate it. This is an open door to abuse and abuse there will be.
False, it is not to the Supreme court the make the laws and the definitions. They just said to the government to amend the law and never dictated how. The governement has to comply with the fact it cannot prevent someone to terminate his own life. The Supreme court is not the government, it just can emphasise the government must make laws complying with the constitution.
So, end your days when you are still capable to decide. Opening the door to let someone decide for you because you have lost this capability and you believe today these individuals should be terminated is not the way to do it. You believe you have a right to decide. Yes, of course as long as you are capable to decide. Beside that, no one has the right to kill someone else, be he a doctor (m.d.).
Giving a de facto authorisation to doctors to terminate life when someone is incapable to decide is opening the door wide to abuse by the doctors and by the government itself. In case you are not aware, the healthcare in Canada is paid by the government acting as an insurer, when times are hard, the temptation is high to end the life of many who are costing to the treasury even if they paid tax their whole life to have access to this healthcare when growing old.
I believe the General Attorney of Canada missed the point in this case and did not defend properly his position. If you can easily think anyone has the right to decide for his own life, the point is about asking someone else to kill him. The argument revolved around the right for an individual to put an end to his days, and this has been declared unconstitutional to force him to live. However, what about giving permission to someone to kill someone else? This is the entire point at my humble opinion and this is where there will be abuses. It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.
Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.
Not true. Because you can make a dirty bomb or likelier have next door Joe manipulate radioactive material trying to tune his car and have himself killed in the process as well as spoiling the entire neigbourhood. You cannot turn nuclear material/waste into military grade fissile material without oparating the reactor in a particular mode, providing it is of the right type in first place. Turning nuclear reactors into bombs is Hollywood blockbuster's bullshit.
Watson is a bad example since the goal of Watson was to be a showcase of what can be done in a particular area. It was the same with Deep Blue, the computer that win against the world chess champion Gary Kasparov. Nobody is using Deep Blue or Deep Blue like machines to play chess. This was an algorithm and architecture challenge. The same hold for Watson.
The argument using Watson's incapacity to make IBM the most profitable company in the world is then irrelevant. However, IBM is selling since a long time decision assistance and business intelligence solutions, mainly from Cognos until the acquired the company in 2007. Despit these tools, they did not become the most profitable company in the world neither. However, who knows if the situation wouldn't have been worst without computer aided decision and business intelligence for IBM? It is not because you can make sense of the data, extract useful information you can change everything in a big company like IBM to meet instantaneously the market demand and be fully oriented with the most profitable segments. Moving a company like IBM is a long and tedious process.
In summary, this article is bullshit. It doesn't take into account for a large number of things which cannot be neglected in such an analysis.
Space is the barrier and the universe is expanding. We are lucky to live in an era it is still observable as the universe is cooling and expanding our horizon of observation is shrinking.
Seriously, you don't know anything about economics. You are confusing economic policies with economics itself. Economics can lead to choices and can be used to support ideologies, but it isn't an ideology by itself. That's what you are not understanding. If you consider climatology and cosmology are sciences, economics is surely a science too.
In fact, even psychology is a science and sociology too.
Economics isn't an ideology. Are you retarded or just ignorant? You are telling us about Greenspan's policies. Policies aren't economics, they are policies, they are politics and they are ideologies. But economics isn't an ideology. And of course it is interwined with politics, it doesn't mean at all it is an ideology. What you are saying is like saying physics is just mathematics.
You are just refraining complains from social science people who do not understand anything about economics because it requires some knowledge of math. And again, it is like you are saying physics cannot be a science because there is many unproven theories that coexists. Frankly, you are an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see you haven't read the fine article, have you? Well, of course not, since you would have click on the hyperlink which says exactly all you need to know to not post idiotic comments totally irrelevant to what the OP is talking about. People like you are a shame on /., they are like trolls and waste time of all these people replying to your comments adding to your comment like it was relevant because neither of them did read the article or even the summary.
There is no such thing like life insurance in Canada. The system is paid and managed by the government.
Read my comments to others above. I have answered this question in detail. A criminal prosectution cannot be initiated by an individual. This is initiated by the general attorney or a representative. This attorney is due to the government, the same entity that is managing the healthcare system and paying for it, and has an interest to reduce the burden of the healthcare system on the budget.
You are talking theory, I am talking practice. Did you ever try to sue a doctor who has kill your mother without her consent? I did and the police never investigated the case because it is medical matter and the general attorney never sue anyone. And all this before this Supreme court decision while the doctors' actions were criminal.
Yes, but the decision to prosecute in first place is taken by the General Attorney which is a dependant of the government which itself has some interest into reducing the costs of the eldery on the health care system in Canada since it is paid by the government.
Sorry again to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. You are living in an ideal world, an utopia and want to believe it. The reality is papers are falsifiable and are actually falsified. I have the medical records of my mother which was killed by the doctor, and I was there when it happened, they lied to us to inject her a letal dose of morphin and another 'medication' which does not figure on the medical records. The medical records are wrong on many aspect, including the description of this episode. Accordingly to the medical records, they did inject her in an inexistent catheter. I was monitoring her vitals and it is very obvious she was dying for good when they gave her the last injection (unidentified substance on the medical records), her hearthbeat quickly fall and she died after 30 minutes.
They told us they were giving her morphin to help her sleep and recover. A plain lie in our face. I was there with four of my sisters. All witnesses and the police never investigated the case I reported to it.
I believe you don't know what you are talking about. I did try to sue a doctor for killing my own mother without her consent and before this judgment from the Supreme court of Canada. I then filed a complain to the police officiers and the province prosecutor refuses to sue. I remind you this was not even legal and this doctor did act so under the current criminal laws.
Do you know why the police refuses to even take the case? Because, living in province of Quebec, there was a legistlative debat to make assisted suicide legal and they do not want to interfer with it. You are very naive to believe suffice for a court to put some restrictions to have these restrictions actually followed in good faith by the authority that have all the interest to not follow it. You can produce hills of administrative papers and documents to make everything appearing as legal to everyone. The larger the amount, the lower are the chances someone will have enough time to go through it.
Supreme court of Canada is opening here a very dangerous door.
Of course, the money you pump into the system is limited and their own share is then as well. Usually, eldery people are not consuming doctors resources, they are consuming other resources in the health care system. The doctors do not make much money with eldery and there is not lack of patients neither. It is not like they will become unemployed if their patients deceases.
Every suicidal people is already considered mentally ill. How can you then consider someone in this situation is capable to decide for his own life?
In fact, the Supreme court seems more enclined to protect the right to die than the right to live.
Vulnerable people which are the major target here are just that vulnerable and influencable. It is pretty much easy for care staff, doctors and other medical people to convince someone in this situation his life doesn't worth to be lived. It is also very easy for these people to make the life of these people miserable up to the point they will ask themselves for someone to terminate it. This is an open door to abuse and abuse there will be.
False, it is not to the Supreme court the make the laws and the definitions. They just said to the government to amend the law and never dictated how. The governement has to comply with the fact it cannot prevent someone to terminate his own life. The Supreme court is not the government, it just can emphasise the government must make laws complying with the constitution.
So, end your days when you are still capable to decide. Opening the door to let someone decide for you because you have lost this capability and you believe today these individuals should be terminated is not the way to do it. You believe you have a right to decide. Yes, of course as long as you are capable to decide. Beside that, no one has the right to kill someone else, be he a doctor (m.d.).
Giving a de facto authorisation to doctors to terminate life when someone is incapable to decide is opening the door wide to abuse by the doctors and by the government itself. In case you are not aware, the healthcare in Canada is paid by the government acting as an insurer, when times are hard, the temptation is high to end the life of many who are costing to the treasury even if they paid tax their whole life to have access to this healthcare when growing old.
I believe the General Attorney of Canada missed the point in this case and did not defend properly his position. If you can easily think anyone has the right to decide for his own life, the point is about asking someone else to kill him. The argument revolved around the right for an individual to put an end to his days, and this has been declared unconstitutional to force him to live. However, what about giving permission to someone to kill someone else? This is the entire point at my humble opinion and this is where there will be abuses. It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.
Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.
Not true. Because you can make a dirty bomb or likelier have next door Joe manipulate radioactive material trying to tune his car and have himself killed in the process as well as spoiling the entire neigbourhood. You cannot turn nuclear material/waste into military grade fissile material without oparating the reactor in a particular mode, providing it is of the right type in first place. Turning nuclear reactors into bombs is Hollywood blockbuster's bullshit.
A nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb and cannot turn into one even if the core melt. So, no fucking boom.
Watson is a bad example since the goal of Watson was to be a showcase of what can be done in a particular area. It was the same with Deep Blue, the computer that win against the world chess champion Gary Kasparov. Nobody is using Deep Blue or Deep Blue like machines to play chess. This was an algorithm and architecture challenge. The same hold for Watson.
The argument using Watson's incapacity to make IBM the most profitable company in the world is then irrelevant. However, IBM is selling since a long time decision assistance and business intelligence solutions, mainly from Cognos until the acquired the company in 2007. Despit these tools, they did not become the most profitable company in the world neither. However, who knows if the situation wouldn't have been worst without computer aided decision and business intelligence for IBM? It is not because you can make sense of the data, extract useful information you can change everything in a big company like IBM to meet instantaneously the market demand and be fully oriented with the most profitable segments. Moving a company like IBM is a long and tedious process.
In summary, this article is bullshit. It doesn't take into account for a large number of things which cannot be neglected in such an analysis.
Better, you can let him think he hasn't burn enough calories and make him running forever.
What about 3-d printed drones?
I'd say fifty shades of grey phone due to the sado-masochist practices that resulted from its introduction in the market.
Space is the barrier and the universe is expanding. We are lucky to live in an era it is still observable as the universe is cooling and expanding our horizon of observation is shrinking.
Then God was zapped by a gamma-burst, that's why he has been never observed so far.
So, seriously, fuck off and grow up.
gstoddart, I'm your father.
Seriously, you don't know anything about economics. You are confusing economic policies with economics itself. Economics can lead to choices and can be used to support ideologies, but it isn't an ideology by itself. That's what you are not understanding. If you consider climatology and cosmology are sciences, economics is surely a science too.
In fact, even psychology is a science and sociology too.
Economics isn't an ideology. Are you retarded or just ignorant? You are telling us about Greenspan's policies. Policies aren't economics, they are policies, they are politics and they are ideologies. But economics isn't an ideology. And of course it is interwined with politics, it doesn't mean at all it is an ideology. What you are saying is like saying physics is just mathematics.
You are just refraining complains from social science people who do not understand anything about economics because it requires some knowledge of math. And again, it is like you are saying physics cannot be a science because there is many unproven theories that coexists. Frankly, you are an idiot.
Yes, that's what he said. In foreign currency. No more euros, US dollars please or British pounds.