If you want to keep a building secure, developing a white list of authorized people would be much easier, immediate, and practical, than trying to develop a black list of infected people who can't come in.
For this scheme to "somewhat" work, only the people that are *clear* of HIV would need to get implanted. Then periodically, the testing would have to be redone, the chip encryption/security model would have to be periodically upgraded, periodically re-implanted to keep up with the counterfeits, and at the same time the test is done, a current picture/description/fingerprints/timestamp of the test of the person this chip is destined for -- would have to be re-uploaded to it.
I realize there is still a six months delay between infection and manifestation of the antibodies, and I realize not all people will be rational about double-checking a chip before having sex, but at least, a far less rigorous system seems to be working fairly well for the US registered porn industry and the legal brothels in Nevada.
This is probably the test kit that the parent talks about. Notice the actual number of subjects this device was tested on. And notice, that the testing was done by the company itself, and that its results haven't been published in a peer-reviewed journal as of yet, year 2008.
Then notice that in the US, we've had this type of quick testing device already available since 2004. It has been approved for blood testing for HIV-1/2. And it has even been approved for saliva testing (at least for HIV-1, not HIV-2, for the saliva)
I'll allow it only if I can sign up as an indie artists and get some of the money, too.
(read: this is ludicrous and will never happen)
Hey man,
This same exact deal is already happening for internet radio, and sure some indies might even be getting paid that way.
That being said, saying "Sure, I'll work for you. Just pay me something. (but I know this will never happen)" is a lousy position to take. After all, this is the MTV generation, most people won't hear the second part of what you're saying. Hell, some politician might even read this, and think that you might even be ok with that kind deal.
Please do you research, ask for something concrete before you make any statement that might be misconstrued as an offer.
I'm pretty sure they already do this in the US with fingerprints. No conviction? Well, if we find your fingerprints at any crime scene in the future, you're gonna get it.
In California at least, they get your thumbprint at the DMV (the DMV is also used to provide California Identification Cards to non-drivers). And this reasoning kind of makes sense, by the time you're finished waiting in line at the DMV, you already feel like a criminal, so they might as well get your thumbprint while they're at it.
This self-booking requirement just seems like a good preemptive move to me. After all, I may trust myself, but I don't trust any of you guys.
It's clearly this one---> "replacement, modification, or support of the anatomy or a physiological process"
I could easily see a disabled police man having one for instance.
In my city for example, a police man is mandated by law to pass a target shooting test every couple of months. If he doesn't pass that test, he's basically not allowed to keep his job (even if his job is only a desk job where he is bound to never see any action).
Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if other jobs absolutely required a gun re-certification of some kind to be allowed to work. Police officer, park ranger, animal reserve/zoo keeper, military personnel, border patrol, prison guard/warden, bank armed guard, gun store owner/worker, pawn shop owner, convenience store worker, cargo/cruise boat captain/personnel, pharmacist, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, spy, mountain trapper, and Walm... (no, better not go there...).
The only weird part is that Medicare would take care of this. Medicare is for retired people (I think). Retired people usually don't work, thought some of them can still work without losing their benefits if they work without exceeding a certain level of income/hours. In one case I know of for example, a retired woman had to work, her social security was clearly not enough for her to live on, so she had to work enough to pay for her food and rent, but she couldn't work too much -- otherwise she would lose her Medicare benefits and never be able to afford her Medical care/medicine for sure.
In any case, don't worry guys. It was difficult enough for my own mom to get a canne reimbursed (even with a doctors note), I really doubt many old people would be able to get that kind of prostethic/ergonomic hand gun reimbursed as well. This is just a quirky example that just popped up, which I'm sure the manufacturer is squeezing for all the free publicity he can get.
Here's a better question: When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure?
I don't know. Someone who needs an organ transplant (or they'll die)? Someone who wants his food freshly killed?
If you think they're going to run into federal problems, that's only the start of it.
Sure, they'll start their research here, then they'll go abroad once they get shut down. Why do you think there is so much research being done in Africa for instance? In the 60s, we used military personnel and retarded kids to do research on. Now that we can't do that anymore, we've moved abroad to find cheaper and unprotected human lives.
If you're a Sprint customer and received a $14,000 bill for one month (for a supposed unlimited plan), you'd probably be saying the same thing about Sprint too. Personally, I just think both Cogent and Sprint deserve each other.
It doesn't really assist. That glove is only used for reeducation. He's not going to use it to play the guitar. The guy says it himself: "it's almost like a gym for my hand".
"They told me it is the highest reading they had for explosives and they took it very seriously.
"They were very jumpy and convinced there was something explosive in the dog."
Adding to your first: IP Lawyers are expensive. They usually charge by the hour and they don't mind taking more time than they actually need. Do as much research as you can before you meet with one. This way, you won't waste his time (and your money) asking basic questions, and you'll even be able to make quicker decisions on the spot that way.
The legal department stated that if I was paid by the University to produce the software, the University would own all rights to it.
Never trust the legal advice from counsel representing the opposite side. You should probably consult your *own* IP lawyer. If you haven't signed anything yet, you might still have some negotiation leverage (supposedly).
Also, if the only right you want to keep is the right to keep working on your own software (after that research is over), try to find a lawyer who is for open source, and see if open source could still get you that grant money -- but protect you -- if for some reason -- the University decided to take that entire project away from you. Open source is a great protection mechanism for core developers. I know it was for me (when I was working for a private company). The worst part might be that you lose the name of your project, but if that happens and even if you relaunch a rival project elsewhere, all the community and all the potential clients will simply follow whoever the original developers were to the new project.
That being said, do consult a lawyer to make him look at your specific situation. And talk to the actual faculty sponsoring the research, if they're high enough on the totem pole, they might be able to successfully pressure their legal department to give you a specific written exemption.
It's ironic that you would say that. The unreliable polygraph test is often being used to exclude Jews from getting their security clearance. Usually, it's not the device that does the discrimination, it's the person that's using the device that does. I suspect it will be the same thing with this new gizmo.
Step A. Someone purposely handles explosives or better saturates their shins/shoes with a chemical that would set off the bomb detector.
You mean, natural fertilizers of the good old fashioned kind? That's already been done. Every time a dog takes a poo, and someone steps into that poo -- that's a false (but valid) positive already. Personally, that's probably the only idiotic security Hollywood measure that I'm not too upset about. I like the side-effect of having no passengers saturated with poo board airplanes.
A good operator can usually tell if someone is deliberately trying to prevent them from establishing a baseline, but people with something to hide used to carry a thumbtack to poke their fingers with during questioning. It was supposed to allow them to concentrate on the pain instead of the questions, and prevent, or mask, the emotional/physical response that the machine could pick up. Then someone got caught and the operators would check for poke marks in the skin.
Yeah, yeah, a "good" psychic can also usually tell if someone is lying to them. That claim is so subjective, it can not possibly be proven wrong. What you've been told is just part of the obligatory mystic and diversionary tactic surrounding lie detectors. It's like when we tell little kids that they better be nice or Santa Claus will cross them off their list, and the little kids are so naive that they'll repeat the same warning with wonder and beaming pride (that they know so much) to everyone they meet.
The fact is, double-blind studies have proven that lie detectors are less than 2% effective. So how come we still have people (like Dr. Phil) claiming that they're 99.9% effective? Just google it. How come there seems to be no middle ground between those two opinions? That 99.9% claim is just part of the obligatory lie. It's part of the diversion and the intimidation required to make the damn "profession" stay alive and the "specialists" keep their job in the first place.
The second fact is, that part of the lie detector training is to always lie about where the real truth baseline is supposed to be. So when the operator tells you to lie about the color in the room, or some other nonsense, that's not the baseline, that was just the diversion. The real control question (or questions) will come later. And the real control question is some general question that the interrogator assumes you will lie about. So that's the real absurdity of it all! The entire premise of the lie detector is based on the false idea that the lie detector interrogator can even judge what is truth and what is a lie in the first place. It's a circular reference.
I guess one could concentrate on a mental image of Sarah Palin in a nipple bra to counter the Bin Laden image. Or, Dick Cheney as a Chippendale dancer.
Must...poke...out...mind's...eye....
I know that you were just joking, but double-blind studies made on subliminal messages showed that subliminal messages didn't even get registered in the brain and had no influence whatsoever on the subject. And by subliminal, those studies defined the term as meaning that the images or the sounds were shown/broadcast at frequencies not visible/perceivable to the conscious mind (so if you start flashing images where people can sort of tell what was there, then that's not subliminal anymore -- and that was outside the scope of those studies).
Also, there is no reason to flash an image of Bin Laden, Al-qaeida and Iraqi insurgents already know that those tests are complete bullshit. The only thing this kind of test at airports is designed to do is fool the American public into funneling funds into a fraudster's pockets.
I agree. The original question misframes the situation completely. Use whatever fulfills your business objectives. In some cases, open source may be more cost effective. In other cases, another commercial package may actually be more cost-effective (for instance, if you're switching from Oracle to MS SQL Server). In other cases still, you may find out that it's impossible (not cost-effective) to switch to anything else.
Open source, closed source, and/or out-source. Those are just a three options out of many-many more options that may save you a boat load of money. The thing is. Technologies change. Requirements change. What was a good idea a year or two ago, may not be the best for you right now. Make sure you keep your ears to the ground. Hire people who don't just know one technology. That being said, don't take too long to decide, and just be ready to roll back if things don't go the way you originally planned.
Get the Oreilly book "Programming Collective Intelligence" (the title of that book does not do the book justice). Try out a few of those algorithms. What you're suggesting is possible, but actually a lot of work. Make sure to tackle one simple narrow problem at a time, or you'll easily get lost and discouraged.
...leading to questions about where all of this supposed information came from.
A better question would be, why is gmail trying to suppress that information? Check your spam folder, and click on 'Display images below' (otherwise, you won't see it).
Actually, they can keep their music recording, it would be significant progress if just the lyrics and the musical sheet music were released under CC. May be, that's part of the problem, CC advocates have been focusing too much on the performance part of music. They(we)'re trying to replicate the current idiotic system, where the performer is king/God, when in fact we should be focusing on making the initial materials freely exchangeable to make the average Joe able to copy, remix, rewrite, remake, republish, and learn the art of making music/performing music.
Music shouldn't be made into a product, just to be "consumed". Music should be like dancing. It should be copied from the people around you. Everybody should partake in it, as imperfect as that process may be. It's the copying, the exchange, and finally the little variations that everybody adds (good or bad) that makes dancing so special and nourishing to the body and soul.
Sounds to me like an open-and-shut case of breach of contract.
You're forgetting just one thing, contract law doesn't apply to deployed military personnel. American civil/criminal law doesn't apply in a War zone. I don't know what applies there (but then, I'm in good company, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to know either).
(maybe accompanied by a warning that the media would be involved soon)
Military personnel is prohibited from embarrassing (or threatening to embarrass) their suppliers/supply chain, governmental or otherwise. The right to free (negative) speech is another right military personnel signed away when they signed up.
This soldier may have better luck asking his mom to call and make threats on his behalf. That would give him some plausible deniability. I know that a former Dell support employee on/. just said that Dell would never deal with a relative (for confidentiality reasons), but that employee mustn't have had much experience -- that specific reason has never stopped my own mom from dealing effectively with my own problems, and I'm not even in the military.
If I was in the military deployed somewhere in a War zone like Afghanistan, you could be sure that my mom would be constantly on the phone with Dell, frothing at the mouth, and constantly pressing that redial button every time they'd hung up on her -- until one day some Dell higher ups just decide to finally give up and deliver that new laptop personally to her -- fully-loaded with even some extra hardware and an extra battery at no extra charge -- with a free airplane ticket thrown in just for good measure just for her to personally deliver that new laptop to me in Afghanistan.
On a more serious note, if Dell does get that laptop to you after three or four months, do check its current retail price at the time of arrival (especially, if this happens after the holidays). The standard model of your laptop Dell offers may very well get discontinued, placed on sale, or silently upgraded, during that time period. So subtract a reasonable time for travel (that's a given), but if it takes way too long, check for a value difference, and try to get Dell to make up that difference.
Get a charge-back and then buy your Dell laptop locally. Chances are, you'll find three or four Dell laptops matching your exact requirements already in stock.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to keep a building secure, developing a white list of authorized people would be much easier, immediate, and practical, than trying to develop a black list of infected people who can't come in.
For this scheme to "somewhat" work, only the people that are *clear* of HIV would need to get implanted. Then periodically, the testing would have to be redone, the chip encryption/security model would have to be periodically upgraded, periodically re-implanted to keep up with the counterfeits, and at the same time the test is done, a current picture/description/fingerprints/timestamp of the test of the person this chip is destined for -- would have to be re-uploaded to it.
I realize there is still a six months delay between infection and manifestation of the antibodies, and I realize not all people will be rational about double-checking a chip before having sex, but at least, a far less rigorous system seems to be working fairly well for the US registered porn industry and the legal brothels in Nevada.
This is probably the test kit that the parent talks about. Notice the actual number of subjects this device was tested on. And notice, that the testing was done by the company itself, and that its results haven't been published in a peer-reviewed journal as of yet, year 2008.
Then notice that in the US, we've had this type of quick testing device already available since 2004. It has been approved for blood testing for HIV-1/2. And it has even been approved for saliva testing (at least for HIV-1, not HIV-2, for the saliva)
Hey man,
This same exact deal is already happening for internet radio, and sure some indies might even be getting paid that way.
That being said, saying "Sure, I'll work for you. Just pay me something. (but I know this will never happen)" is a lousy position to take. After all, this is the MTV generation, most people won't hear the second part of what you're saying. Hell, some politician might even read this, and think that you might even be ok with that kind deal.
Please do you research, ask for something concrete before you make any statement that might be misconstrued as an offer.
In California at least, they get your thumbprint at the DMV (the DMV is also used to provide California Identification Cards to non-drivers). And this reasoning kind of makes sense, by the time you're finished waiting in line at the DMV, you already feel like a criminal, so they might as well get your thumbprint while they're at it.
This self-booking requirement just seems like a good preemptive move to me. After all, I may trust myself, but I don't trust any of you guys.
It's clearly this one---> "replacement, modification, or support of the anatomy or a physiological process"
I could easily see a disabled police man having one for instance.
In my city for example, a police man is mandated by law to pass a target shooting test every couple of months. If he doesn't pass that test, he's basically not allowed to keep his job (even if his job is only a desk job where he is bound to never see any action).
Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if other jobs absolutely required a gun re-certification of some kind to be allowed to work. Police officer, park ranger, animal reserve/zoo keeper, military personnel, border patrol, prison guard/warden, bank armed guard, gun store owner/worker, pawn shop owner, convenience store worker, cargo/cruise boat captain/personnel, pharmacist, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, spy, mountain trapper, and Walm... (no, better not go there...).
The only weird part is that Medicare would take care of this. Medicare is for retired people (I think). Retired people usually don't work, thought some of them can still work without losing their benefits if they work without exceeding a certain level of income/hours. In one case I know of for example, a retired woman had to work, her social security was clearly not enough for her to live on, so she had to work enough to pay for her food and rent, but she couldn't work too much -- otherwise she would lose her Medicare benefits and never be able to afford her Medical care/medicine for sure.
In any case, don't worry guys. It was difficult enough for my own mom to get a canne reimbursed (even with a doctors note), I really doubt many old people would be able to get that kind of prostethic/ergonomic hand gun reimbursed as well. This is just a quirky example that just popped up, which I'm sure the manufacturer is squeezing for all the free publicity he can get.
I don't know. Someone who needs an organ transplant (or they'll die)? Someone who wants his food freshly killed?
Sure, they'll start their research here, then they'll go abroad once they get shut down. Why do you think there is so much research being done in Africa for instance? In the 60s, we used military personnel and retarded kids to do research on. Now that we can't do that anymore, we've moved abroad to find cheaper and unprotected human lives.
If you're a Sprint customer and received a $14,000 bill for one month (for a supposed unlimited plan), you'd probably be saying the same thing about Sprint too. Personally, I just think both Cogent and Sprint deserve each other.
It doesn't really assist. That glove is only used for reeducation. He's not going to use it to play the guitar. The guy says it himself: "it's almost like a gym for my hand".
If they're using his software, without having secured any of the rights to it yet -- may be he could sue too.
Perhaps, it's not like 1-800-dentist, and not many IP lawyers return your call at 7:30 PM.
Adding to your first: IP Lawyers are expensive. They usually charge by the hour and they don't mind taking more time than they actually need. Do as much research as you can before you meet with one. This way, you won't waste his time (and your money) asking basic questions, and you'll even be able to make quicker decisions on the spot that way.
You do realize that he hasn't signed anything away yet (at least, that's what he says). Anyway, he needs to check on this.
Never trust the legal advice from counsel representing the opposite side. You should probably consult your *own* IP lawyer. If you haven't signed anything yet, you might still have some negotiation leverage (supposedly).
Also, if the only right you want to keep is the right to keep working on your own software (after that research is over), try to find a lawyer who is for open source, and see if open source could still get you that grant money -- but protect you -- if for some reason -- the University decided to take that entire project away from you. Open source is a great protection mechanism for core developers. I know it was for me (when I was working for a private company). The worst part might be that you lose the name of your project, but if that happens and even if you relaunch a rival project elsewhere, all the community and all the potential clients will simply follow whoever the original developers were to the new project.
That being said, do consult a lawyer to make him look at your specific situation. And talk to the actual faculty sponsoring the research, if they're high enough on the totem pole, they might be able to successfully pressure their legal department to give you a specific written exemption.
It's ironic that you would say that. The unreliable polygraph test is often being used to exclude Jews from getting their security clearance. Usually, it's not the device that does the discrimination, it's the person that's using the device that does. I suspect it will be the same thing with this new gizmo.
You mean, natural fertilizers of the good old fashioned kind? That's already been done. Every time a dog takes a poo, and someone steps into that poo -- that's a false (but valid) positive already. Personally, that's probably the only idiotic security Hollywood measure that I'm not too upset about. I like the side-effect of having no passengers saturated with poo board airplanes.
Yeah, yeah, a "good" psychic can also usually tell if someone is lying to them. That claim is so subjective, it can not possibly be proven wrong. What you've been told is just part of the obligatory mystic and diversionary tactic surrounding lie detectors. It's like when we tell little kids that they better be nice or Santa Claus will cross them off their list, and the little kids are so naive that they'll repeat the same warning with wonder and beaming pride (that they know so much) to everyone they meet.
The fact is, double-blind studies have proven that lie detectors are less than 2% effective. So how come we still have people (like Dr. Phil) claiming that they're 99.9% effective? Just google it. How come there seems to be no middle ground between those two opinions? That 99.9% claim is just part of the obligatory lie. It's part of the diversion and the intimidation required to make the damn "profession" stay alive and the "specialists" keep their job in the first place.
The second fact is, that part of the lie detector training is to always lie about where the real truth baseline is supposed to be. So when the operator tells you to lie about the color in the room, or some other nonsense, that's not the baseline, that was just the diversion. The real control question (or questions) will come later. And the real control question is some general question that the interrogator assumes you will lie about. So that's the real absurdity of it all! The entire premise of the lie detector is based on the false idea that the lie detector interrogator can even judge what is truth and what is a lie in the first place. It's a circular reference.
I know that you were just joking, but double-blind studies made on subliminal messages showed that subliminal messages didn't even get registered in the brain and had no influence whatsoever on the subject. And by subliminal, those studies defined the term as meaning that the images or the sounds were shown/broadcast at frequencies not visible/perceivable to the conscious mind (so if you start flashing images where people can sort of tell what was there, then that's not subliminal anymore -- and that was outside the scope of those studies).
Also, there is no reason to flash an image of Bin Laden, Al-qaeida and Iraqi insurgents already know that those tests are complete bullshit. The only thing this kind of test at airports is designed to do is fool the American public into funneling funds into a fraudster's pockets.
I agree. The original question misframes the situation completely. Use whatever fulfills your business objectives. In some cases, open source may be more cost effective. In other cases, another commercial package may actually be more cost-effective (for instance, if you're switching from Oracle to MS SQL Server). In other cases still, you may find out that it's impossible (not cost-effective) to switch to anything else.
Open source, closed source, and/or out-source. Those are just a three options out of many-many more options that may save you a boat load of money. The thing is. Technologies change. Requirements change. What was a good idea a year or two ago, may not be the best for you right now. Make sure you keep your ears to the ground. Hire people who don't just know one technology. That being said, don't take too long to decide, and just be ready to roll back if things don't go the way you originally planned.
Get the Oreilly book "Programming Collective Intelligence" (the title of that book does not do the book justice). Try out a few of those algorithms. What you're suggesting is possible, but actually a lot of work. Make sure to tackle one simple narrow problem at a time, or you'll easily get lost and discouraged.
Thank your lucky stars your name is getting bumped off from the publicly available death list. That's just bad Voodoo.
A better question would be, why is gmail trying to suppress that information? Check your spam folder, and click on 'Display images below' (otherwise, you won't see it).
Actually, they can keep their music recording, it would be significant progress if just the lyrics and the musical sheet music were released under CC. May be, that's part of the problem, CC advocates have been focusing too much on the performance part of music. They(we)'re trying to replicate the current idiotic system, where the performer is king/God, when in fact we should be focusing on making the initial materials freely exchangeable to make the average Joe able to copy, remix, rewrite, remake, republish, and learn the art of making music/performing music.
Music shouldn't be made into a product, just to be "consumed". Music should be like dancing. It should be copied from the people around you. Everybody should partake in it, as imperfect as that process may be. It's the copying, the exchange, and finally the little variations that everybody adds (good or bad) that makes dancing so special and nourishing to the body and soul.
You're forgetting just one thing, contract law doesn't apply to deployed military personnel. American civil/criminal law doesn't apply in a War zone. I don't know what applies there (but then, I'm in good company, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to know either).
Military personnel is prohibited from embarrassing (or threatening to embarrass) their suppliers/supply chain, governmental or otherwise. The right to free (negative) speech is another right military personnel signed away when they signed up.
This soldier may have better luck asking his mom to call and make threats on his behalf. That would give him some plausible deniability. I know that a former Dell support employee on /. just said that Dell would never deal with a relative (for confidentiality reasons), but that employee mustn't have had much experience -- that specific reason has never stopped my own mom from dealing effectively with my own problems, and I'm not even in the military.
If I was in the military deployed somewhere in a War zone like Afghanistan, you could be sure that my mom would be constantly on the phone with Dell, frothing at the mouth, and constantly pressing that redial button every time they'd hung up on her -- until one day some Dell higher ups just decide to finally give up and deliver that new laptop personally to her -- fully-loaded with even some extra hardware and an extra battery at no extra charge -- with a free airplane ticket thrown in just for good measure just for her to personally deliver that new laptop to me in Afghanistan.
On a more serious note, if Dell does get that laptop to you after three or four months, do check its current retail price at the time of arrival (especially, if this happens after the holidays). The standard model of your laptop Dell offers may very well get discontinued, placed on sale, or silently upgraded, during that time period. So subtract a reasonable time for travel (that's a given), but if it takes way too long, check for a value difference, and try to get Dell to make up that difference.
Get a charge-back and then buy your Dell laptop locally. Chances are, you'll find three or four Dell laptops matching your exact requirements already in stock.