At the end of the article, she says she's cancelling her AOL account as a result. She shouldn't. There's absolutely no way AOL will ever do anything like that again.
What makes you say that? AOL have done many anti-customer things that they've been caught on and they don't change their behavior. Their target market doesn't know (or care) about these things.
Take the hastle you have cancelling for one. There was a recent story about a guy who recorded the process. My last AOL account was about seven or eight years ago and it was exactly the same. Nothing has changed. They are notorious for this sort of thing; it doesn't seem to bother them much. At best all that will change is they won't get caught again.
Well, the Paxo interview he basically says he's working with god and asked for advice. He stated that he prayed when deciding on conquring Iraq. It's well known that Bush regards himself as "on a mission from god" and apparently they have both prayed together.
What's more telling with respect to Blair is the "private academy" thing they are doing in London. All but a handful of these are "faith based" schools and they are teaching creationism. IIRC Blair thought that was a valid state of affairs when asked.
Alistair Campbell (mr spin) has frequently removed god references from Blairs speaches. It's his job to take the religious rhetoric and strip it down to just the rhetoric. I presume some opinion poll somewhere told them that the UK doesn't take to that style of politics in the same way as America.
The idea, implied in your post, that all anglo-saxon Christians are racists against all other people is racist in itself.
It's not an "idea", more of an observation. In fact, it's stating the obvious. We are a VERY racist people. It might not be down to our race specifically, but the fact is out of all the oppression dished out in the world, white folks are generally the ones behind the whip. It's probably more a western thing.
To be honest, we moved beyond race. Most hatred now is religious or nationalistic in nature. The USA is one of the most racist countries in the world, and my UK is catching up nicely. For example, we automatically call ANY Arabic government a "regime". This word play is common on our news channels, who are supposed to be independent.
But of course that is okay, since it is fashinable to bash anglo-saxon Christians right now, just as it was once fashionable to bash negros, judes, redskins, gooks, insert deragatory racial group term of your choice here.
I cannot disagree more. It's not fashion; it's repentance. We aren't saying WASP's are smelly, dumb, lazy, have hairy armpits or any other the other usual slurs. What we are saying is that whites are responsible for most of the crap in the world. Whites are responsible for most of the racism. In fact, the only family I know that is prejudiced against whites are some Asians that grew up in a white society in the UK and ran a shop. The older generation got so much abuse over the years that they are weary of all white people. On the other hand, racist garbage spouts from (in my experience) about half the white people I meet. They aren't even aware of it most of the time.
let's not forget who the good guys are. That's not to say we're perfect, far from it, but relatively speaking, it's no contest.
Sorry, I call shenanagins on that. No way are we the good guys. People don't fly planes into buildings because our political system or human rights. They hate us because of what our governments have done to them over the past fifty years. And having read much about the topic, they have every reason to hate us. We are the evil doers. We install brutal regimes for our own ecconomic pleasure. We'll happilly support tinpot dictators like Hussain and the Taliban and arm them to the teeth with WMD. We torture. We hold people indefinately without trial. We invade other countries without provocation and Iraq wasn't exactly the first time. What exactly do the "bad guys" do that we don't? And before you bring up equality, womens rights etc, remember where we were on those topics just 50 years ago.
Any premise of us being the "good guys" (tm) is completely false. Everyone always believes they are the good guys. Pick up a history book and learn why it's not us. You won't learn the truth from Hollywood or TV. At best we are 50-100 years ahead socially, but we are still a shower of dicks.
Actually, here in the UK, politicians tend to get laughed/sneered at when they mention the word "god".
Very true. Tony Blair has gone to great lengths to ensure that the voters do not know that he is a fundamentalist Christian. The man running our country believes that the world is 6,000 years old and man shared the earth with the dinosaurs.
There's a Jerermy Paxman interview where this stuff comes up. Now the interviewers are warned not to bring the topic up again.
Quite so, but that's not what this/. story is about. The story is about typosquatting.
This is slashdot; we have zero time for those who deal with facts or what the article actually says. Who cares if it's simply a case of a TLD that we've never heard of implementing wildcarding? That's boring. But an attack on the.com namespace? We'd better regime change those asshats asap and liberate their assets!
From what I understand, the government there controls (well, attempts to) the broadcast channels pretty damn strictly, and voicing an opposition political opinion is generally called "libel" and involves jail time.
Then we'd be right at home then. It's not hard to change "libel" to "trator". From reading a little about Cameroon, their government is as accountable as our own. Of course, we should just assume they are evil incarnate as they aren't white anglo-saxon Christians.
Looks like J.J. Abrams has a couple of people from "Lost" helping him out as producers on Star Trek XI, so I remain hopeful.
Is this the same producers that are literally making up "Lost" as they go along? And this is a good thing? Lost had oodles of potential then it well...lost it. Shame.
So Christians believe blowing someones head of is OK to watch or pretend to do?
Religious people have no issues with violence whatsoever. In fact, IMHO people who believe in god are pretty much capable of any level of evil. There's nowt more dangerous than someone who believes they are on a mission from god.
Don't believe me? Switch on CNN on the hour to the latest religious violence around the world. Each group believes they are just and their cause is valid. Often they believe that their enemies are sub-human e.g. the current Israeli/Lebanon war.
Are you saying european countries that allow sexual content on TV but ban violent video games don't have a religious population?
Which European countries have banned any games? In fact, I believe we are the ones making most of them IIRC. We don't draw distinctions over censorship although a bit of violence on during the childrens TV slots is a bit out and a bit of tittie might offend us Brits (but not the continentals). After 9pm anything's game.
Have i been saved by auto backups - yes, but I want to kbow when and what is set for auto backup so I can ensure it is appropriate.
Good points, there are valid reasons.
My experiences with ISO certs in the 9xxx range wer ethat they were audits of procedures and never really got into how well th eprocedures were followed or the outcomes generated
ISO 9xxx can be done well, part of it should be random audits of what's being done. The trick if you ask me is to have very light proceedures. If they are bloated they won't be read or followed.
Simple, fat fuck kids are GENERALLY fat fuck kids because they have... yep, fat fuck parents!
So very true. Just yesterday I was in the checkout aisle at my supermarket behind an incredibly huge mother and her already-chubby kids. The crap she was buying was obscene; boxes of chocolate bars and cakes plus lots of high-fat junk food. I was this close to having a word with her then thought better off not to. People like that are beyond help and I'd have only been counter-productive by bothering her.
Mod parent up, what he is describing is known as a "swap brick". The best way to create one is to close everything, set swap to a D: drive only, defrag the C: drive in safe mode (or another OS if you can) then enable the swap with the min/max the same as described. Your swap file will now consist of one very large file with no fragmentation. I tend to set min to 2x the ammount of physical ram.
Defraging from another OS will also fix this issue. A windows boot disk should be sufficient but I run two windows installs on my desktop making it very easy. Each OS is set to background defrag the other drive using Diskeeper. It's by far the best way to defrag as none of the files will be locked by the OS.
I've had this sort of netapp functionality at home ever since I worked for a company that used it for their home directories. In your $HOME, you'd have a folder ".snapshot" containing hourly.0, hourly.1 (etc) directories that had a snapshop of your homedir at that time.
You can set this up very easily using RIBS. It uses rsync and extfs hard links to emulate complete snapshots of your home dir. I cannot recommend this enough; knowing that you can delete/trash any data and have a reliable backup there is quite liberating.
Actually, I'd be more worried about what can be discovered in a lawsuit - the raw ruminations of some employee could be very damaging
So, lemmie get this straight...this technology is bad because it hinders your attempts to lie in court?
Personally I've had nightly snapshots made of my work and home machines for several years. It's saved my ass on more than one occasion and never once have I thought that one day I might need to lie in court and get screwed over it.
Anyone familiar with ISO9001? To get the creditation you cannot bin/destroy a document ever under any circumstances. The only reason you may want to destroy something is due to dishonesty and if you are going down that route I want nothing to do with you or your company. This is why many large businesses demand ISO9001 complience in their sub-contractors.
Speaking of ISO9001 by the way; this sort of technology is ideal for it however keeping it on the desktop is no use. It needs to be a central, backed-up server to be considered a reliable document store.
These were people who consented to an experimental presciption treatment. I have no idea how you can compare the two trials. Polyheme had to pass human trials before starting field trials.
So, you are saying drug trials never go wrong in the latter stages of testing? Wow, you have a lot of naive confidence. There's been drugs that have gotten all the way through and regularly prescribed by doctors that later turned out to have horrific side-effects. Unexpected bad things can happen at any stage in medicine, even after rigourous testing.
Now, you yourself bolded the word "consented". That's my point. Experimental drugs should never be given without consent ever. Even when it's a do-or-die situation (which Polyheme most certainally is not!), doctors still need consent from next of kin to take such risks.
I have to ask; are you a doctor? Please please please say no. I'll be horrified if you are. Personally, I reckon you are a drugs rep.
Also you are talking about national legalities and you link to a foreign country.
In conclusion, the only difference between current protocol and Polyheme is that the fluid being administered will be red and will actually help carry O2 instead of being clear and doing nothing.
The only difference? To put this in context, the UK has just recently had a major news item when one of these trials went horribly wrong back in March. The last of the victims has only just been released from hospital now in July. At least one is now permamently disabled (loss of fingers and toes). Google news search.
Hence the bold in the "only". "heart, liver and kidney failure, pneumonia, and septicaemia." are not "only differences". The potential for harm here is quite large and it is without consent. As such it's unethical. I honestly cannot believe people are debating this.
Don't be so ridiculus. Are you astro-turfing for them or something? I'm not saying that blood replacements should not be tested. Of course the traditional method has risks of disease but as you yourself say; screening has all but removed that risk.
The ONLY time an experimental treatment is valid WITHOUT CONSENT is when it's a life-or-death situation. The risk of disease from transfusion is so low that NO WAY IN HELL is this ethical. Not even in the slightest.
What the hell is happening in the US right now? It seems like everyone has completely abandoned all pretense of being moral and just. As long as you can find a legal means to do it, then it's alright apparently.
Just to play devils' advocate, what if you don't know if you have compatible blood? O- doesn't grow on trees. In this case, experimental fake blood is much better than dying on the field.
I hear your point but if people are dying then don't you think the solution would be to sort out the supply of O- and then work on a long-term solution in the lab? I've not heard of a specific O- shortage, have you? If it was a genuine emergency, then an experimental substitute could be used without ethical issues. But that's not the current sitution, it's a proper field study taking part on unwilling patients. Uncool.
How is that different from giving a placebo to somebody who has given informed consent to try an experimental drug?
Because the argument used for giving them this blood substitute is that "they'll die without it". That's clearly not the case if you are doing the experiment with a 50% control group. It's randomly assigned which group you are in. Doctors do not make potential life-saving decissions based on the toss of a coin.
People's lives were saved in these informed consent trials.
That's bullshit and you know it. It's a whole-blood substitute, not some revolutionary new treatment. Whole blood would have likely been better for the patients even without considering the unknown risks with this stuff.
It is designed for people who will die without it, so what's the problem?
Because whole-blood wasn't designed, it evolved. If anything our bodies are designed around blood. Just give them the real thing and stop being so cheap. If you need to test experimental treatments, take it to a war zone like we usually do.
The original website is down for maintainence at the moment so I can't see the video, but I guess it's one of those flash shock/surprise one right? Well, get this; most kids like this sort of thing.
Kids like funfair rides/ghost trains. They like scary stories. They like to go boo! They like like dinosaurs. This is no big deal and I seriously doubt that it has done any harm. It's all a part of growing up. Sure, you can wrap them in cotton-wool and spend your whole life trying to keep a smile on their faces. Then they hit the real world and are completely unprepared for the surprises that it brings.
But if the end is "yay, I'm alive, not dead" and the means is "oh noes, I didn't tell them they could save my life even though I was unconscious", I'd say the ends justify the means. No?
In other situations that may apply. However, this is a replacement for regular blood, not an experiemental treatment that might save you. It offers nothing new over real blood other than unknowns. It has a better shelf life, that's all, something completely irrelevant to the patient in a western urban environment where real blood is readilly available.
15,000 Thalidomide children don't quite agree with your "whatever". And that was a drug that had passed this stage of testing before the side-effects were known. I won't post a link to a picture of one of these kids as it's now illegal to goatse someone.
The point is, all of their potential side effects are pretty weak compared to bleeding to death.
Typical polar argument, you're either with us or against us, right? Well, there is a third option. Give the patient REAL blood. The point of this trial isn't that we are low on blood. What the artificial blood has in it's favour is shelf life. Nothing more.
You have to realize, all of those potential side effects are small probabilities
Potential side effects of replacing a few units of blood are "small"? I guess you aren't a doctor. This is an experimental blood replacement. The "potential" side effect is death. Less serious risks include brain damage, organ damage and loss of limbs. Your blood circulation is essential to your functioning, it's such a fundamental body system that experiementing without concent is morally reprehensible.
This trial is completely unethical in every respect. Ever doctor/nurse I have told about it has been completely dumbfounded. They don't believe me and I have to send them a link to it. It may be technically legal, but it's morally corrupt. It's indicative of the "technically legal" world we live in, where integritty was outsourced long ago. Any EMT involved in this is breaking their hippocratic oath:
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
This trial does not benefit the patients (i.e. it's not "for the good of my patients") and has the very real potential of causing serious harm. It's just wrong wrong wrong.
If you founded such a company, and if because of your stand, some of your customers actually turned out to be terrorists, who then did some of the things we all fear, like setting off a nuke, how would you feel?
Well, the terrorists use the telephone and mail systems. Should we do away with them? What about cars, didn't they drive to the airport on 9-11?
By the way, here's and interesting link discussing wiretaps and the whole statistics behind this screening. Even in their best-case scenario it's a joke. Extract:
Suppose that NSA's system is more accurate than.40, let's say,.70, which means that 70% of terrorists in the USA will be found by mass monitoring of phone calls and email messages. Then, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that a person is a terrorist if targeted by NSA is still only p=0.0228, which is near zero, far from one, and useless.
That's what makes the issue difficult; if you try to uphold the liberty we all believe in, there's a chance you can help people who literally want to see us destroyed.
They don't want to see you destroyed; that's the BIG LIE here. They want your country to stop messing about in the middle east. You know, supporting Saddam, installing puppet regimes in Iran and more recently; priority shipping of new weapons to Israel while the rest of the world is screaming for some sanity. You've made them your ememies over your actions, their hatred of America is not rooted in idealogical beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you say that? AOL have done many anti-customer things that they've been caught on and they don't change their behavior. Their target market doesn't know (or care) about these things.
Take the hastle you have cancelling for one. There was a recent story about a guy who recorded the process. My last AOL account was about seven or eight years ago and it was exactly the same. Nothing has changed. They are notorious for this sort of thing; it doesn't seem to bother them much. At best all that will change is they won't get caught again.
Well, the Paxo interview he basically says he's working with god and asked for advice. He stated that he prayed when deciding on conquring Iraq. It's well known that Bush regards himself as "on a mission from god" and apparently they have both prayed together.
What's more telling with respect to Blair is the "private academy" thing they are doing in London. All but a handful of these are "faith based" schools and they are teaching creationism. IIRC Blair thought that was a valid state of affairs when asked.
Alistair Campbell (mr spin) has frequently removed god references from Blairs speaches. It's his job to take the religious rhetoric and strip it down to just the rhetoric. I presume some opinion poll somewhere told them that the UK doesn't take to that style of politics in the same way as America.
It's not an "idea", more of an observation. In fact, it's stating the obvious. We are a VERY racist people. It might not be down to our race specifically, but the fact is out of all the oppression dished out in the world, white folks are generally the ones behind the whip. It's probably more a western thing.
To be honest, we moved beyond race. Most hatred now is religious or nationalistic in nature. The USA is one of the most racist countries in the world, and my UK is catching up nicely. For example, we automatically call ANY Arabic government a "regime". This word play is common on our news channels, who are supposed to be independent.
I cannot disagree more. It's not fashion; it's repentance. We aren't saying WASP's are smelly, dumb, lazy, have hairy armpits or any other the other usual slurs. What we are saying is that whites are responsible for most of the crap in the world. Whites are responsible for most of the racism. In fact, the only family I know that is prejudiced against whites are some Asians that grew up in a white society in the UK and ran a shop. The older generation got so much abuse over the years that they are weary of all white people. On the other hand, racist garbage spouts from (in my experience) about half the white people I meet. They aren't even aware of it most of the time.
Sorry, I call shenanagins on that. No way are we the good guys. People don't fly planes into buildings because our political system or human rights. They hate us because of what our governments have done to them over the past fifty years. And having read much about the topic, they have every reason to hate us. We are the evil doers. We install brutal regimes for our own ecconomic pleasure. We'll happilly support tinpot dictators like Hussain and the Taliban and arm them to the teeth with WMD. We torture. We hold people indefinately without trial. We invade other countries without provocation and Iraq wasn't exactly the first time. What exactly do the "bad guys" do that we don't? And before you bring up equality, womens rights etc, remember where we were on those topics just 50 years ago.
Any premise of us being the "good guys" (tm) is completely false. Everyone always believes they are the good guys. Pick up a history book and learn why it's not us. You won't learn the truth from Hollywood or TV. At best we are 50-100 years ahead socially, but we are still a shower of dicks.
Very true. Tony Blair has gone to great lengths to ensure that the voters do not know that he is a fundamentalist Christian. The man running our country believes that the world is 6,000 years old and man shared the earth with the dinosaurs.
There's a Jerermy Paxman interview where this stuff comes up. Now the interviewers are warned not to bring the topic up again.
This is slashdot; we have zero time for those who deal with facts or what the article actually says. Who cares if it's simply a case of a TLD that we've never heard of implementing wildcarding? That's boring. But an attack on the .com namespace? We'd better regime change those asshats asap and liberate their assets!
Then we'd be right at home then. It's not hard to change "libel" to "trator". From reading a little about Cameroon, their government is as accountable as our own. Of course, we should just assume they are evil incarnate as they aren't white anglo-saxon Christians.
Is this the same producers that are literally making up "Lost" as they go along? And this is a good thing? Lost had oodles of potential then it well...lost it. Shame.
Rendering 3D and making sense of a real 3D environment are quite different feats however.
Religious people have no issues with violence whatsoever. In fact, IMHO people who believe in god are pretty much capable of any level of evil. There's nowt more dangerous than someone who believes they are on a mission from god.
Don't believe me? Switch on CNN on the hour to the latest religious violence around the world. Each group believes they are just and their cause is valid. Often they believe that their enemies are sub-human e.g. the current Israeli/Lebanon war.
Which European countries have banned any games? In fact, I believe we are the ones making most of them IIRC. We don't draw distinctions over censorship although a bit of violence on during the childrens TV slots is a bit out and a bit of tittie might offend us Brits (but not the continentals). After 9pm anything's game.
Good points, there are valid reasons.
ISO 9xxx can be done well, part of it should be random audits of what's being done. The trick if you ask me is to have very light proceedures. If they are bloated they won't be read or followed.
So very true. Just yesterday I was in the checkout aisle at my supermarket behind an incredibly huge mother and her already-chubby kids. The crap she was buying was obscene; boxes of chocolate bars and cakes plus lots of high-fat junk food. I was this close to having a word with her then thought better off not to. People like that are beyond help and I'd have only been counter-productive by bothering her.
Mod parent up, what he is describing is known as a "swap brick". The best way to create one is to close everything, set swap to a D: drive only, defrag the C: drive in safe mode (or another OS if you can) then enable the swap with the min/max the same as described. Your swap file will now consist of one very large file with no fragmentation. I tend to set min to 2x the ammount of physical ram.
Defraging from another OS will also fix this issue. A windows boot disk should be sufficient but I run two windows installs on my desktop making it very easy. Each OS is set to background defrag the other drive using Diskeeper. It's by far the best way to defrag as none of the files will be locked by the OS.
I've had this sort of netapp functionality at home ever since I worked for a company that used it for their home directories. In your $HOME, you'd have a folder ".snapshot" containing hourly.0, hourly.1 (etc) directories that had a snapshop of your homedir at that time.
You can set this up very easily using RIBS. It uses rsync and extfs hard links to emulate complete snapshots of your home dir. I cannot recommend this enough; knowing that you can delete/trash any data and have a reliable backup there is quite liberating.
So, lemmie get this straight...this technology is bad because it hinders your attempts to lie in court?
Personally I've had nightly snapshots made of my work and home machines for several years. It's saved my ass on more than one occasion and never once have I thought that one day I might need to lie in court and get screwed over it.
Anyone familiar with ISO9001? To get the creditation you cannot bin/destroy a document ever under any circumstances. The only reason you may want to destroy something is due to dishonesty and if you are going down that route I want nothing to do with you or your company. This is why many large businesses demand ISO9001 complience in their sub-contractors.
Speaking of ISO9001 by the way; this sort of technology is ideal for it however keeping it on the desktop is no use. It needs to be a central, backed-up server to be considered a reliable document store.
So, you are saying drug trials never go wrong in the latter stages of testing? Wow, you have a lot of naive confidence. There's been drugs that have gotten all the way through and regularly prescribed by doctors that later turned out to have horrific side-effects. Unexpected bad things can happen at any stage in medicine, even after rigourous testing.
Now, you yourself bolded the word "consented". That's my point. Experimental drugs should never be given without consent ever. Even when it's a do-or-die situation (which Polyheme most certainally is not!), doctors still need consent from next of kin to take such risks.
I have to ask; are you a doctor? Please please please say no. I'll be horrified if you are. Personally, I reckon you are a drugs rep.
Since when did ethics have borders?
The only difference? To put this in context, the UK has just recently had a major news item when one of these trials went horribly wrong back in March. The last of the victims has only just been released from hospital now in July. At least one is now permamently disabled (loss of fingers and toes). Google news search.
Hence the bold in the "only". "heart, liver and kidney failure, pneumonia, and septicaemia." are not "only differences". The potential for harm here is quite large and it is without consent. As such it's unethical. I honestly cannot believe people are debating this.
Don't be so ridiculus. Are you astro-turfing for them or something? I'm not saying that blood replacements should not be tested. Of course the traditional method has risks of disease but as you yourself say; screening has all but removed that risk.
The ONLY time an experimental treatment is valid WITHOUT CONSENT is when it's a life-or-death situation. The risk of disease from transfusion is so low that NO WAY IN HELL is this ethical. Not even in the slightest.
What the hell is happening in the US right now? It seems like everyone has completely abandoned all pretense of being moral and just. As long as you can find a legal means to do it, then it's alright apparently.
I hear your point but if people are dying then don't you think the solution would be to sort out the supply of O- and then work on a long-term solution in the lab? I've not heard of a specific O- shortage, have you? If it was a genuine emergency, then an experimental substitute could be used without ethical issues. But that's not the current sitution, it's a proper field study taking part on unwilling patients. Uncool.
Because the argument used for giving them this blood substitute is that "they'll die without it". That's clearly not the case if you are doing the experiment with a 50% control group. It's randomly assigned which group you are in. Doctors do not make potential life-saving decissions based on the toss of a coin.
That's bullshit and you know it. It's a whole-blood substitute, not some revolutionary new treatment. Whole blood would have likely been better for the patients even without considering the unknown risks with this stuff.
Because whole-blood wasn't designed, it evolved. If anything our bodies are designed around blood. Just give them the real thing and stop being so cheap. If you need to test experimental treatments, take it to a war zone like we usually do.
The original website is down for maintainence at the moment so I can't see the video, but I guess it's one of those flash shock/surprise one right? Well, get this; most kids like this sort of thing.
Kids like funfair rides/ghost trains. They like scary stories. They like to go boo! They like like dinosaurs. This is no big deal and I seriously doubt that it has done any harm. It's all a part of growing up. Sure, you can wrap them in cotton-wool and spend your whole life trying to keep a smile on their faces. Then they hit the real world and are completely unprepared for the surprises that it brings.
In other situations that may apply. However, this is a replacement for regular blood, not an experiemental treatment that might save you. It offers nothing new over real blood other than unknowns. It has a better shelf life, that's all, something completely irrelevant to the patient in a western urban environment where real blood is readilly available.
15,000 Thalidomide children don't quite agree with your "whatever". And that was a drug that had passed this stage of testing before the side-effects were known. I won't post a link to a picture of one of these kids as it's now illegal to goatse someone.
Typical polar argument, you're either with us or against us, right? Well, there is a third option. Give the patient REAL blood. The point of this trial isn't that we are low on blood. What the artificial blood has in it's favour is shelf life. Nothing more.
Potential side effects of replacing a few units of blood are "small"? I guess you aren't a doctor. This is an experimental blood replacement. The "potential" side effect is death. Less serious risks include brain damage, organ damage and loss of limbs. Your blood circulation is essential to your functioning, it's such a fundamental body system that experiementing without concent is morally reprehensible.
This trial is completely unethical in every respect. Ever doctor/nurse I have told about it has been completely dumbfounded. They don't believe me and I have to send them a link to it. It may be technically legal, but it's morally corrupt. It's indicative of the "technically legal" world we live in, where integritty was outsourced long ago. Any EMT involved in this is breaking their hippocratic oath:
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
This trial does not benefit the patients (i.e. it's not "for the good of my patients") and has the very real potential of causing serious harm. It's just wrong wrong wrong.
Well, the terrorists use the telephone and mail systems. Should we do away with them? What about cars, didn't they drive to the airport on 9-11?
By the way, here's and interesting link discussing wiretaps and the whole statistics behind this screening. Even in their best-case scenario it's a joke. Extract:
Suppose that NSA's system is more accurate than .40, let's say, .70, which means that 70% of terrorists in the USA will be found by mass monitoring of phone calls and email messages. Then, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that a person is a terrorist if targeted by NSA is still only p=0.0228, which is near zero, far from one, and useless.
They don't want to see you destroyed; that's the BIG LIE here. They want your country to stop messing about in the middle east. You know, supporting Saddam, installing puppet regimes in Iran and more recently; priority shipping of new weapons to Israel while the rest of the world is screaming for some sanity. You've made them your ememies over your actions, their hatred of America is not rooted in idealogical beliefs.