You will still have the option of using a doctor that doesn't use this method, if you can find one.
The simple fact is that this can give a doctor better data, and better data is usually not a bad thing. Doctors can and should fire patients, just as patients can find a new doctor. In Pain Management practice, they make people pee into a cup to prove that they are taking - rather than selling - their pain meds.
In addition to helping doctors treat their patients who think they have an MD, I could see this helping with the mentally ill. Prior to Carter, the mentally ill were basically tucked away out of sight in asylums. Then they invented effective anti-psychotic medication, and so it became possible to treat the mentally ill. Of course, a treated mentally ill person does not need to be tucked away in an asylum anymore, so they were released... and a significant portion stopped taking their medication. A tool like this would be a good way to balance society's interests in not having a bunch of untreated psychotics living on the city streets with the individual rights of the mentally ill.
.I've no idea where you get the idea that in a nomadic culture, "everyone is going to know everything about everyone else".
Think about it. You are a nomadic tribesman. Everything you own has to be portable enough for you to carry. You will live in a group with a few dozen people, all who know you by name. They see all of your possessions, as you are always packing them up, carrying them around, and unpacking them. They know exactly when you go to sleep, and who you sleep with. They know what you eat at every meal. Sure, you might occasionally sneak off into the woods and have a liaison with someone, people probably went behind a tree or something when they had to defecate, and you could probably come up with other things done in secret. But I don't think that's really what we are talking about when we are discussing privacy; Google is not following you into the bathroom (though I hear a lot of smartphones in there!).
The previous lack of expensive privacy is now an opening for attack vectors, and they are constantly being probed.
Yes, I think this will be a problem for exactly the reason I stated before: we are not predisposed to value privacy - it has to be taught. In a way it is similar to hygiene... in theory we know exactly how to stop the common cold, but we don't have any predisposition towards washing our hands or keeping our hands away from our face.
15 Mbps? Not quite... to get Blue Ray quality you'd need 36 Mbps. But yeah, not Gigabit.
It appeals to me for backup. I formerly used Mozy and now use CrashPlan. There's something very appealing about restoring from a 250GB remote backup in about the same amount of time it would take over the LAN.
The other nice use would be the really fast VNC/RDC performance I would get when telecommuting.
My theory is that internet porn is what has us stuck at our current miserable broadband speeds.
Sure, porn drove us all to get even our phones up to the task of streaming real-time titties - but really what more do you need?
Additionally, I'd argue that high-def porn is so repulsive that people are actively seeking to keep their connections slow enough not to enable high-def streaming.
I never said it didn't exist in other species, though I'd characterize your examples (dens and hunting grounds) as a physical protection mechanism and scarcity coping mechanism, respectively. The concept of "privacy" as we know it today simply couldn't exist in a nomadic culture with small populations... everyone is going to know everything about everyone else.
This makes sense - humans did not evolve with privacy, it is a modern concept. As such, even if it had a tangible value, people would do a terrible job assigning a value to it.
I agree with you - the corporation part of government can (and often does) control more of the economy than the elected part of government. At that point, it technically wields more power.
Theoretically, legislatures could draft legislation that would liquify the assets of all corporations and return them to the stockholders. Realistically, that would never happen.
But you can't run a party election system with that. How can you run a campaign with "I will do whatever the country requires at a particular point even if it hurts a group that can hurt me bad".
My deepest wish is for a "pragmatism party" - I'd actually like to work on such a project if I could think of a way to make it feasible.
Actually, I'd like to work on a discussion system that encourages civil discourse. Start small:)
I'm not sure I understand. Governments (generally) will act in the interests of government. If you accept that corporations are an extension of the government, then there is no "other way around" - the government will protect corporate interests because "it" sees those interests as it's own.
Corporations are an extension of government. They get their charter from the government and by definition they are regulated by the government. One cannot be "anti government" and "pro corporate", though one can certainly be "anti corporate" and "pro government".
Lazy? I'm the one who actually supplied data to support my point. You supplied... a story. You don't like my data, you say it's too old - fair enough. Presumably you believe that the passage of time has eroded Apple's lead. But you've offered nothing to support your point. Here's another blurb from March.
Well, the first-gen iPhone had the battery soldered-in...
And I'd argue that the most-replaced part of a smartphone is the screen. The 3G/GS screen is really hard to get at. I've done a few iPod screens and they were fairly simple once you learned the tricks.
On your car analogy, I'd say the screen is more like swapping out the crankshaft. You literally have to disassemble the whole damn thing to get to it on the 3GS.
It's almost universally a PITA to open an Apple product. Even their laptops and computers seem to be designed with dis-assembly as an afterthought. I had an iBook that required almost total dis-assembly just to replace the hard drive (newer models make it trivial). Replacing the screen on an iPhone 3gs is like rocket surgery.
Of course, this only effects a small percentage of their users and does not seem to harm their image with the public-at-large - so it is hard to argue with their business/marketing/engineering decisions. Disposable society and all that...
Slashdot Mirror
They also make the patients take a urine test. If there are no pain meds in your urine, you can't get more pills.
You will still have the option of using a doctor that doesn't use this method, if you can find one.
The simple fact is that this can give a doctor better data, and better data is usually not a bad thing. Doctors can and should fire patients, just as patients can find a new doctor. In Pain Management practice, they make people pee into a cup to prove that they are taking - rather than selling - their pain meds.
In addition to helping doctors treat their patients who think they have an MD, I could see this helping with the mentally ill. Prior to Carter, the mentally ill were basically tucked away out of sight in asylums. Then they invented effective anti-psychotic medication, and so it became possible to treat the mentally ill. Of course, a treated mentally ill person does not need to be tucked away in an asylum anymore, so they were released... and a significant portion stopped taking their medication. A tool like this would be a good way to balance society's interests in not having a bunch of untreated psychotics living on the city streets with the individual rights of the mentally ill.
.I've no idea where you get the idea that in a nomadic culture, "everyone is going to know everything about everyone else".
Think about it. You are a nomadic tribesman. Everything you own has to be portable enough for you to carry. You will live in a group with a few dozen people, all who know you by name. They see all of your possessions, as you are always packing them up, carrying them around, and unpacking them. They know exactly when you go to sleep, and who you sleep with. They know what you eat at every meal. Sure, you might occasionally sneak off into the woods and have a liaison with someone, people probably went behind a tree or something when they had to defecate, and you could probably come up with other things done in secret. But I don't think that's really what we are talking about when we are discussing privacy; Google is not following you into the bathroom (though I hear a lot of smartphones in there!).
The previous lack of expensive privacy is now an opening for attack vectors, and they are constantly being probed.
Yes, I think this will be a problem for exactly the reason I stated before: we are not predisposed to value privacy - it has to be taught. In a way it is similar to hygiene... in theory we know exactly how to stop the common cold, but we don't have any predisposition towards washing our hands or keeping our hands away from our face.
15 Mbps? Not quite... to get Blue Ray quality you'd need 36 Mbps. But yeah, not Gigabit.
It appeals to me for backup. I formerly used Mozy and now use CrashPlan. There's something very appealing about restoring from a 250GB remote backup in about the same amount of time it would take over the LAN.
The other nice use would be the really fast VNC/RDC performance I would get when telecommuting.
My theory is that internet porn is what has us stuck at our current miserable broadband speeds.
Sure, porn drove us all to get even our phones up to the task of streaming real-time titties - but really what more do you need?
Additionally, I'd argue that high-def porn is so repulsive that people are actively seeking to keep their connections slow enough not to enable high-def streaming.
I never said it didn't exist in other species, though I'd characterize your examples (dens and hunting grounds) as a physical protection mechanism and scarcity coping mechanism, respectively. The concept of "privacy" as we know it today simply couldn't exist in a nomadic culture with small populations... everyone is going to know everything about everyone else.
Privacy disappears because people don't value it.
This makes sense - humans did not evolve with privacy, it is a modern concept. As such, even if it had a tangible value, people would do a terrible job assigning a value to it.
Yeah, I'd bet dumping the 10-year-old power-sucker would be worth it, both environmentally and economically.
On the other hand, the fabs to make the chips in a Raspberry Pi consume an awful lot of water and electricity.
Tough call environmentally - probably depends on where the grandparent's power comes from.
Thank you for deciding that for me! Where would us bad-at-math types be without our glorious leaders?
Perhaps, but it can be terrifying :)
I once witnessed a fist fight over a guy sitting down in an empty seat next to a guy who thought he needed two. Go Grayhound!
We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
And then we should make it compulsory for workers to join such a group and garnish their salary!
Lobbyists for all!
I agree with you - the corporation part of government can (and often does) control more of the economy than the elected part of government. At that point, it technically wields more power.
Theoretically, legislatures could draft legislation that would liquify the assets of all corporations and return them to the stockholders. Realistically, that would never happen.
But you can't run a party election system with that. How can you run a campaign with "I will do whatever the country requires at a particular point even if it hurts a group that can hurt me bad".
My deepest wish is for a "pragmatism party" - I'd actually like to work on such a project if I could think of a way to make it feasible.
Actually, I'd like to work on a discussion system that encourages civil discourse. Start small :)
I'm not sure I understand. Governments (generally) will act in the interests of government. If you accept that corporations are an extension of the government, then there is no "other way around" - the government will protect corporate interests because "it" sees those interests as it's own.
D.A.R.E. would be a pretty poor example - it has never been found to be effective.
It's like you believe Korea does not even exist!
Corporations are an extension of government - it should not surprise anyone when they work together.
Corporations are an extension of government. They get their charter from the government and by definition they are regulated by the government. One cannot be "anti government" and "pro corporate", though one can certainly be "anti corporate" and "pro government".
Lazy? I'm the one who actually supplied data to support my point. You supplied... a story. You don't like my data, you say it's too old - fair enough. Presumably you believe that the passage of time has eroded Apple's lead. But you've offered nothing to support your point. Here's another blurb from March.
Feel free to supply better data...
That's a nice data point, but on balance I find Apple's service to be better than most other companies'. Again, that's just a data point.
Fortunately we have people like Forrester Research, who rank Apple at the top of all the tech companies.
Bah, softcore!
LOL... I think you get it :)
Because a college student thinks $25-35/hour is pretty good money.
(Yes, I realize that they pay for postage and parts... not in a math mood.)
In my opinion, any repair that involves softening stuff up with a heat gun is in the "expert" territory.
Well, the first-gen iPhone had the battery soldered-in...
And I'd argue that the most-replaced part of a smartphone is the screen. The 3G/GS screen is really hard to get at. I've done a few iPod screens and they were fairly simple once you learned the tricks.
On your car analogy, I'd say the screen is more like swapping out the crankshaft. You literally have to disassemble the whole damn thing to get to it on the 3GS.
It's almost universally a PITA to open an Apple product. Even their laptops and computers seem to be designed with dis-assembly as an afterthought. I had an iBook that required almost total dis-assembly just to replace the hard drive (newer models make it trivial). Replacing the screen on an iPhone 3gs is like rocket surgery.
Of course, this only effects a small percentage of their users and does not seem to harm their image with the public-at-large - so it is hard to argue with their business/marketing/engineering decisions. Disposable society and all that...