Hold on. You're arguing that Marbury v. Madison, settled law for more than 200 years, is...not effective? That although the Constitution specifically mandates to right to judicial appeal of State court decisions through the Federal court system, the results of the appeal can be ignored by the States?
Wow.
That's the most appallingly naive and wrong-headed view of U.S. Judicial history I've ever heard, and that's saying a bit.
BTW, the issue of state sovereignty was settled conclusively more than 140 years ago. State sovereignty is not absolute, and is in fact subordinate to Federal sovereignty.
Even the editors* noticed that and added the parenthetical clarification.
"In the dark" does not mean "in the literal darkness, without the power to generate light or heat." I.e., not a power generation or distribution problem, which is the expected context of the stock phrase "in the dark".
They mean "In the INTARWEBS dark." As in, no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube.
You know, an actual crisis.
*Seriously. How bad do you have to be, that the world-famous Slashdot Editor Corps feels compelled to actually edit you? That's... INCONCEIVABLE.
Oh, so he's not independently wealthy. According to your rendition of the past, he USED to be independently wealthy. But he's not now.
Of course, without evidence (say, his comprehensive expenditures record for this research), there's no provable difference between "He used to be independently wealthy, but sunk all his riches into this" and "He never had a cent, and he still doesn't" Both sentences would be continued "... and therefore needs to secure his exclusive rights to this innovation, in order to..." and then the endings could diverge again: "...recapture his massive investment." or "...cash in on all the suckas."
But yes, the test will be the thing. As long as it can be independently examined and repeated by disinterested parties. After all, it doesn't take that much to rig up almost any power-generating apparatus and CLAIM it's his innovative e-cat fusor cranking out the power.
The Supreme Court has recognized this loophole and explicitly incorporated most of the Bill of Rights against the powers of the several States by various controlling rulings. Among the Amendments which have been made applicable to the States are the 4th and 5th Amendments, so we're protected from lower-level infringements to our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.
If all else fails, consider that trademarks don't have to be universally distinctive, just distinctive within a particular commercial endeavor, and no one can sanely claim that naming military reconnaissance robots the same as the North American branding of a Lego throwing toy is "passing off".
When I approach a toll, I have to slide it open to allow the camera to image the picture of a fully occupied car I hold in front of the lens to get my discount. After the toll, I can slide it back closed.
FTFY.
Still, an inward-viewing camera inside the car? Monitored by a State agency? The reason doesn't matter. It's still creepy and wrong.
Follow the logic. "Bioware has never made a bad game. If Bioware made it and it's bad, it's not a game; it's a steaming turd. Therefore, Bioware has never made a bad game. Q.E.D."
That's an interesting perspective. Care to back it up with actual precedent? While doing so, please dispel if possible* the common concept of "chilling effect", which couldn't possibly exist as a consideration before the law if your assertion were true.
*Here's a hint: don't even bother trying. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws punishing, for instance, political speech is effectively prior restraint and specifically uses the phrase "chilling effect" or "deterring effect" to describe the situation you describe: you can speak but will be punished for it, so your speech is deterred.
Since revolution is fundamentally extralegal, that makes sense. It's also a fine illustration of the limitations of Law: it's meaningless in the face of sufficiently-commited violence.
It's gauche, but I'm gonna follow up to myself to ask the questions that came to mind.
What precise role did SAIC have in this? As I mentioned, I don't remember SAIC being involved in Tricare administration "back in the day".
Why, exactly, does Tricare think HIPAA privacy protections don't come into effect in this case? If this had been Blue Cross/Blue Shield, you can be damn well sure the HIPAA police would have been down there with sirens screaming. The only difference is that Tricare is a government-administered program. Maybe that's enough? ("We make the rules. We decide who they apply to.")
What 4.9 million people are we talking about? That's a lot of beneficiaries for just the San Antonio area, although if you count transient residents (trainees, active duty military that rotate through the bases every 2-5 years, etc.) that number might actually work.
For those who don't know, Tricare is the "health insurance" that pays for providing health care for members of the military and for those retired military members that pay premiums. However, I don't remember SAIC having any contractual role in administering the Tricare system. Perhaps they were contracted by DoD to perform some kind of historical data analysis, and authorized access on that basis... but the reports make Tricare out to be the party at fault, so that would imply that SAIC is formally part of the winning Tricare team, and not some kind of outside consultant. Maybe the SAIC employee was a contractor performing the duties of a government employee in the administration of Tricare. Pretty confusing.
Anyway, TFA says that 4.9 million people were affected, but also that the tape contained health records from facilities in the San Antonio, Texas region for a 19-year period. 4.9 million people seems like a really large number for the service catchment area of one city, even if it has several primary military care facilities and a large semi-transient military population. Maybe if they include the induction medical records of Air Force recruits at Basic Training at Lackland AFB, for instance.
You're mistakenly conflating "do nothing" with "provide nothing".
The "random publisher" does nothing, true, except publish, and in this age, anyone can publish.
What the "random publisher" provides is prestige.
Self-publication is for nobodies. Anyone who's anyone wants that prestigious imprint to put onto their CV. If that means that none of the unwashed masses can actually read and question the research, all the better.
If 25 years of marriage have taught me anything, it is this: a woman digs a dude who tells them in exhausting and pedantic detail why they, the woman, are wrong.
I've never known Android after 2.2 to be shy about killing a long-idle task taking up memory, if the GC needed it. Task-killer apps, and manually killing tasks, are completely OBE.
From the beginning, the half-smirking explicit intent of the majority of the alt.* hierarchy was "megabytes of copyright violations."
The wild west was wild. Now the agribusiness farmers have moved in, platted the range, put up miles of barbed wire, and will hang you for the most innocuous cattle rustling.
But yes, the spam (aka bills and signs nailed up on every tree and fencepost) didn't help either.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on. You're arguing that Marbury v. Madison, settled law for more than 200 years, is...not effective? That although the Constitution specifically mandates to right to judicial appeal of State court decisions through the Federal court system, the results of the appeal can be ignored by the States?
Wow.
That's the most appallingly naive and wrong-headed view of U.S. Judicial history I've ever heard, and that's saying a bit.
BTW, the issue of state sovereignty was settled conclusively more than 140 years ago. State sovereignty is not absolute, and is in fact subordinate to Federal sovereignty.
Thanks for playing.
Even the editors* noticed that and added the parenthetical clarification.
"In the dark" does not mean "in the literal darkness, without the power to generate light or heat." I.e., not a power generation or distribution problem, which is the expected context of the stock phrase "in the dark".
They mean "In the INTARWEBS dark." As in, no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube.
You know, an actual crisis.
*Seriously. How bad do you have to be, that the world-famous Slashdot Editor Corps feels compelled to actually edit you? That's... INCONCEIVABLE.
Oh, so he's not independently wealthy. According to your rendition of the past, he USED to be independently wealthy. But he's not now.
Of course, without evidence (say, his comprehensive expenditures record for this research), there's no provable difference between "He used to be independently wealthy, but sunk all his riches into this" and "He never had a cent, and he still doesn't" Both sentences would be continued "... and therefore needs to secure his exclusive rights to this innovation, in order to..." and then the endings could diverge again: "...recapture his massive investment." or "...cash in on all the suckas."
But yes, the test will be the thing. As long as it can be independently examined and repeated by disinterested parties. After all, it doesn't take that much to rig up almost any power-generating apparatus and CLAIM it's his innovative e-cat fusor cranking out the power.
The Supreme Court has recognized this loophole and explicitly incorporated most of the Bill of Rights against the powers of the several States by various controlling rulings. Among the Amendments which have been made applicable to the States are the 4th and 5th Amendments, so we're protected from lower-level infringements to our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.
Interesting. Are we watching the first on-line bank run, complete with "bolting the doors"?
Lego is Danish, not Dutch. That said, both are inaugural members of NATO. They'll monger war right along with the rest of us, and I'm sure if necessary the trademark can be licensed.
If all else fails, consider that trademarks don't have to be universally distinctive, just distinctive within a particular commercial endeavor, and no one can sanely claim that naming military reconnaissance robots the same as the North American branding of a Lego throwing toy is "passing off".
Even if the US dropped the glove nobody's picked it up to put another man on the moon since.
One challenger has picked up the gauntlet. But we're not really interested in stepping up to the challenge. They'll go uncontested, I'm sure.
When I approach a toll, I have to slide it open to allow the camera to image the picture of a fully occupied car I hold in front of the lens to get my discount. After the toll, I can slide it back closed.
FTFY.
Still, an inward-viewing camera inside the car? Monitored by a State agency? The reason doesn't matter. It's still creepy and wrong.
They're not games.
Follow the logic. "Bioware has never made a bad game. If Bioware made it and it's bad, it's not a game; it's a steaming turd. Therefore, Bioware has never made a bad game. Q.E.D."
That's an interesting perspective. Care to back it up with actual precedent? While doing so, please dispel if possible* the common concept of "chilling effect", which couldn't possibly exist as a consideration before the law if your assertion were true.
*Here's a hint: don't even bother trying. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws punishing, for instance, political speech is effectively prior restraint and specifically uses the phrase "chilling effect" or "deterring effect" to describe the situation you describe: you can speak but will be punished for it, so your speech is deterred.
Since revolution is fundamentally extralegal, that makes sense. It's also a fine illustration of the limitations of Law: it's meaningless in the face of sufficiently-commited violence.
Silent enim leges inter arma. -- Cicero
to see the tantrum the judge throws if he actually thought his order was going to be meaningful and effective.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore
It's gauche, but I'm gonna follow up to myself to ask the questions that came to mind.
Overall, I'm quite disappointed at Tricare's lackadaisical response. You'd think they had a captive customer base. Which is quite literally true for a lot of it. You can be jailed for removing yourself from coverage without permission.
and a couple of questions.
For those who don't know, Tricare is the "health insurance" that pays for providing health care for members of the military and for those retired military members that pay premiums. However, I don't remember SAIC having any contractual role in administering the Tricare system. Perhaps they were contracted by DoD to perform some kind of historical data analysis, and authorized access on that basis... but the reports make Tricare out to be the party at fault, so that would imply that SAIC is formally part of the winning Tricare team, and not some kind of outside consultant. Maybe the SAIC employee was a contractor performing the duties of a government employee in the administration of Tricare. Pretty confusing.
Anyway, TFA says that 4.9 million people were affected, but also that the tape contained health records from facilities in the San Antonio, Texas region for a 19-year period. 4.9 million people seems like a really large number for the service catchment area of one city, even if it has several primary military care facilities and a large semi-transient military population. Maybe if they include the induction medical records of Air Force recruits at Basic Training at Lackland AFB, for instance.
Weird.
Did you just say ""It's very hard to encrypt a backup tape."? In public? Out loud? With a straight face?
I have the perfect hammer.
Everything should be a nail.
I'm holding out hope that they'll wait for the announcement to be finished before they post the dupe.
I'm not holding out hope that the dupe will actually contain any of the additional information. I'm pretty sure it'll just be a dupe.
You're mistakenly conflating "do nothing" with "provide nothing".
The "random publisher" does nothing, true, except publish, and in this age, anyone can publish.
What the "random publisher" provides is prestige.
Self-publication is for nobodies. Anyone who's anyone wants that prestigious imprint to put onto their CV. If that means that none of the unwashed masses can actually read and question the research, all the better.
Good point.
If 25 years of marriage have taught me anything, it is this: a woman digs a dude who tells them in exhausting and pedantic detail why they, the woman, are wrong.
Now, if only my wife would learn that lesson...
OTOH, Palpatine walks away muttering "Those dudes are evil." when he considers the market development team at FB.
Well, that also explains the "whoosh" sound. It wasn't the boots....
"Trek"? You mean T.J. Hooker had a previous acting gig?
You learn the weirdest things on Slashdot.
We have no interest in tracking people, and we've taken out this patent to make sure no one else can either.
See? We're your trustworthy friend! Come join our social network!
I've never known Android after 2.2 to be shy about killing a long-idle task taking up memory, if the GC needed it. Task-killer apps, and manually killing tasks, are completely OBE.
You lived a very sheltered USENET life.
From the beginning, the half-smirking explicit intent of the majority of the alt.* hierarchy was "megabytes of copyright violations."
The wild west was wild. Now the agribusiness farmers have moved in, platted the range, put up miles of barbed wire, and will hang you for the most innocuous cattle rustling.
But yes, the spam (aka bills and signs nailed up on every tree and fencepost) didn't help either.