The medical staff aren't given enough time to properly do their job
"Sorry, I can't deal with your heart attack right now, I have to wash my hands."
Only kidding.
But we are living in the real world. And you can't simply add on 30 secs for handwashing and expect that the handwashing will be done by people that think that handwashing takes too long. In many areas of heathcare there's never enough time.
But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant.
Thats a bit ambiguous. Any browser that doesn't support the DRM API would not be standards compliant. But that doesn't mean that any service needs to use DRM.
or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?
There are multiple open source browsers and they'll continue to be open source. If you want to take the DRM parts out you can. Presumably some people will do that and make their forks public. Whether anyone will bother using such forks is the question. My bet is almost no one will be interested.
But that argument is one of hijacking of standards bodies to the end of pursuing an agenda. That in itself is no less evil than when Microsoft does it.
The evidence is right in the article: hospitals institute these measures because their customers refuse to pay or go elsewhere if they don't; no government regulation was needed. That's the way a free market is supposed to work. The problem here is that the "customer" is itself a government-established monopoly that people are forced to pay for that took forever to take action;
Actually it's very much a demonstration that commercial health suppliers on their own had poor sanitation. And it took the government to step in and provide a sufficiently big financial incentive. That's Keynesian economics that fixed it, not the free market.
a more liberal market in health care would likely have fixed this problem long ago.
A claim for which you have no evidence. Other than your general belief in a mythical anarcho-capitalist utopia.
But there is a lesser of two evils. Given that DRM will happen regardless, making things a bit more standardized and easier for all is better than leaving it more fragmented and harder for all.
In all likelihood only certain browsers and platforms will be able to play videos from certain sites by default (mainly Chrome and IE on Windows).
That would be true if the EFF have their way. But not true if the HTML standardization happens. Yes the DRM is always of necessity a proprietary blob. But with HTML standardization the same blob can work for all browsers on a given OS.
Well the insurance company's bottom line would decide what they request/contract hospitals to do. But the hospital's bottom line that would decide whether they do it.
And patents would choose which hospital to use based on whether they got infected last time.... in the libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) utopia.
Surgeons routinely fuck up "which leg" or "which eye."
I was knocked off my bike, and had a big tear in the flesh of my right elbow, which needed cleaning and stitching up. Despite the fact that it would have been impossible for the surgeon to get the wrong arm, in pre-op they drew a big arrow with a permanent marker towards the injury. Because that is procedure.
So I think procedure has mostly cleared up this source of error now. And if there's a mistake about where the arrow is drawn, it happens in pre-op, not in surgery. And for things as obvious as a leg or an eye, one has to wonder what the fully conscious patient is thinking when asked to confirm which one needs the op.
You're Cube Man #3,948 and every day, for 8 hours straight, you watch these TV feeds. It all looks the same. There is no audio. There is nothing interesting happened. Whenever you see someone wash their hands, you push a button.
Wrong solution. This is a job for the Mechanical Turk. 1c to watch a 60 sec video and press a button to say whether or not the person sanitized their hands. With a reference image/video to show to those who don't know what sanitizing hands means.
That would cost 60c per hour of video. At that price you can have 3 or more different people do the same task in order to confirm the answer, and it still costs less than having an employee do it.
And boredom isn't an issue. Once Turks get bored of that, they'll move onto a different task from someone else....Mind you, patent confidentiality might be an issue.
You're a libertarian. Why should hospitals do something about it if they make money regardless. If their profit is increased by enforcing certain sanitation regimes, they should do it. If their profit isn't increased they shouldn't bother. Right?
Now you might suggest that it IS more profitable to do the sanitation thing right. But do you have any data to show that. What if hospitals lose money that way, but it's healthier for patients. The hospital's bottom line should be the priority, right?
Frequent washing with soap and water followed by drying with a paper towel or air is also bad for the skin. And would take too long, given that medical people need to do it between every patient.
Certainly hand sanitizers aren't a replacement for hand washing. They don't actually remove dirt for a start. But soap and water on it's own won't work either. It does need a mix of both of those, plus surgical gloves, all as appropriate.
What Linux needs the most are a) advertising, and b) be the default OS of gray/white box machines.
I can suggest a slogan. "Like Windows, but Worse".
What desktop Linux always needed to attract users was a easy to use and consistent UI design. And it never got it. For all it's faults, Windows was easier for ordinary people to use.
SImply forcing it upon people by being the default install on cheap PCs won't work. We've already seen that with Netbooks. An initial period of Linux being the default install resulted in a ridiculously high return rate. So the manufacturers switched to using Windows for Netbooks.
The main problem with Linux is that it arrived too late. The core of Linux is just as good when not better than Windows' but it lacks 3rd party applications because... nobody uses Linux. It's a chicken and eggs problem.
OSX didn't arrive until 2000. It had a heritage of a handful of NeXTSTEP enthusiasts, and a niche of die-hard MacOS that didn't want to let go of MacOS 9. Yet it's done alright. It hasn't got anywhere near the market share of Windows, but it's got lots of the thing you say Linux is missing - third party apps.
It's advantages are that it has a good UI, and a user base that are willing to pay for software.
No, I'm saying once the "existence, control, and authenticityâ of documents have been established beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant has a duty to produce them.
Not doing so is contempt of court, and would probably add to his sentence.
This is true regardless of what novels you chose to mention.
The legal process normally tries to establish the full extent of law-breaking, 1) For the purposes of severity of punishment. 2) In order to potentially implicate other criminals. 3) To potentially close other open cases.
Number three probably doesn't apply here, but 1 & 2 does. I've no idea what you're trying to imply with "OTHER THINGS", but there's no need for conspiracy theories when the legal process is simply following it's normal course.
The legal distinction is between being required to:
a) "Testify" against yourself, which is protected by the 5th.
and
b) Being required to produce documents, for which the "existence, control, and authenticityâ has been established. Which is not protected by the 5th.
There's no dispute that the files on a disk are documents. And having established "existence, control, and authenticityâ, by cracking one of the disks, he's being required to produce the rest of them.
This case is a classic example of "foregone conclusion", not an abuse of it.
Having said that, clearly the digital age has brought uncertainty to this general area, and a new law that is clear about where the lines are would be better than navigating case law, and trying to apply it to new circumstances.
What IT professional doesn't have an encrypted drive around with hacker tools and perfectly legal stuff they don't want decrypted?
People tend to overestimate the number of people that are like themselves. Just because you have such an encrypted drive and you know of other examples doesn't mean that it's most, let alone your implied virtually all.
Say my neighbor downloaded something sketchy and they know I frequently use his wireless...decrypt my drives for them and have it reported that I had "intricate filesystems containing zillions of porn images and suspicious tools" or spend a few months in jail for contempt?
I'm afraid if the feds have a search warrant for your property, you don't have the choice to refuse. That's kind of what a warrant is. You don't have a right to refuse access because it's an encrypted drive any more than you have a right to refuse access because you have very good locks on your house.
If you have something illegal but unrelated to the "sketchy" file, than bad luck, you may be prosecuted. That's the risk you took when you did the illegal thing. Encryption doesn't give you some kind of right to do illegal things with impunity.
If there is nothing illegal than you're in the clear.
Note, this isn't a justification for fishing expeditions by law enforcement, any more than it would be for a house search warrant. The point I'm making is that it isn't any different from the long standing precedent of search warrants for property. A failed search for stolen goods may still end up with a drug violation being prosecuted.
Why should they reward a criminal? They have a search warrant for the drives, and they have proof the drives are his. He has no legal argument to avoid giving them access.
He's already incriminated. The evidence is there that the drives are his. FIfth amendment against self incrimination doesn't provide protection against a search with warrant. Whether it's a house or a disk drive.
They don't only know the drives are his, they already have the evidence of his child-porn activities. It's no longer a matter of incrimination, but extent.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't buy beer, you only rent it. It doesn't make either particularly unpopular products.
The medical staff aren't given enough time to properly do their job
"Sorry, I can't deal with your heart attack right now, I have to wash my hands."
Only kidding.
But we are living in the real world. And you can't simply add on 30 secs for handwashing and expect that the handwashing will be done by people that think that handwashing takes too long. In many areas of heathcare there's never enough time.
But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant.
Thats a bit ambiguous. Any browser that doesn't support the DRM API would not be standards compliant. But that doesn't mean that any service needs to use DRM.
or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice ... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?
There are multiple open source browsers and they'll continue to be open source. If you want to take the DRM parts out you can. Presumably some people will do that and make their forks public. Whether anyone will bother using such forks is the question. My bet is almost no one will be interested.
But that argument is one of hijacking of standards bodies to the end of pursuing an agenda. That in itself is no less evil than when Microsoft does it.
The evidence is right in the article: hospitals institute these measures because their customers refuse to pay or go elsewhere if they don't; no government regulation was needed. That's the way a free market is supposed to work.
The problem here is that the "customer" is itself a government-established monopoly that people are forced to pay for that took forever to take action;
Actually it's very much a demonstration that commercial health suppliers on their own had poor sanitation. And it took the government to step in and provide a sufficiently big financial incentive. That's Keynesian economics that fixed it, not the free market.
a more liberal market in health care would likely have fixed this problem long ago.
A claim for which you have no evidence. Other than your general belief in a mythical anarcho-capitalist utopia.
Careful of two wrongs make a right.
But there is a lesser of two evils. Given that DRM will happen regardless, making things a bit more standardized and easier for all is better than leaving it more fragmented and harder for all.
In all likelihood only certain browsers and platforms will be able to play videos from certain sites by default (mainly Chrome and IE on Windows).
That would be true if the EFF have their way. But not true if the HTML standardization happens. Yes the DRM is always of necessity a proprietary blob. But with HTML standardization the same blob can work for all browsers on a given OS.
DRM is always optional. You don't have to buy the product with DRM.
Well the insurance company's bottom line would decide what they request/contract hospitals to do. But the hospital's bottom line that would decide whether they do it.
And patents would choose which hospital to use based on whether they got infected last time. ... in the libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) utopia.
Surgeons routinely fuck up "which leg" or "which eye."
I was knocked off my bike, and had a big tear in the flesh of my right elbow, which needed cleaning and stitching up. Despite the fact that it would have been impossible for the surgeon to get the wrong arm, in pre-op they drew a big arrow with a permanent marker towards the injury. Because that is procedure.
So I think procedure has mostly cleared up this source of error now. And if there's a mistake about where the arrow is drawn, it happens in pre-op, not in surgery. And for things as obvious as a leg or an eye, one has to wonder what the fully conscious patient is thinking when asked to confirm which one needs the op.
You're Cube Man #3,948 and every day, for 8 hours straight, you watch these TV feeds. It all looks the same. There is no audio. There is nothing interesting happened. Whenever you see someone wash their hands, you push a button.
Wrong solution. This is a job for the Mechanical Turk. 1c to watch a 60 sec video and press a button to say whether or not the person sanitized their hands. With a reference image/video to show to those who don't know what sanitizing hands means.
That would cost 60c per hour of video. At that price you can have 3 or more different people do the same task in order to confirm the answer, and it still costs less than having an employee do it.
And boredom isn't an issue. Once Turks get bored of that, they'll move onto a different task from someone else. ...Mind you, patent confidentiality might be an issue.
You're a libertarian. Why should hospitals do something about it if they make money regardless. If their profit is increased by enforcing certain sanitation regimes, they should do it. If their profit isn't increased they shouldn't bother. Right?
Now you might suggest that it IS more profitable to do the sanitation thing right. But do you have any data to show that. What if hospitals lose money that way, but it's healthier for patients. The hospital's bottom line should be the priority, right?
Frequent washing with soap and water followed by drying with a paper towel or air is also bad for the skin. And would take too long, given that medical people need to do it between every patient.
Certainly hand sanitizers aren't a replacement for hand washing. They don't actually remove dirt for a start. But soap and water on it's own won't work either. It does need a mix of both of those, plus surgical gloves, all as appropriate.
What Linux needs the most are a) advertising, and b) be the default OS of gray/white box machines.
I can suggest a slogan. "Like Windows, but Worse".
What desktop Linux always needed to attract users was a easy to use and consistent UI design. And it never got it. For all it's faults, Windows was easier for ordinary people to use.
SImply forcing it upon people by being the default install on cheap PCs won't work. We've already seen that with Netbooks. An initial period of Linux being the default install resulted in a ridiculously high return rate. So the manufacturers switched to using Windows for Netbooks.
The main problem with Linux is that it arrived too late. The core of Linux is just as good when not better than Windows' but it lacks 3rd party applications because... nobody uses Linux. It's a chicken and eggs problem.
OSX didn't arrive until 2000. It had a heritage of a handful of NeXTSTEP enthusiasts, and a niche of die-hard MacOS that didn't want to let go of MacOS 9. Yet it's done alright. It hasn't got anywhere near the market share of Windows, but it's got lots of the thing you say Linux is missing - third party apps.
It's advantages are that it has a good UI, and a user base that are willing to pay for software.
No, I'm saying once the "existence, control, and authenticityâ of documents have been established beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant has a duty to produce them.
Not doing so is contempt of court, and would probably add to his sentence.
This is true regardless of what novels you chose to mention.
The legal process normally tries to establish the full extent of law-breaking,
1) For the purposes of severity of punishment.
2) In order to potentially implicate other criminals.
3) To potentially close other open cases.
Number three probably doesn't apply here, but 1 & 2 does. I've no idea what you're trying to imply with "OTHER THINGS", but there's no need for conspiracy theories when the legal process is simply following it's normal course.
The legal distinction is between being required to:
a) "Testify" against yourself, which is protected by the 5th.
and
b) Being required to produce documents, for which the "existence, control, and authenticityâ has been established. Which is not protected by the 5th.
There's no dispute that the files on a disk are documents. And having established "existence, control, and authenticityâ, by cracking one of the disks, he's being required to produce the rest of them.
This case is a classic example of "foregone conclusion", not an abuse of it.
Having said that, clearly the digital age has brought uncertainty to this general area, and a new law that is clear about where the lines are would be better than navigating case law, and trying to apply it to new circumstances.
What IT professional doesn't have an encrypted drive around with hacker tools and perfectly legal stuff they don't want decrypted?
People tend to overestimate the number of people that are like themselves. Just because you have such an encrypted drive and you know of other examples doesn't mean that it's most, let alone your implied virtually all.
Say my neighbor downloaded something sketchy and they know I frequently use his wireless...decrypt my drives for them and have it reported that I had "intricate filesystems containing zillions of porn images and suspicious tools" or spend a few months in jail for contempt?
I'm afraid if the feds have a search warrant for your property, you don't have the choice to refuse. That's kind of what a warrant is. You don't have a right to refuse access because it's an encrypted drive any more than you have a right to refuse access because you have very good locks on your house.
If you have something illegal but unrelated to the "sketchy" file, than bad luck, you may be prosecuted. That's the risk you took when you did the illegal thing. Encryption doesn't give you some kind of right to do illegal things with impunity.
If there is nothing illegal than you're in the clear.
Note, this isn't a justification for fishing expeditions by law enforcement, any more than it would be for a house search warrant. The point I'm making is that it isn't any different from the long standing precedent of search warrants for property. A failed search for stolen goods may still end up with a drug violation being prosecuted.
Why should anyone ever get immunity, then?
Who says they should? It's a peculiarity of American law. I don't know of any other country that does it.
I remember when I had my first beer.
Why should they reward a criminal? They have a search warrant for the drives, and they have proof the drives are his. He has no legal argument to avoid giving them access.
He's already incriminated. The evidence is there that the drives are his. FIfth amendment against self incrimination doesn't provide protection against a search with warrant. Whether it's a house or a disk drive.
Number of years in jail does make a difference.
They don't only know the drives are his, they already have the evidence of his child-porn activities. It's no longer a matter of incrimination, but extent.
4th July is celebrated every year by an entire nation. Richard III's death, not so much.
I've seen the scene with Lady Anne many times. What a bastard. I played Richmond.