Given the fallout from all our meddling in other countries' affairs (particularly the middle east), the prime directive is looking better and better every day.
The same reasoning was given for the prime directives several times in TNG -- the federation encountered several another species that weren't technologically as advanced, they interfered, and everyone was the worse for it.
why would any sane person invest their time in qualifying for such a career if its longevity is threatened.
Because IT isn't threatened. With computers going into everything, IT is here to stay, and it is going to continue increasing as a proportion of all jobs. This is in spite of the industry's attempts to kill itself with cut corners, aversion to experience, and constant reinventing-of-the-wheel due to a refusal to learn from history.
The DMCA contains the word perjury twice: once in relation to the person making the claim, and once in relation to the person making a counter-claim:
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
You'll note that the only statement subject to perjury is that the claimant is authorized to act on behalf of a rights owner. The first half, about accuracy, is not subject to the same penalty. The prior section (v) mentions that a statement must be made that there is a good faith belief that the subject of the claim is infringing, but it makes no mention of any penalties if this is untrue.
There is some token language later on about misrepresentation - that the claimant is liable for any damages incurred by the alleged infringer should the claimant knowingly misrepresent that the material is infringing. However, proving there was intentional misrepresentation is a pretty high bar, and in most cases, the damages are low enough as to be not worth the legal fight anyways.
As consumers, it is our job to set the standards by which businesses should operate. If they fail to live up to those standards, it is our job to cease doing business with them. That's how the free market works.
If Google, Facebook, et. al. start censoring their content, even it it starts out innocently at first by censoring "extreme" content, then I will simply move on to other services, and I would encourage others to follow suit.
It starts to cross a line if we discuss enacting laws to control what they can do, but so far, I haven't seen any such suggestions.
That last sentence highlights that this is a really sticky question. If I happen to be doing something in a public street, and someone else is taking video of their kid riding their bike for the first time, and they happen to include me in the frame, and they post that video on YouTube, have they invaded my privacy? I don't think so. Saying that they have basically eliminates the notion of a "public place" entirely.
But clearly there is a difference when some large entity records all actions in a large area at all times and archives them all for later use. What, exactly is the difference? How, exactly, do we draw the line?
The big difference is that spread around a large enough area, government surveillance is much closer to someone following you around with a camera all day than someone who just happens to catch you while photographing or video recording something else.
If an individual did it, you would be really creeped-out, and if it happened more than once, you'd probably try to obtain a restraining order. It doesn't matter that you can't expect a particular moment in time is private - it's extremely unnerving when you feel like someone is following you.
Or, looking at it from another perspective - how would anyone feel if they saw police officers standing on every street intersection every hour of every day? Would you feel happy, safe and secure?
I can't speak for anyone else, but it would make my neighborhood start to feel more like a prison to me. I remember my last year of high school years ago, when someone decided it was a good idea to have a couple police patrolling the halls, despite having no incidents to warrant it. It was pretty alarming, and I was glad I was leaving soon.
I cannot fathom why so many people accept the current surveillance state. It puts unprecedented power in the hands of government, and there is little evidence that it has produced any meaningful benefit to doing so. Yet, it seems like every time someone brings up their discomfort at something or another, there's a chorus of people who chime in either how they should accept it because they shouldn't expect privacy or because it's really been going on for a long time, so they should be used to it by now.
This message was carried via a flock of pigeons, a fleet of sled dogs and a herd of wildebeest, across 7 continents and via the Rot (it's like an encrypted Tor, but using snails at night) network.
I probably won't see your reply because it has to come back via the cats and they are to busy posing for photos.
since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
I don't buy into this bullshit normally, since people generally leave their information with third parties because they trust the third party will keep it in confidence. This case has the added force of law behind it -- HIPAA was written specifically to ensure that medical records are not passed around without the patient's consent.
When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?
To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C)).
Peter didn't do anything wrong by helping him. He was, after all, highly motivated. After all free speech protects you from being silenced by the government. Not someone with lots of money and thus power.
It set a pretty dangerous precedent, though. Mess with the rich and get crushed by the weight of their resources.
Any intelligent billionaire should now realize that all it takes to secure yourself against bad press is to make it known that you'll go scorched earth on anyone who releases a story you don't like, bankrolling anyone willing to start a lawsuit against that organization.
It is completely within the law, just like the press is within their 1st Amendment rights to publish negative stories (within reason - i.e. libel and slander laws still apply), but it brings with it the death of free press, just as much as if the 1st was repealed.
Why would we? The computer makes the decisions faster than humans would, and apparently there are no consequences when it doesn't do what the firm wants (or just as likely, when the firm changes its mind afterwards).
It probably doesn't. However, there has been a trend where many tech businesses will do public post mortems of downtime. Some of it is to let people know what happened, but mostly, it's a way of assuring those who use the services that the business knows what happened and that measures have been put into place to prevent it from happening again.
It's a pretty cheap and easy PR move (since you have to do the post mortem analysis anyways) that can turn what would normally be perceived as a huge negative to much less negative (and perhaps even positive!)
While in aggregate, Apple is perceived very highly by the public, they have been getting beaten up lately by very publicly-visible issues with some of their services -- iTunes in particular. I can find no fault in someone wanting some reassurances after such a long outage, and I am a little curious why you do.
Don't forget SkyNet, the MCP, ARIA, and the Tet. There's also Ash from Alien, countered somewhat by Bishop in Aliens, who is then countered by David in Prometheus.
In comics, you have Ultron, Master Mold, and HARDAC
In games, you have GlaDOS, SHODAN, Red Queen, Sovereign (and the rest of the reapers), the Geth, and Mother Brain
...and that's just coming up with a list from memory when thinking about it for a few minutes.
Most devices you would need for a smart home (e.g., thermostats, locks, light switches, etc.) are relatively simple, so if you are *really* determined to have a smart home without watchers, why not start making the smart devices yourself? If you get a working model put together, I am sure you could easily start a successful kickstarter campaign and bootstrap a business with it. Win/win for everyone.
The problem with the entrenched players is that they all have a vested interest in making everything cloud-enabled. They want your data -- it is far more valuable than the profit they make from selling the devices, even if they don't sell it to others.
Do we have the will to use our technology to overcome biological messiness? Or would we rather condemn people who weren't born perfectly to a second class life while shaming them for being born wrong the whole way?
It is far more profitable to force people to pay for expensive, recurring treatments throughout their lifetime than to cure them. To this point, I am not sure there is even any serious research being done for a cure - the problem is solved in the most ideal way for the industry that would be responsible for the research.
Slashdot Mirror
There are thousands of reasons. They're printed on green pieces of paper.
Given the fallout from all our meddling in other countries' affairs (particularly the middle east), the prime directive is looking better and better every day.
The same reasoning was given for the prime directives several times in TNG -- the federation encountered several another species that weren't technologically as advanced, they interfered, and everyone was the worse for it.
why would any sane person invest their time in qualifying for such a career if its longevity is threatened.
Because IT isn't threatened. With computers going into everything, IT is here to stay, and it is going to continue increasing as a proportion of all jobs. This is in spite of the industry's attempts to kill itself with cut corners, aversion to experience, and constant reinventing-of-the-wheel due to a refusal to learn from history.
DMCA full text
The DMCA contains the word perjury twice: once in relation to the person making the claim, and once in relation to the person making a counter-claim:
You'll note that the only statement subject to perjury is that the claimant is authorized to act on behalf of a rights owner. The first half, about accuracy, is not subject to the same penalty. The prior section (v) mentions that a statement must be made that there is a good faith belief that the subject of the claim is infringing, but it makes no mention of any penalties if this is untrue.
There is some token language later on about misrepresentation - that the claimant is liable for any damages incurred by the alleged infringer should the claimant knowingly misrepresent that the material is infringing. However, proving there was intentional misrepresentation is a pretty high bar, and in most cases, the damages are low enough as to be not worth the legal fight anyways.
Everything in the USA is becoming either Arabic
I know, right? It's on our street signs, our currency, and it looks to have even crept into our Slashdot IDs!
As consumers, it is our job to set the standards by which businesses should operate. If they fail to live up to those standards, it is our job to cease doing business with them. That's how the free market works.
If Google, Facebook, et. al. start censoring their content, even it it starts out innocently at first by censoring "extreme" content, then I will simply move on to other services, and I would encourage others to follow suit.
It starts to cross a line if we discuss enacting laws to control what they can do, but so far, I haven't seen any such suggestions.
Maybe it seems like it was only a few months ago that we heard about hospital security issues because that's when a hospital fell victim to ransomware.
That last sentence highlights that this is a really sticky question. If I happen to be doing something in a public street, and someone else is taking video of their kid riding their bike for the first time, and they happen to include me in the frame, and they post that video on YouTube, have they invaded my privacy? I don't think so. Saying that they have basically eliminates the notion of a "public place" entirely.
But clearly there is a difference when some large entity records all actions in a large area at all times and archives them all for later use. What, exactly is the difference? How, exactly, do we draw the line?
The big difference is that spread around a large enough area, government surveillance is much closer to someone following you around with a camera all day than someone who just happens to catch you while photographing or video recording something else.
If an individual did it, you would be really creeped-out, and if it happened more than once, you'd probably try to obtain a restraining order. It doesn't matter that you can't expect a particular moment in time is private - it's extremely unnerving when you feel like someone is following you.
Or, looking at it from another perspective - how would anyone feel if they saw police officers standing on every street intersection every hour of every day? Would you feel happy, safe and secure?
I can't speak for anyone else, but it would make my neighborhood start to feel more like a prison to me. I remember my last year of high school years ago, when someone decided it was a good idea to have a couple police patrolling the halls, despite having no incidents to warrant it. It was pretty alarming, and I was glad I was leaving soon.
I cannot fathom why so many people accept the current surveillance state. It puts unprecedented power in the hands of government, and there is little evidence that it has produced any meaningful benefit to doing so. Yet, it seems like every time someone brings up their discomfort at something or another, there's a chorus of people who chime in either how they should accept it because they shouldn't expect privacy or because it's really been going on for a long time, so they should be used to it by now.
There are plenty of free PDF readers out there besides acrobat. One I have used at work is Sumatra PDF.
tyrannies and wars caused by unprotected people?
Unprotected people are causing tyrannies and wars, and you want to arm them?
This message was carried via a flock of pigeons, a fleet of sled dogs and a herd of wildebeest, across 7 continents and via the Rot (it's like an encrypted Tor, but using snails at night) network.
I probably won't see your reply because it has to come back via the cats and they are to busy posing for photos.
There is no need for such complication. The IETF long ago created A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers. You just need the pigeons.
since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
I don't buy into this bullshit normally, since people generally leave their information with third parties because they trust the third party will keep it in confidence. This case has the added force of law behind it -- HIPAA was written specifically to ensure that medical records are not passed around without the patient's consent.
...or so, any normal person would believe.
Unfortunately, it appears in this case, the DEA is correct. There is a specific exemption in HIPAA for administrative requests:
When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?
To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C)).
Peter didn't do anything wrong by helping him. He was, after all, highly motivated. After all free speech protects you from being silenced by the government. Not someone with lots of money and thus power.
It set a pretty dangerous precedent, though. Mess with the rich and get crushed by the weight of their resources.
Any intelligent billionaire should now realize that all it takes to secure yourself against bad press is to make it known that you'll go scorched earth on anyone who releases a story you don't like, bankrolling anyone willing to start a lawsuit against that organization.
It is completely within the law, just like the press is within their 1st Amendment rights to publish negative stories (within reason - i.e. libel and slander laws still apply), but it brings with it the death of free press, just as much as if the 1st was repealed.
Why would we? The computer makes the decisions faster than humans would, and apparently there are no consequences when it doesn't do what the firm wants (or just as likely, when the firm changes its mind afterwards).
It probably doesn't. However, there has been a trend where many tech businesses will do public post mortems of downtime. Some of it is to let people know what happened, but mostly, it's a way of assuring those who use the services that the business knows what happened and that measures have been put into place to prevent it from happening again.
It's a pretty cheap and easy PR move (since you have to do the post mortem analysis anyways) that can turn what would normally be perceived as a huge negative to much less negative (and perhaps even positive!)
While in aggregate, Apple is perceived very highly by the public, they have been getting beaten up lately by very publicly-visible issues with some of their services -- iTunes in particular. I can find no fault in someone wanting some reassurances after such a long outage, and I am a little curious why you do.
I don't know how I forgot Brainiac
Don't forget SkyNet, the MCP, ARIA, and the Tet. There's also Ash from Alien, countered somewhat by Bishop in Aliens, who is then countered by David in Prometheus.
In comics, you have Ultron, Master Mold, and HARDAC
In games, you have GlaDOS, SHODAN, Red Queen, Sovereign (and the rest of the reapers), the Geth, and Mother Brain
...and that's just coming up with a list from memory when thinking about it for a few minutes.
What is the single most influential book every programmer should read?
You would think their extensive experience in lies and narcissism would make them experienced enough to know how to deal with corporations properly.
Most devices you would need for a smart home (e.g., thermostats, locks, light switches, etc.) are relatively simple, so if you are *really* determined to have a smart home without watchers, why not start making the smart devices yourself? If you get a working model put together, I am sure you could easily start a successful kickstarter campaign and bootstrap a business with it. Win/win for everyone.
The problem with the entrenched players is that they all have a vested interest in making everything cloud-enabled. They want your data -- it is far more valuable than the profit they make from selling the devices, even if they don't sell it to others.
The unfortunate irony is that by making prostitution illegal, they have, in effect, targeted the victims of trafficking.
AARP, not ARP - you know elderly drivers.
Do we have the will to use our technology to overcome biological messiness? Or would we rather condemn people who weren't born perfectly to a second class life while shaming them for being born wrong the whole way?
It is far more profitable to force people to pay for expensive, recurring treatments throughout their lifetime than to cure them. To this point, I am not sure there is even any serious research being done for a cure - the problem is solved in the most ideal way for the industry that would be responsible for the research.
The happy meals will continue until morale improves.
I think the comparison was limited to successful projects.