The biggest problem in the US medical arena is precisely the profit motive. And no, I dont mean doctors or their staff.
Instead, These insurance companies are one of the evil ones. Yes, they do want to look for "effective treatments". Exactly the language. They want no cures. They instead, want your money each month so that they can profit on you by being sick.
Or worse yet, they simply take your money and deny coverage claiming "Experimental" or likewise. If you're that sick, you're not going to have a lawsuit do anything in any reasonable amount of time. We would call that Blood Money. Here in the USA, its business as usual.
And what exactly does these insurance companies and HMOs actually do, other than shuffle paper and suck massive amounts of money? What good is there that they put out that couldnt be gained greater from putting that money in other areas?
Dont take this the wrong way, but I've seen similar things in computer consulting, and I have a few recommendations for you. Mind me, but Im not a MD, and only thought about being one for about 10 seconds after realizing that no MD training is done until after Bachelors...
---I practice evidence based medicine as much as possible. The trouble is that patients have a very hard time understanding it, let alone appreciating it.
Same here. I tell the idiot user that porn sites using Internet Explorer will get you viruses. The question will then be "How many probems", not "If problems".
I then end back on site de-virusing the machines yet again. I even set up firefox for him, but back to the porn he goes.
---I don't give antibiotics for colds, but those patients often go see other doctors to get their antibiotics. When they get their inappropriate prescription, ironically I come across as a bad doctor for not prescribing it in the first place.
---When people bring their kids in to get some gravol for their viral gastroenteritis, I tell them that it has been shown to be no better than placebo, so I don't offer it. Parents hate that.
If they're dead set on gravol, then why not offer up the advice that the active ingredient in Gravol is the same as seen in OTC motion sickness drugs. Come across as the caring doctor, and that you're trying to help them save money by not pushing prescriptions. Just say that you should follow all the advice and dosing instructions on the box.
From what I've seen, people dont usually care, unless they think they know better. Then they'll argue till they're blue in the face regardless what you say. Instead, imply agreement, but do the favor and offer a similar track.. and wouldnt you know, it's as good as a sugar pill.
---I have a cranky baby at home. My friends asked me why I don't use Oval. I told them that there is evidence that it doesn't work. They stared at me like I had three heads. After all, they tried it and it worked for them!
Oval? Is that another homeopathy quack cure? I've never even hard of that one.
---People come in with back pain. My job is to rule out the dangerous causes, and once that's done give them some analgesia and tell them to weight a few weeks for it to improve. Any serious pathology will reveal itself over time if there are no red flags during the initial history and physical. Patients hate that. They want the xray. So they go to their chiropractor who orders a bunch of xrays (placebo 'tests' are very therapeutic to patients actually). "Well, your xray looks fine!"
That's a hard one. My mom had severe back pain (history went back to 5 yrs old). She went to many doctors, all of them telling her it was either in her head, or nothing they could do. One did feel pity and put her on demerol, which made her retch (turns out, Im sensitive to it too).
Well, after years of back pain, was when the glucosamine chrondrotin cures were coming out. In fact, we heard it from our vet. My dad found a dosing chart that he believed reliable. After that, we tested it on our arthritic pug. She's no longer arthritic. Then, my mom went on it. Over the course of the next 2 weeks, she regained full motion and lost all the pain. And for about 3 days, she forgot to take it, and the back pain came back. After restarting it, the pain went away again.
I can also tell a story about my whole family, but mainly my dad. He hates doctors in general, but prefers to solve health issues for himself. You can blame the "preexisting conditions" rules for why. His BP and cholesterol was rather high. Well, he (and the rest of us) did research on Linus Paulings idea of Vitamin C and cholesterol... After reading his many papers, including his nobel thesis, we decided to take C, L-Lysine, and Proline. In terms of dosage, I personally take 8g of C each day.
After still not changing our eating habits, we have halved our cholesterol levels, brought our BP to "above normal" levels, and generally feel better. And we still dont know why
But that's just the genertional gap just being shown.
Back in the old days,/. was a purists tech site. They had some funnies as in (groan), but mostly was discussion and Linux advocation. Then, we really didnt care about the legality of whatever. As long as it was technologically feasible and interesting, it was worth doing.
Fast forward past the Napster years....
We now live in a world of "Papers Please", and surveillance tech. Most of our cool ideas have been deemed "illegal", as they were gray first. The 2600 judgment said that just linking was violating. Now, most of our efforts are to try to turn this tide around, telling politicians how stupid their policies really are.
We now talk about network neutrality, but that's solved by encryption. Next they block encryption and we set it up to look like html over http "share servers". And then we have the 750-35000 dollar fine if we are found trading. Look at NewYorkCountryLawyer for those situations. He's a techie geek lawyer who fights on our side.
Still, Fravia offers hints on how to protect stuff. Of course, he offers help on protecting mainly Windows software, but it can be applied to other arenas.
1. Some user bought book. You have their information. Ok, on PDF creation, create a unique pdf that ever so slightly puts user information in the pdf on the borders in nice light gray color.
Can be beat if 2 or more users do diffs and see the common parts. The more users, the more you approach the real pdf.
2. Value add. Im sure there's more information coming out in the field. Provide updates to the book, and extra sections that the book does not have, or does not adequately expand.
Some enterprising cracker will re-create the pdf with the added pages.
3. If the website provides updates, or the pdf is created per user, use a steganographic process that also hides the user name and identifying information. If a good algorithm is chosen, they may not adequately be able to even detect the rat.
As above. If multiple users share diffs, then it could be beat or detected.
----
You could implement crapware or DRM all you want, but that is only going to antagonize users. Or worse yet, they wont buy at all if they have any sense about DRM. But you'll probably sell the crippled copies to who thinks it's just like a real book... and then learns the hard way it's not.
If you do some sort of security, do it on the sly, and dont interfere with any normal procedure. Of course, you can highlight at time of sale that their name will be inside the book. Just dont tell them that the whitespace also contains their name.
Worse comes to worst, if a copy ends up on piratebay, you can take legal action against allowing their copy to get out. Then, you have to weigh if the Streisand Effect is worth what you might recover, because your book will hit the "Top TPB 10" if you sue and make a big stunt out of it. Or suck it up and just give the Sharer a call, and say "No more free publicity, ok?". Or go with the tried and true embarrassment technique like the "DONT ACCEPT CHECKS FROM JOHNNY Q PUBLIC"
I think Benjamin Franklin had something to say about this kind of situation...
"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Simply put, if you release something that is a secret, you're making it no longer a secret. I dont care what you wrap it around, be it encrypted pdf, some sort of windows media encryption, online-only viewing, or what have you. Eventually, you will hit somebody who wants your $whatever and will spend any amount of time to do so.
---
Real example: My friends and I go to the university. While there, somebody got suckered in buying an online book for the electronics class.. Turns out, it can only print 10 pages (out of 800+), and has an expiration date of 180 days. He didnt know about this, and wasnt exactly broadcast to him at point of sale. And he paid only 30$ less than a real hardcover. So, they come to me, the weird Fravia loving, Linux hacker who screws around with Windows inside a VM (no more softice since we have VM calls in the cpu).
Because of how the program installed, he had no "installs left". Ok. So I hooked up a nice widescreen monitor, set it clockwise, displayed the "book" the same length and told it to expand to fullscreen. After that, I used a WSH to simulate key presses so that it incremented through every page. I also used a GPL Windows program that saves a *_0001.jpg and increments upwards. After letting it run for 15 minutes, it shows completion.
After Un-drm-ing the book, I proceed to upload it to my linux laptop for ImageMagick processing and cleaning. After that, I catenate the jpgs to a nice 1 pdf. And the 3 other people who didnt have the book yet (they were going to buy it), now instead got it for free, in a no-gunk pdf.
---
So yeah, excessively locking down your stuff can actually make your media a bigger target. If instead, you treat your purchasers well, they wont feel so inclined that you screwed them (unlike the school book situation described above). Or better yet, offer content that only purchasers can access (and the pirates cannot easily). Value added does work in many cases.
And still realize that you cannot stop a cracker from extracting images from static memory when the VM is frozen and your keys are there. Its only an apt-get install virtualbox away.
There's some of the group that calls themselves Libertarians that does make sense. The biggest idea behind their force is that corporatism is the lesser of 2 evils compared to government. One can legally steal, and then proceed with violence to get its way. I dont know if either are good for us in the long haul.
---Or are you for allowing school choice... even when it means fundies can skip teaching evolution and condoms?
Here in Indiana, we pay property taxes that go "To The School". In reality, they go to whatever failing school district its linked to. There's a few good schools, but most of them are rotting from the inside out. And here in Indiana, if you choose to go to an alternate (or homeschool), the governmentally captured funds for school are still lost and not accessible to you.
And frankly, if Fundies kids wanted to go into biology, they'd get laughed out if they started to spout creationism. That solves itself.
---Or are you against using the power of the State to seize the resources of the successful to give to those who couldn't give enough of a shit to get an education?
Like I said before, very hostile. And you're asking the wrong question. The proper question is to ask why we accept such low overall output of our scholastic training with the excessive amount of money coming in the system. Why are there not competing systems trying to prepare future adults to be productive citizens within our government?
Perhaps, what we have now is what our government wants: a culture of authoritarianism. A populace that obeys is an easy populace to gain control of. And the troublemakers distill themselves out either early in school or later by violating minor laws.
[Fairness Doctrine]
About that law... Perhaps it made sense when the prevalent media was either newspaper, television, and radio. We now have this nice thing call the Internet that all forms of other media are fighting against. The old FCC laws of yore preventing X % ownership per area have been repealed, as have the 1 owner to many media types. The internet with the bloggers and such are still winning.
One time, it was sorely needed. Not any more, unless you want a fairness doctrine to apply to the internet (haha).
---And are you against all gun control. at least anything less than crew served weapons or WMD, right?
How about repealing the assault weapons ban, along with repealing possession of self-made bombs. Provided with basic chemistry knowledge, one can make a rather effective block-busting bomb. Or one can use improvised 30 clip shotguns, or internet bought rocker switches for assault weapons that cant go 3 burst or full auto.
This idea that one must have their own WMD arsenal is just ridiculous. However, one with malice in their heart can and will do damage. Their choice of tool can be their fists, crowbars, tasers, knives, guns, bombs, or about any other improvised weapon. Go look at Iraq and see what can be potentially be made into a weapon. Intent has always been 90% of a law for a reason.
---And so on and so on. Hope you get my point by now. Just because YOU don't care one way or the other about designer babies doesn't mean as a society we might not need to make a decision that this is such a bad idea we just might want to at least go on the record that this is a BAD IDEA and perhaps discourage it a little? Is bringing up the subject of societal disapproval too much for the everything is grey moral relativists? Once we get that much moral clarity we can consider the question of opening up the bigger can of worms as to whether we can or should regulate it legally.
Ok. Perhaps you're right. But when does this view of "Sanctity of Life" change to "Im old enough, let me do whatever I want with my body"? We already have 16, 18, and 21 as three different standards of consent.
Or perhaps we come from the side of the abortionists: "It's Her Body, so what's the big deal?" One cannot have an abortion after birth, as it's murder. But before has been successfully been argued in a court of law, so prior law is there saying it is in fact, the woman's body.
That kind of "law" is usually related to libel and slander laws already active.
Since one cannot prove things like "does not work well with others" and "disrespectful", it only serves to punish what is not law. Therefore, since it impunes job prospects, hence damages.
If you intent to file criminal charges, they will be public.
Hope you like the unemployment line. Because no employer in the field you're in will take you knowing this, and background checks DO check for lawsuits against legitimate businesses.
I had an ethics class once that discussed this exact sort of thing. Here's how it works out in a medium-sized town (say about 30k people).
Prospective employer calls former employer....
(the good conversation)
Pros. Employer: So how is Mr Smith? Fmr Employer: Very good worker, shows up on time, and does his job promptly and dependably. Pros: Did he have any unexcused or long stints of absences? Fmr: Very rarely. I usually sent him home as he'd come in on his sick days. Pros: Would you hire him back? Fmr: In a heartbeat.
(the bad conversation)
Pros: So how is Mr Smith? Fmr: He worked from 1/08 to 1/09 Pros: Did he have any unexcused or long stints of absences? Fmr: He worked from 1/08 to 1/09 Pros: Would you hire him back? Fmr: He worked from 1/08 to 1/09 Pros: I see.
____
One would not sue for a good glowing reference... but the second one said nothing bad. It's understood though. It's the same kind of stuff that interviewers and HR are trained to ask, when you just cant ask.
Good question. I've got a eee 701SD and Ive had the same problem.
Instead of dealing with eeeBuntu and its ilk, I went on and put on Jaunty. After downloading the r8780 driver source and using module assistant to compile, it works like a charm. I also used the alternate cd so I could get full disk encryption, which was my biggie requirement.
And after 9.4 has been "released", it will also support lots of 'cloud based' things, so the small storage will be no big deal at all.
---Child pornography? That's a shit reason censor. ---It also happens to be the one reason people aren't able to argue with.
Oh, it's VERY arguable. You just need to move the definition of "Child". Children, prior to the 1900's applied to the age group of 10 and under. Over that and you were an adult. And this word adolescent.. made up word in the 50's. I'll provide a framework that might work in your country.
___
"The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.
The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority'."
And having these very colleagues "blow up" and possibly take their petty squabbles to the clients can be very damaging to everyone involved.
Regardless of education, experience, and qualifications, those individuals who cannot contain outbursts of emotion as Arkham6 stated are in fact, unprofessional. They'll eventually be relegated to dark corners in basements where their petty outbursts can do no harm.
That's not really burning bridges. Burning bridges would be to badmouth everybody and anybody you didnt like.
You instead, brought attention to corporate, a bad manager that would have broken apart the whole team. If anything, you should have been congratulated for speaking out.
Since I dont know the exact situation other than what you told us, the best example is the way the company did put the manager on desk duty.
I figured it probably had a different meaning when referring to legal standards.
---I don't think 12 is a good age. But that's the problem, there's no way of getting an agreement on this issue since it depends very much on the minor.
Ill admit too that I dont 'like' 12 as the age. However, my 2 minutes of internet research shows that they youngest US citizen tried but not convicted was 12. I also dont want to judge upon a standard of "Morally Respnsible", or other methods of mental soundness, as it could be easily applied to ages way above what the population could be considered standard.
As I say here, and other posts, is that Age of Majority should be linked to the minimum age that's tried of a felony as an adult.
"The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.
The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority'."
----
Sound fair? If somebody gets hit for a crime as an adult at 27, then now the national standard is 27 for age of majority. This would force states and territories to consider what exactly the Age of Majority is, by also allowing full citizenship and rights to all in that age group.
And yeah, there's a few holes in there but the meaning is very clear: If you think somebody committed a crime as an adult, you must think at all the people the same age should also have the same rights. We already do the same for 16, 18, and 21, regardless of relative mental insight (or however they put it).
---Agreement absolutely should have an age restriction, because it comes down to the ability of the person making the agreement to make an informed decision. This is important because if the person making the agreement cannot make an informed decision, then we can't really be sure that noone is going to be hurt.
Agreed.
---Is a 14 year old capable of making an informed decision? What about an 8 year old? Maybe, but as a society we've pretty much agreed that 18 is a reasonable place to set the bar.
It depends on the 14 year old. If they're raised on that old idea of cause and effect and has been shown that bad things can and will happen, I'd trust their opinion over a 30 year old who hasnt learned that.
Also, the 18 year age is not agreed upon by many segments of the population. When I was in high school, I knew many that formed their own opinions of politics, and could connect logic just as good as many adults. We allow sexual decisions at 16 and acknowledge that informed consent can be made then, but no pictures due to arcane laws that forbid it.
We (royal, in terms of government) find under 18'ers guilty of crimes as we try them as adults. They are "adults" when compared to crimes, but no other adult rights?
We (royal again) find young females guilty of "child pornography" when they take pictures of themselves, under no coercion. Who is harmed then?
If you're over 21, you have pretty much every right as afforded by the USA, with exception to high political offices that have age limits. If you're under 21, it's a morass of what law you might be violating under which penal code. Take a topless shot of yourself at 17 and you now a child pornographer, or 18 and a sip of alcohol and DAMN YOU.
---We might ask who, if not the individual, is in a position to make such a decision on their behalf - I'd say here parents or guardians serve in that role until the child is old enough to make informed decisions.
The standard of majority should be the lowest age of who has been tried as an adult in this country, without being found guilty. And that would indicate 12.
---I agree with the statement that the government is not our moral compass, but in this case I don't think this is about governments acting as a moral compass. I think it's about offering some protection to minors.
Minors should be protected. The argument is whether 18 should be that standard. Im dead set that it should not be, due to actions by our very government.
---I don't understand. Do you mean we should let minors do porn as long as they agree with it? And how do you know if s/he is able to decide in a meaningful way?
Im going to take an unpopular view. Yes, they should.
We routinely charge under 18'ers who commit felonies as adults. If we as a society accept that they can commit crimes as an adult, they should be treated as an adult under all circumstances. I would propose 12 as the age, as it seems to be the youngest to be tried (but not found guilty) as an adult.
Rights then would include: drinking age to 12, driving age to 12, military age to be considered as 12, voting age to 12, jury duty to 12, male selective service considered to 12, cigarette purchase to 12, allow binding contracts at 12, hold political office at 12 unless bound by age in either state or national Constitution, sexual activity at 12, working as a full time citizen at 12.
That would also indicate make all these "protect the children" garbage laws void, because they can do so now. I'd also eliminate mandatory school after 12. Some people arent meant for long term schooling like college. So, we shouldnt make them. Instead, save the monies for those who wish to continue. The key is that the state should provide for those that do wish to continue on.
Ill quit my diatribe here, as you probably understand my viewpoint. I just want this double standard and age discrimination solved.
---Actually, I think what you said is too ambiguous... you said "As long as no one is hurt" and "agree". You should now define "hurt" and "agree", which I think is the main issue here.
Hurt: physical/bodily harm or property damage. Thanks to lawyers, this now includes mental trauma. Agree: Verbal or written contract of someone of majority.
I use DSLinux for maintenance of my servers.. You know, logs and stuff. It's nice to have a handheld easy to use Linux available. Too bad it has no MMU. I also use the TI-83+ emulator called WabbitDS, along with a algebra system called EigenMathDS.
I also have a M3 DS Real with a 4gb card, so I can also play any rom listed on romulation.net
Yeah.. 200$ = linux + calculator + web browser + IM + VOIP + all ds games.
Fact: This band charges 3$ for 4 cd access until they quit. Theres a nice piratebay link in a recent post that aims at 7 cds. Hell, if you like the group, you will buy the 3$ to get the unheard tracks. Its just 3$.
Ive got the piratebay link on my post, just above yours. Its not that hard. Nor is 3$ for 4 cd's of music from 1 group.
I hate DRM and dislike copyright, but these prices are finally getting fair. If they were for a computer (eg: not tied to an os or drm setup) Id consider buying 4 cds for 3$. Hell, I blow that on a coffee drink that disappears in 5 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem in the US medical arena is precisely the profit motive. And no, I dont mean doctors or their staff.
Instead, These insurance companies are one of the evil ones. Yes, they do want to look for "effective treatments". Exactly the language. They want no cures. They instead, want your money each month so that they can profit on you by being sick.
Or worse yet, they simply take your money and deny coverage claiming "Experimental" or likewise. If you're that sick, you're not going to have a lawsuit do anything in any reasonable amount of time. We would call that Blood Money. Here in the USA, its business as usual.
And what exactly does these insurance companies and HMOs actually do, other than shuffle paper and suck massive amounts of money? What good is there that they put out that couldnt be gained greater from putting that money in other areas?
Dont take this the wrong way, but I've seen similar things in computer consulting, and I have a few recommendations for you. Mind me, but Im not a MD, and only thought about being one for about 10 seconds after realizing that no MD training is done until after Bachelors...
---I practice evidence based medicine as much as possible. The trouble is that patients have a very hard time understanding it, let alone appreciating it.
Same here. I tell the idiot user that porn sites using Internet Explorer will get you viruses. The question will then be "How many probems", not "If problems".
I then end back on site de-virusing the machines yet again. I even set up firefox for him, but back to the porn he goes.
---I don't give antibiotics for colds, but those patients often go see other doctors to get their antibiotics. When they get their inappropriate prescription, ironically I come across as a bad doctor for not prescribing it in the first place.
---When people bring their kids in to get some gravol for their viral gastroenteritis, I tell them that it has been shown to be no better than placebo, so I don't offer it. Parents hate that.
If they're dead set on gravol, then why not offer up the advice that the active ingredient in Gravol is the same as seen in OTC motion sickness drugs. Come across as the caring doctor, and that you're trying to help them save money by not pushing prescriptions. Just say that you should follow all the advice and dosing instructions on the box.
From what I've seen, people dont usually care, unless they think they know better. Then they'll argue till they're blue in the face regardless what you say. Instead, imply agreement, but do the favor and offer a similar track.. and wouldnt you know, it's as good as a sugar pill.
---I have a cranky baby at home. My friends asked me why I don't use Oval. I told them that there is evidence that it doesn't work. They stared at me like I had three heads. After all, they tried it and it worked for them!
Oval? Is that another homeopathy quack cure? I've never even hard of that one.
---People come in with back pain. My job is to rule out the dangerous causes, and once that's done give them some analgesia and tell them to weight a few weeks for it to improve. Any serious pathology will reveal itself over time if there are no red flags during the initial history and physical. Patients hate that. They want the xray. So they go to their chiropractor who orders a bunch of xrays (placebo 'tests' are very therapeutic to patients actually). "Well, your xray looks fine!"
That's a hard one. My mom had severe back pain (history went back to 5 yrs old). She went to many doctors, all of them telling her it was either in her head, or nothing they could do. One did feel pity and put her on demerol, which made her retch (turns out, Im sensitive to it too).
Well, after years of back pain, was when the glucosamine chrondrotin cures were coming out. In fact, we heard it from our vet. My dad found a dosing chart that he believed reliable. After that, we tested it on our arthritic pug. She's no longer arthritic. Then, my mom went on it. Over the course of the next 2 weeks, she regained full motion and lost all the pain. And for about 3 days, she forgot to take it, and the back pain came back. After restarting it, the pain went away again.
I can also tell a story about my whole family, but mainly my dad. He hates doctors in general, but prefers to solve health issues for himself. You can blame the "preexisting conditions" rules for why. His BP and cholesterol was rather high. Well, he (and the rest of us) did research on Linus Paulings idea of Vitamin C and cholesterol... After reading his many papers, including his nobel thesis, we decided to take C, L-Lysine, and Proline. In terms of dosage, I personally take 8g of C each day.
After still not changing our eating habits, we have halved our cholesterol levels, brought our BP to "above normal" levels, and generally feel better. And we still dont know why
There's also a hard to find copy of Win2k with 64 bit enabled.
But that's just the genertional gap just being shown.
Back in the old days, /. was a purists tech site. They had some funnies as in (groan), but mostly was discussion and Linux advocation. Then, we really didnt care about the legality of whatever. As long as it was technologically feasible and interesting, it was worth doing.
Fast forward past the Napster years....
We now live in a world of "Papers Please", and surveillance tech. Most of our cool ideas have been deemed "illegal", as they were gray first. The 2600 judgment said that just linking was violating. Now, most of our efforts are to try to turn this tide around, telling politicians how stupid their policies really are.
We now talk about network neutrality, but that's solved by encryption. Next they block encryption and we set it up to look like html over http "share servers". And then we have the 750-35000 dollar fine if we are found trading. Look at NewYorkCountryLawyer for those situations. He's a techie geek lawyer who fights on our side.
Still, Fravia offers hints on how to protect stuff. Of course, he offers help on protecting mainly Windows software, but it can be applied to other arenas.
1. Some user bought book. You have their information. Ok, on PDF creation, create a unique pdf that ever so slightly puts user information in the pdf on the borders in nice light gray color.
Can be beat if 2 or more users do diffs and see the common parts. The more users, the more you approach the real pdf.
2. Value add. Im sure there's more information coming out in the field. Provide updates to the book, and extra sections that the book does not have, or does not adequately expand.
Some enterprising cracker will re-create the pdf with the added pages.
3. If the website provides updates, or the pdf is created per user, use a steganographic process that also hides the user name and identifying information. If a good algorithm is chosen, they may not adequately be able to even detect the rat.
As above. If multiple users share diffs, then it could be beat or detected.
----
You could implement crapware or DRM all you want, but that is only going to antagonize users. Or worse yet, they wont buy at all if they have any sense about DRM. But you'll probably sell the crippled copies to who thinks it's just like a real book... and then learns the hard way it's not.
If you do some sort of security, do it on the sly, and dont interfere with any normal procedure. Of course, you can highlight at time of sale that their name will be inside the book. Just dont tell them that the whitespace also contains their name.
Worse comes to worst, if a copy ends up on piratebay, you can take legal action against allowing their copy to get out. Then, you have to weigh if the Streisand Effect is worth what you might recover, because your book will hit the "Top TPB 10" if you sue and make a big stunt out of it. Or suck it up and just give the Sharer a call, and say "No more free publicity, ok?". Or go with the tried and true embarrassment technique like the "DONT ACCEPT CHECKS FROM JOHNNY Q PUBLIC"
I think Benjamin Franklin had something to say about this kind of situation...
"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Simply put, if you release something that is a secret, you're making it no longer a secret. I dont care what you wrap it around, be it encrypted pdf, some sort of windows media encryption, online-only viewing, or what have you. Eventually, you will hit somebody who wants your $whatever and will spend any amount of time to do so.
---
Real example: My friends and I go to the university. While there, somebody got suckered in buying an online book for the electronics class.. Turns out, it can only print 10 pages (out of 800+), and has an expiration date of 180 days. He didnt know about this, and wasnt exactly broadcast to him at point of sale. And he paid only 30$ less than a real hardcover. So, they come to me, the weird Fravia loving, Linux hacker who screws around with Windows inside a VM (no more softice since we have VM calls in the cpu).
Because of how the program installed, he had no "installs left". Ok. So I hooked up a nice widescreen monitor, set it clockwise, displayed the "book" the same length and told it to expand to fullscreen. After that, I used a WSH to simulate key presses so that it incremented through every page. I also used a GPL Windows program that saves a *_0001.jpg and increments upwards. After letting it run for 15 minutes, it shows completion.
After Un-drm-ing the book, I proceed to upload it to my linux laptop for ImageMagick processing and cleaning. After that, I catenate the jpgs to a nice 1 pdf. And the 3 other people who didnt have the book yet (they were going to buy it), now instead got it for free, in a no-gunk pdf.
---
So yeah, excessively locking down your stuff can actually make your media a bigger target. If instead, you treat your purchasers well, they wont feel so inclined that you screwed them (unlike the school book situation described above). Or better yet, offer content that only purchasers can access (and the pirates cannot easily). Value added does work in many cases.
And still realize that you cannot stop a cracker from extracting images from static memory when the VM is frozen and your keys are there. Its only an apt-get install virtualbox away.
Try here: image
That's quite a caustic tone, I'd say.
There's some of the group that calls themselves Libertarians that does make sense. The biggest idea behind their force is that corporatism is the lesser of 2 evils compared to government. One can legally steal, and then proceed with violence to get its way. I dont know if either are good for us in the long haul.
---Or are you for allowing school choice... even when it means fundies can skip teaching evolution and condoms?
Here in Indiana, we pay property taxes that go "To The School". In reality, they go to whatever failing school district its linked to. There's a few good schools, but most of them are rotting from the inside out. And here in Indiana, if you choose to go to an alternate (or homeschool), the governmentally captured funds for school are still lost and not accessible to you.
And frankly, if Fundies kids wanted to go into biology, they'd get laughed out if they started to spout creationism. That solves itself.
---Or are you against using the power of the State to seize the resources of the successful to give to those who couldn't give enough of a shit to get an education?
Like I said before, very hostile. And you're asking the wrong question. The proper question is to ask why we accept such low overall output of our scholastic training with the excessive amount of money coming in the system. Why are there not competing systems trying to prepare future adults to be productive citizens within our government?
Perhaps, what we have now is what our government wants: a culture of authoritarianism. A populace that obeys is an easy populace to gain control of. And the troublemakers distill themselves out either early in school or later by violating minor laws.
[Fairness Doctrine]
About that law... Perhaps it made sense when the prevalent media was either newspaper, television, and radio. We now have this nice thing call the Internet that all forms of other media are fighting against. The old FCC laws of yore preventing X % ownership per area have been repealed, as have the 1 owner to many media types. The internet with the bloggers and such are still winning.
One time, it was sorely needed. Not any more, unless you want a fairness doctrine to apply to the internet (haha).
---And are you against all gun control. at least anything less than crew served weapons or WMD, right?
How about repealing the assault weapons ban, along with repealing possession of self-made bombs. Provided with basic chemistry knowledge, one can make a rather effective block-busting bomb. Or one can use improvised 30 clip shotguns, or internet bought rocker switches for assault weapons that cant go 3 burst or full auto.
This idea that one must have their own WMD arsenal is just ridiculous. However, one with malice in their heart can and will do damage. Their choice of tool can be their fists, crowbars, tasers, knives, guns, bombs, or about any other improvised weapon. Go look at Iraq and see what can be potentially be made into a weapon. Intent has always been 90% of a law for a reason.
---And so on and so on. Hope you get my point by now. Just because YOU don't care one way or the other about designer babies doesn't mean as a society we might not need to make a decision that this is such a bad idea we just might want to at least go on the record that this is a BAD IDEA and perhaps discourage it a little? Is bringing up the subject of societal disapproval too much for the everything is grey moral relativists? Once we get that much moral clarity we can consider the question of opening up the bigger can of worms as to whether we can or should regulate it legally.
Ok. Perhaps you're right. But when does this view of "Sanctity of Life" change to "Im old enough, let me do whatever I want with my body"? We already have 16, 18, and 21 as three different standards of consent.
Or perhaps we come from the side of the abortionists: "It's Her Body, so what's the big deal?" One cannot have an abortion after birth, as it's murder. But before has been successfully been argued in a court of law, so prior law is there saying it is in fact, the woman's body.
That kind of "law" is usually related to libel and slander laws already active.
Since one cannot prove things like "does not work well with others" and "disrespectful", it only serves to punish what is not law. Therefore, since it impunes job prospects, hence damages.
But there's ways around that.
If you intent to file criminal charges, they will be public.
Hope you like the unemployment line. Because no employer in the field you're in will take you knowing this, and background checks DO check for lawsuits against legitimate businesses.
I had an ethics class once that discussed this exact sort of thing. Here's how it works out in a medium-sized town (say about 30k people).
Prospective employer calls former employer....
(the good conversation)
Pros. Employer: So how is Mr Smith?
Fmr Employer: Very good worker, shows up on time, and does his job promptly and dependably.
Pros: Did he have any unexcused or long stints of absences?
Fmr: Very rarely. I usually sent him home as he'd come in on his sick days.
Pros: Would you hire him back?
Fmr: In a heartbeat.
(the bad conversation)
Pros: So how is Mr Smith?
Fmr: He worked from 1/08 to 1/09
Pros: Did he have any unexcused or long stints of absences?
Fmr: He worked from 1/08 to 1/09
Pros: Would you hire him back?
Fmr: He worked from 1/08 to 1/09
Pros: I see.
____
One would not sue for a good glowing reference... but the second one said nothing bad. It's understood though. It's the same kind of stuff that interviewers and HR are trained to ask, when you just cant ask.
---play or a Flash ad that you can't turn off or close
The only way to win is not to play the game.
jury of one's peers n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.
Not that I agree with that, but it would point to the founders going against the idea of appointed "special" jurors.
Good question. I've got a eee 701SD and Ive had the same problem.
Instead of dealing with eeeBuntu and its ilk, I went on and put on Jaunty. After downloading the r8780 driver source and using module assistant to compile, it works like a charm. I also used the alternate cd so I could get full disk encryption, which was my biggie requirement.
And after 9.4 has been "released", it will also support lots of 'cloud based' things, so the small storage will be no big deal at all.
---Child pornography? That's a shit reason censor.
---It also happens to be the one reason people aren't able to argue with.
Oh, it's VERY arguable. You just need to move the definition of "Child". Children, prior to the 1900's applied to the age group of 10 and under. Over that and you were an adult. And this word adolescent.. made up word in the 50's. I'll provide a framework that might work in your country.
___
"The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.
The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority' ."
And having these very colleagues "blow up" and possibly take their petty squabbles to the clients can be very damaging to everyone involved.
Regardless of education, experience, and qualifications, those individuals who cannot contain outbursts of emotion as Arkham6 stated are in fact, unprofessional. They'll eventually be relegated to dark corners in basements where their petty outbursts can do no harm.
That's not really burning bridges. Burning bridges would be to badmouth everybody and anybody you didnt like.
You instead, brought attention to corporate, a bad manager that would have broken apart the whole team. If anything, you should have been congratulated for speaking out.
Since I dont know the exact situation other than what you told us, the best example is the way the company did put the manager on desk duty.
And a lot of managed switches are garbage. Basic attacks of fake arp requests will easily overload these kinds of switches.
And ARP poisoning sill is very effective.
---Double standard is quite a different topic.
I figured it probably had a different meaning when referring to legal standards.
---I don't think 12 is a good age. But that's the problem, there's no way of getting an agreement on this issue since it depends very much on the minor.
Ill admit too that I dont 'like' 12 as the age. However, my 2 minutes of internet research shows that they youngest US citizen tried but not convicted was 12. I also dont want to judge upon a standard of "Morally Respnsible", or other methods of mental soundness, as it could be easily applied to ages way above what the population could be considered standard.
As I say here, and other posts, is that Age of Majority should be linked to the minimum age that's tried of a felony as an adult.
New standard, as the following:
"The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.
The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority' ."
----
Sound fair? If somebody gets hit for a crime as an adult at 27, then now the national standard is 27 for age of majority. This would force states and territories to consider what exactly the Age of Majority is, by also allowing full citizenship and rights to all in that age group.
And yeah, there's a few holes in there but the meaning is very clear: If you think somebody committed a crime as an adult, you must think at all the people the same age should also have the same rights. We already do the same for 16, 18, and 21, regardless of relative mental insight (or however they put it).
---Agreement absolutely should have an age restriction, because it comes down to the ability of the person making the agreement to make an informed decision. This is important because if the person making the agreement cannot make an informed decision, then we can't really be sure that noone is going to be hurt.
Agreed.
---Is a 14 year old capable of making an informed decision? What about an 8 year old? Maybe, but as a society we've pretty much agreed that 18 is a reasonable place to set the bar.
It depends on the 14 year old. If they're raised on that old idea of cause and effect and has been shown that bad things can and will happen, I'd trust their opinion over a 30 year old who hasnt learned that.
Also, the 18 year age is not agreed upon by many segments of the population. When I was in high school, I knew many that formed their own opinions of politics, and could connect logic just as good as many adults. We allow sexual decisions at 16 and acknowledge that informed consent can be made then, but no pictures due to arcane laws that forbid it.
We (royal, in terms of government) find under 18'ers guilty of crimes as we try them as adults. They are "adults" when compared to crimes, but no other adult rights?
We (royal again) find young females guilty of "child pornography" when they take pictures of themselves, under no coercion. Who is harmed then?
If you're over 21, you have pretty much every right as afforded by the USA, with exception to high political offices that have age limits. If you're under 21, it's a morass of what law you might be violating under which penal code. Take a topless shot of yourself at 17 and you now a child pornographer, or 18 and a sip of alcohol and DAMN YOU.
---We might ask who, if not the individual, is in a position to make such a decision on their behalf - I'd say here parents or guardians serve in that role until the child is old enough to make informed decisions.
The standard of majority should be the lowest age of who has been tried as an adult in this country, without being found guilty. And that would indicate 12.
---I agree with the statement that the government is not our moral compass, but in this case I don't think this is about governments acting as a moral compass. I think it's about offering some protection to minors.
Minors should be protected. The argument is whether 18 should be that standard. Im dead set that it should not be, due to actions by our very government.
---I don't understand. Do you mean we should let minors do porn as long as they agree with it? And how do you know if s/he is able to decide in a meaningful way?
Im going to take an unpopular view. Yes, they should.
We routinely charge under 18'ers who commit felonies as adults. If we as a society accept that they can commit crimes as an adult, they should be treated as an adult under all circumstances. I would propose 12 as the age, as it seems to be the youngest to be tried (but not found guilty) as an adult.
Rights then would include: drinking age to 12, driving age to 12, military age to be considered as 12, voting age to 12, jury duty to 12, male selective service considered to 12, cigarette purchase to 12, allow binding contracts at 12, hold political office at 12 unless bound by age in either state or national Constitution, sexual activity at 12, working as a full time citizen at 12.
That would also indicate make all these "protect the children" garbage laws void, because they can do so now. I'd also eliminate mandatory school after 12. Some people arent meant for long term schooling like college. So, we shouldnt make them. Instead, save the monies for those who wish to continue. The key is that the state should provide for those that do wish to continue on.
Ill quit my diatribe here, as you probably understand my viewpoint. I just want this double standard and age discrimination solved.
---Actually, I think what you said is too ambiguous... you said "As long as no one is hurt" and "agree". You should now define "hurt" and "agree", which I think is the main issue here.
Hurt: physical/bodily harm or property damage. Thanks to lawyers, this now includes mental trauma.
Agree: Verbal or written contract of someone of majority.
I use DSLinux for maintenance of my servers.. You know, logs and stuff. It's nice to have a handheld easy to use Linux available. Too bad it has no MMU. I also use the TI-83+ emulator called WabbitDS, along with a algebra system called EigenMathDS.
I also have a M3 DS Real with a 4gb card, so I can also play any rom listed on romulation.net
Yeah.. 200$ = linux + calculator + web browser + IM + VOIP + all ds games.
But what if [CITATION NEEDED]
Then dont buy. Or pirate. Just quit'cher bitchin.
Fact: This band charges 3$ for 4 cd access until they quit. Theres a nice piratebay link in a recent post that aims at 7 cds. Hell, if you like the group, you will buy the 3$ to get the unheard tracks. Its just 3$.
Fiction: What if! If! Iff!!!!
Ive got the piratebay link on my post, just above yours. Its not that hard. Nor is 3$ for 4 cd's of music from 1 group.
I hate DRM and dislike copyright, but these prices are finally getting fair. If they were for a computer (eg: not tied to an os or drm setup) Id consider buying 4 cds for 3$. Hell, I blow that on a coffee drink that disappears in 5 minutes.