Forget the total cost of ownership here, anyone ever take a look at the total cost of production of cd's and dvd's and the markups on them. While cassettes can be rather costly, and often sell for like typically 7.99 - 14.99, cd's and dvd's are made for peanuts.69 - 4.99 yet they sell for anywhere from 9.99 - * What a monopoly.
Personally I could care less what one court says since another will go back and reverse and vice versa, but some of the record companies should tone down their bitching considering they're sticking it to the consumer %99 of the times. It's about time P2P came to bite them in the ass and give them a wake up call, and now hopefully some of the courts will too
Thought I would post this as it is somewhat relevant.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source
By Jonathan Krim
Thursday, August 21, 2003 [original article]
Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam, it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still too hard to use.
But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property.
Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a less-expensive alternative to commercial products.
Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration or use of open-source software.
So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said that the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the intellectual-property landscape.
The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60 technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer Project on Technology.
Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems.
In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.
Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to do so.
And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and the meeting.
The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an open-source meeting be quashed.
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
I say we ditch all the 'moral' laws and stick to the ones that actual cause harm to others. End entitlement programs (hand outs, section 8, etc). Separate church and state for real. Ditch de-regulation of utilities. Make punishments for government employees who let contributions change a vote extreme. Then sit back and watch America become a better place to live.
How exatcly would limiting section8 and handouts help america. Nowadays there are so many people out of work, with degrees let alone what I think you meant to state was those who abuse the system. I would rather pay taxes for section8 if it will keep the crime rate down. Besides there's been overhauls on many `hand-out` programs such as workfare.
Separation of church and state will be difficult because they're both nothing more than businesses, and religion generates huge revenues. Revenues = political contriutions, so while it sounds good it won't happen in this lifetime.
Punishing government employees will not happen either as too many people don't see this as such a big problem, if they did, they would move to make sure it wouldn't happen. Search google for cognitive dissonance to understand why.
When such a weak regulatory system is in place, nothing much stops an Enron-like group of cheaters from stepping in and making a profit off of the mess at the expense of the public. So what does this have to do with either party taking the measures to ensure proper funding to secure these plants? Whether its Bush or not wouldn't make a difference to me, but the fact is (listen close I'll let you in on a secret...) Bush is President and he has the power to make good on this bottom line. I don't care if there was a dem or liberal or whatever party you want to throw in. Just so happens that Bush is... What? Oh my bad Pres.
So, segment, you don't need to worry about off topic mods... it's -1 Flamebait that you posted. There's no room for either party to blame this on the other, they all failed and better get their act together and come up with something that keeps this from happening again. Flamebait? I don't necessarily think so. As stated above, I posted relevant information not to start a flamewar or political thread, if you took it as so `which find`/dev/perception | xargs fsck wasn't meant to be nothing more than a factual posting of relevance...
For those unaware of what's going on, here is a quick excerpt of President Bush denying money for a secure grid...
By Peter Behr and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 17, 2003
The Bush administration intends to side with a Senate Republican attempt to freeze a disputed regulatory proposal meant to strengthen the nation's aging power transmission system, which was blamed in last week's massive blackout, a senior administration official said yesterday.
On top of this it was announced that grids would be targeted by terrorists.
US electrical grid a prime terrorist target
By Knut Royce
Washington
August 18, 2003
Like virtually all of America's infrastructure, the electrical grid is vulnerable to isolated terrorist attacks that could create disruptions similar to the recent blackout.
A growing number of security experts, in and out of the Government, worry that potentially hostile states and even a rebuilt al-Qaeda could wreak havoc through simultaneous and co-ordinated assaults on sensitive points on the grid.
Here is a link to a mirrored doc of the Electronic Power Risk Assessment, there is going to be a huge amount of finger pointing, and political partisan bs behind this entire incident, but read it for yourself in plain english how your (P)Resident will not fund plan for a more secure system.
Why do some retailers sell them?
Some retailers are unaware that they are selling unlicensed goods, this could be because they don't know enough about anime goods, or maybe they want to make a bigger profit, as unlicensed goods are cheaper. Some retailers knowingly sell these goods for numerous reasons.
In many major cities there are hundreds of retailers selling them, hell I go into my local vid store and find bootlegs left and right. The author did a nice page of trying, but the fact is, many people from here who followed the link probably clicked the back button a few seconds later.
Fact: There are many out there who use the net for an escape, and many of those who do probably don't have the money to amuse or entertain themselves otherwise. So is it that much of a threat for Farmer Bob's son to download something he'll probably use for a week then toss to the side? Most articles only focus on the hardcore bootleggers, and they never exclude people like I just described in their stats. Hell I dont even know where they get their stats from anyway. No one has ever called my house to ask my views on this, yet in most articles you would see something state "The majority of users blah blah blah" I've spoken to my friends, and they've spoken to their friends about these stats and whether or not someone contacted them, and you know what.... No one I know or they know has ever been contacted, and these people are on comps way too much.
So the moral of the story is this... Absolutely nothing... People are going to do what they're going to do, it's happened in every industry, and it will continue doing so... Full circle...
My issue with benchmarking is this... When people read benchmarks, aside from the bias occurring with someone using a favored product, people will often have to take benchmarking as nothing more than an indicator for the following reasons: People will not have access to all the equipment used in a benchmark trial, hardware/software, so they're often going to have to rely on someone else's OBSERVATION. Information can be tweaked easily, and someone who has say a favored product can often tweak it to perform better than the competition, or make the competition's product behave worse.
Also as stated on an above post, who is sponsoring the benchmark testing, and why. Often you will see that %99.99999 of the companies sponsoring benchmarking tests come out with gleaming reviews. Has anyone here seen an MS sponsored test prove unfavorable to MS. It just doesn't happen. Independent studies should post all information concerning why they're doing benchmark tests including any sponsors, this way those reading the published results can get an overall VIEW of the results and use them as nothing more than in indicator and not solid fact.
Thats what i'm saying however I wouldnt mind reading 20 interviews with the publisher, the printer of the book, the person who did the film separations before the book went to press, plus 30 different angles of the word 'Read', followed by additional commentary by the delivery person. It's nice to see that sometimes overkill is just too much... DVD's 3 discs full of junk... Now books... How sad
Smartphone 2003 can use a security prompt for unsigned applications
Smartphone 2003 can use a security policy that, when turned on, causes a prompt to appear that asks the user whether to accept the installation or execution of an unsigned application.
Should read:
Smartphone 2003 will likely fall victim to RedAlert, or MSBlast
Smartphone 2003 can now replicate MS based virii and worms and send them to everyone listed on your phone. MS Where do you want to go replicate today!
What's to stop someone from say Africa, Taiwan or Korea from sending you advertisements? Absolutely nothing. While the concept is nice in theory, this law seems to be nothing more than someone doing something for possible future elections resume padding.
So let's say you limit those in the US from sending you spam, what are you going to do when they start relaying from borked out servers abroad... Better yet what can you do. Waste taxpayer money tracking down spammers abroad... Let's see $5000 to track them, another $1000 to bring them down here to face the music, $100,000k miminum for some sort of farce trial for something you could have taken care of with spamassassin.
Boy oh boy I don't know who is dumber the politician who passed this law or the spammer I hit d on using mutt.
damnit I wish I had the link still to this one site where the geeks would post obnoxious sites about robots and how humans would somehow interact with them for sex... Someone has been looking at AI with gang bang girls right after that one tooooooo many times
Some may remember some time ago when Germany also was going to yank MS products from being used by the German government.
March 19th, 2001 - Two German government agencies have announced that they will discontinue the use of software made by Microsoft and other American companies. According to the German news publication Der Spiegel, both the German foreign office and the Bundeswehr (German Federal Armed Forces) have banned American software, saying that there are security concerns in using programs developed by other countries in sensitive applications. Instead, German companies such as Siemens and Deutsche Telekom will provide solutions
(src: WinPlanet)
And now China...
The government has been pushing the development of a homegrown software industry and a national standard for open-source Linux software to counter the spread of Microsoft in the last few years.
This is not a bad idea, and if others took the same route, MS could feel it down the road. Considering the problems associated with MS nowadays (even though it has actually been rampant for some time), with worms, and all sorts of security issues, how long will it be before some huge class action lawsuit based on MS negligently releasing shoddy products. Think about it... It's the kind of stuff that makes the NSA want to place backdoors on software, excuse being they're trying to secure products where vendors are failing.
I say, good for China on making that move, hopefully others will take cues from China, and send MS a message. No more shoddy work!!! Just imagine what will hapen if some investigation pointed to an MS product being at fault for the power failure. Oh boy would that be some crazy stuff to deal with for MS.
Senator Chuck Schumer blasted the Bush administration for not taking the steps to equip passenger planes with weapons deterrent systems. Money to equip planes with devices that could stop someone from using a missile against it, nah let's play with robots. This being said just when the FBI busts a European businessman for trying to purchase a SAM (surface to air missile) that he allegedly was going to resell to terrorists.
According to Schumer "The threat facing commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles here in the United States is no longer theoretical"
So again I state... Waste money on pork-barrel shit like this, or but it to proper use?
Ethical Issues Involving Medical Devices
Rick Chen
Introduction
In a society where new technology is constantly being invented, medical devices are evolving at a fast pace. The use of complex and sophisticated equipment to monitor patient and diagnose disease are more and more routine in hospitals and clinics. New discoveries in the material science field have led to the improvement in implant devices such as pacemakers, artificial grafts, and artificial organs. Armed with these technological advances, physicians and engineers are able to save more lives and improve the quality of living. However, these new technologies have raised new debates and discussions on morality and ethical issues. Approval and regulation of medical devices, as well as patient's rights and informed consents are just a few of the many issues stirred up by these new developments. This section discusses some of the issues and concerns dealing with medical ethics as well as regulation of medical devices. It also talks about some cases that involved medical device failure, and some of the government's attempts to reduce failure.
Issues and Concerns
As most people know, putting new medical technologies on the market requires repeated clinical tests follow by animal and human tests. Finally the device is approved by the government agency such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In order to fully test the effectiveness of these devices, animal and human testing is necessary at some point. Due to sheer increases in the volume of biomedical research, problems associated with human experimentation gain in importance. This need raises very complicated questions about balancing the patient's right against the overall benefits. On the one hand, human life is precious and needs to be considered a high priority. On the other hand, the new technology could potentially have large social benefits.
In order to ensure the risks of physical and emotional injuries are at a minimum, every clinical study is required to meet comprehensive guidelines and regulations before moving to human experimentations. In addition to the regulations, a patient's rights during a human trial study should be properly protected. The concept of "informed consent" has emerged as a way to control this issue. Under informed consent, patients need to be informed of every aspect of the study, as well as the potential risks involved. This topic is discussed in detail in the informed consent section.
Medical Device Regulation
The first step in medical device regulation is to clearly define all the related terms and categories. A medical device is defined as any equipment used to treat, diagnose, or prevent disease (Jefferys, 2001). It can range from very basic equipment such as needles and syringes to complex devices such as X-ray machines and MRI scanners. In the case of clinical studies where the device has not yet been approved, a series of steps needs to be taken. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the regulation of these devices. For the new device to be used on human subjects, first an investigational device exemption (IDE), which allows an unapproved device to be used in a research study, needs to be approved by the FDA. After the approval, the devices are then divided into two categories: significant risk and insignificant risk. Devices that pose significant risks include implants and artificial organs. Devices such as glasses and teeth-braces are qualified as insignificant risk devices. Research study that involves devices with significant risk cannot process until the procedure is approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and the FDA, which is based on the informed consent forms (Enderle et al., 2000).
In the UK and Europe, the devices are divided up into three categories: low risk (category I)
Who is watching your food to make sure it is safe? Who should be? Well, for almost ninety years the Food and Drug Administration has been charged with the task of protecting and promoting the public health. Laws including the Nutrition Labeling Education Act, Pure Food and Drugs Act, and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act have shaped the way the FDA operates, outlining an agency which has jurisdiction over the approval of food additives (Delaney clause), biologics (prescription drugs), medical devices, and cosmetics produced by manufacturers for the United States market
Why do they place so much power in one agency is beyond comprehension. Can you imagine the type of abuse someone can put another company through. IE, say XFOO Corp. has some Cancer drug that works and the developers spent some couple million on it.
Now say employee John Foofxr decides he wants someone to pay him some serious moolah to have this drug approved. Either the company pays or it doesn't. Too much power for one gov agency, and bear in mind they have no oversight agency.
What if MS attempted to turn every single one of their programs into something like the lease-this-because-you-can-no-longer-buy-it. What would many do. Just because they've announced this means little. What they should be announcing instead of waisting everyone's time, should be, that they're going to reaudit ALL versions of Windows for security holes.
That would impress me. I wonder what would MS do if everyone just got pissed and did some form of protest to the tune of "secure this now or we won't buy". It would be a sys admins nightmare to migrate machines over to other OS' but in the long run, it 'could' (note the could instead of unproven WOULD) save companies much needed dollars.
As for the outlook article, to be honest didn't read it because I don't use it, nor does anyone in my company.
I was answering your post about the document I linked to.... Nothing more. As for Linux zealotry... Don't think so I'm on my XP laptop and use Sol on an Ultra at home thanks.
Do they change public opinion? I don't know. The average blog that I have read, has a rather small group of people of maybe 10 to 20 people who regularly post. Is this impact?
Certainly it can change public opinion. Many occults, and groups target people this way, by singling out the information that appeals to people. Using hidden agenda in a message could make the difference of turning someone into a future law enforcement agent, perhaps because he was sickened by what he read, to a certified terrorist, again perhaps he was ticked off at some bogus news.
Importance cannot be measured because it is a matter of opinion, there is no definitive answer period. What you have are opinions and views. So whether it's a small group of large one, people have distinct perceptions of a situation, and someone again, may misconstrue something creating something that never was.
Slashdot Mirror
<cruelty>Whats going to happen when
Forget the total cost of ownership here, anyone ever take a look at the total cost of production of cd's and dvd's and the markups on them. While cassettes can be rather costly, and often sell for like typically 7.99 - 14.99, cd's and dvd's are made for peanuts
Personally I could care less what one court says since another will go back and reverse and vice versa, but some of the record companies should tone down their bitching considering they're sticking it to the consumer %99 of the times. It's about time P2P came to bite them in the ass and give them a wake up call, and now hopefully some of the courts will too
The Quiet War Over Open-Source
By Jonathan Krim
Thursday, August 21, 2003 [original article]
Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam, it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still too hard to use.
But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property.
Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a less-expensive alternative to commercial products.
Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration or use of open-source software. So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said that the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the intellectual-property landscape.
The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60 technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer Project on Technology.
Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems.
In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.
Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to do so.
And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and the meeting.
The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an open-source meeting be quashed.
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
<sarcasm> We all know Linux is all about SCO </sarcasm>
Sobigf / MSBlast on Steroids
Actually this is in the works under the 'Slashdot Trollbot' project. Developers are currently grep'ing -1 troll posts for R & D
I say we ditch all the 'moral' laws and stick to the ones that actual cause harm to others. End entitlement programs (hand outs, section 8, etc). Separate church and state for real. Ditch de-regulation of utilities. Make punishments for government employees who let contributions change a vote extreme. Then sit back and watch America become a better place to live.
How exatcly would limiting section8 and handouts help america. Nowadays there are so many people out of work, with degrees let alone what I think you meant to state was those who abuse the system. I would rather pay taxes for section8 if it will keep the crime rate down. Besides there's been overhauls on many `hand-out` programs such as workfare.
Separation of church and state will be difficult because they're both nothing more than businesses, and religion generates huge revenues. Revenues = political contriutions, so while it sounds good it won't happen in this lifetime.
Punishing government employees will not happen either as too many people don't see this as such a big problem, if they did, they would move to make sure it wouldn't happen. Search google for cognitive dissonance to understand why.
So, segment, you don't need to worry about off topic mods... it's -1 Flamebait that you posted. There's no room for either party to blame this on the other, they all failed and better get their act together and come up with something that keeps this from happening again. Flamebait? I don't necessarily think so. As stated above, I posted relevant information not to start a flamewar or political thread, if you took it as so `which find` /dev/perception | xargs fsck wasn't meant to be nothing more than a factual posting of relevance...
For those unaware of what's going on, here is a quick excerpt of President Bush denying money for a secure grid... (Source)
On top of this it was announced that grids would be targeted by terrorists.
(source)Here is a link to a mirrored doc of the Electronic Power Risk Assessment, there is going to be a huge amount of finger pointing, and political partisan bs behind this entire incident, but read it for yourself in plain english how your (P)Resident will not fund plan for a more secure system.
Off topic? I think not
Fact: There are many out there who use the net for an escape, and many of those who do probably don't have the money to amuse or entertain themselves otherwise. So is it that much of a threat for Farmer Bob's son to download something he'll probably use for a week then toss to the side? Most articles only focus on the hardcore bootleggers, and they never exclude people like I just described in their stats. Hell I dont even know where they get their stats from anyway. No one has ever called my house to ask my views on this, yet in most articles you would see something state "The majority of users blah blah blah" I've spoken to my friends, and they've spoken to their friends about these stats and whether or not someone contacted them, and you know what.... No one I know or they know has ever been contacted, and these people are on comps way too much.
So the moral of the story is this... Absolutely nothing... People are going to do what they're going to do, it's happened in every industry, and it will continue doing so... Full circle...
My issue with benchmarking is this... When people read benchmarks, aside from the bias occurring with someone using a favored product, people will often have to take benchmarking as nothing more than an indicator for the following reasons: People will not have access to all the equipment used in a benchmark trial, hardware/software, so they're often going to have to rely on someone else's OBSERVATION. Information can be tweaked easily, and someone who has say a favored product can often tweak it to perform better than the competition, or make the competition's product behave worse.
Also as stated on an above post, who is sponsoring the benchmark testing, and why. Often you will see that %99.99999 of the companies sponsoring benchmarking tests come out with gleaming reviews. Has anyone here seen an MS sponsored test prove unfavorable to MS. It just doesn't happen. Independent studies should post all information concerning why they're doing benchmark tests including any sponsors, this way those reading the published results can get an overall VIEW of the results and use them as nothing more than in indicator and not solid fact.
Thats what i'm saying however I wouldnt mind reading 20 interviews with the publisher, the printer of the book, the person who did the film separations before the book went to press, plus 30 different angles of the word 'Read', followed by additional commentary by the delivery person. It's nice to see that sometimes overkill is just too much... DVD's 3 discs full of junk... Now books
Should read:
Anyone know of any breakthrough surgery which would allow me to down more brewskis to keep up with the tap *hic*
So let's say you limit those in the US from sending you spam, what are you going to do when they start relaying from borked out servers abroad... Better yet what can you do. Waste taxpayer money tracking down spammers abroad... Let's see $5000 to track them, another $1000 to bring them down here to face the music, $100,000k miminum for some sort of farce trial for something you could have taken care of with spamassassin.
Boy oh boy I don't know who is dumber the politician who passed this law or the spammer I hit d on using mutt.
damnit I wish I had the link still to this one site where the geeks would post obnoxious sites about robots and how humans would somehow interact with them for sex... Someone has been looking at AI with gang bang girls right after that one tooooooo many times
Some may remember some time ago when Germany also was going to yank MS products from being used by the German government. March 19th, 2001 - Two German government agencies have announced that they will discontinue the use of software made by Microsoft and other American companies. According to the German news publication Der Spiegel, both the German foreign office and the Bundeswehr (German Federal Armed Forces) have banned American software, saying that there are security concerns in using programs developed by other countries in sensitive applications. Instead, German companies such as Siemens and Deutsche Telekom will provide solutions (src: WinPlanet)
And now China... The government has been pushing the development of a homegrown software industry and a national standard for open-source Linux software to counter the spread of Microsoft in the last few years.
This is not a bad idea, and if others took the same route, MS could feel it down the road. Considering the problems associated with MS nowadays (even though it has actually been rampant for some time), with worms, and all sorts of security issues, how long will it be before some huge class action lawsuit based on MS negligently releasing shoddy products. Think about it... It's the kind of stuff that makes the NSA want to place backdoors on software, excuse being they're trying to secure products where vendors are failing.
I say, good for China on making that move, hopefully others will take cues from China, and send MS a message. No more shoddy work!!! Just imagine what will hapen if some investigation pointed to an MS product being at fault for the power failure. Oh boy would that be some crazy stuff to deal with for MS.
According to Schumer "The threat facing commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles here in the United States is no longer theoretical"
So again I state... Waste money on pork-barrel shit like this, or but it to proper use?
Full article on Schumer & view on this matter
(source for this doc)
Ethical Issues Involving Medical Devices
Rick Chen
Introduction
In a society where new technology is constantly being invented, medical devices are evolving at a fast pace. The use of complex and sophisticated equipment to monitor patient and diagnose disease are more and more routine in hospitals and clinics. New discoveries in the material science field have led to the improvement in implant devices such as pacemakers, artificial grafts, and artificial organs. Armed with these technological advances, physicians and engineers are able to save more lives and improve the quality of living. However, these new technologies have raised new debates and discussions on morality and ethical issues. Approval and regulation of medical devices, as well as patient's rights and informed consents are just a few of the many issues stirred up by these new developments. This section discusses some of the issues and concerns dealing with medical ethics as well as regulation of medical devices. It also talks about some cases that involved medical device failure, and some of the government's attempts to reduce failure.
Issues and Concerns
As most people know, putting new medical technologies on the market requires repeated clinical tests follow by animal and human tests. Finally the device is approved by the government agency such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In order to fully test the effectiveness of these devices, animal and human testing is necessary at some point. Due to sheer increases in the volume of biomedical research, problems associated with human experimentation gain in importance. This need raises very complicated questions about balancing the patient's right against the overall benefits. On the one hand, human life is precious and needs to be considered a high priority. On the other hand, the new technology could potentially have large social benefits.
In order to ensure the risks of physical and emotional injuries are at a minimum, every clinical study is required to meet comprehensive guidelines and regulations before moving to human experimentations. In addition to the regulations, a patient's rights during a human trial study should be properly protected. The concept of "informed consent" has emerged as a way to control this issue. Under informed consent, patients need to be informed of every aspect of the study, as well as the potential risks involved. This topic is discussed in detail in the informed consent section.
Medical Device Regulation
The first step in medical device regulation is to clearly define all the related terms and categories. A medical device is defined as any equipment used to treat, diagnose, or prevent disease (Jefferys, 2001). It can range from very basic equipment such as needles and syringes to complex devices such as X-ray machines and MRI scanners. In the case of clinical studies where the device has not yet been approved, a series of steps needs to be taken. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the regulation of these devices. For the new device to be used on human subjects, first an investigational device exemption (IDE), which allows an unapproved device to be used in a research study, needs to be approved by the FDA. After the approval, the devices are then divided into two categories: significant risk and insignificant risk. Devices that pose significant risks include implants and artificial organs. Devices such as glasses and teeth-braces are qualified as insignificant risk devices. Research study that involves devices with significant risk cannot process until the procedure is approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and the FDA, which is based on the informed consent forms (Enderle et al., 2000).
In the UK and Europe, the devices are divided up into three categories: low risk (category I)
Now say employee John Foofxr decides he wants someone to pay him some serious moolah to have this drug approved. Either the company pays or it doesn't. Too much power for one gov agency, and bear in mind they have no oversight agency.
Congressional Institute's page on the FDA
What if MS attempted to turn every single one of their programs into something like the lease-this-because-you-can-no-longer-buy-it. What would many do. Just because they've announced this means little. What they should be announcing instead of waisting everyone's time, should be, that they're going to reaudit ALL versions of Windows for security holes.
That would impress me. I wonder what would MS do if everyone just got pissed and did some form of protest to the tune of "secure this now or we won't buy". It would be a sys admins nightmare to migrate machines over to other OS' but in the long run, it 'could' (note the could instead of unproven WOULD) save companies much needed dollars.
As for the outlook article, to be honest didn't read it because I don't use it, nor does anyone in my company.
Someone quickly throw up a domain to siphon off money that SCO is going to be seeking from someone, for something, somewhere down the line.
Saw this discussion on the NANOG list.
I was answering your post about the document I linked to.... Nothing more. As for Linux zealotry... Don't think so I'm on my XP laptop and use Sol on an Ultra at home thanks.
Certainly it can change public opinion. Many occults, and groups target people this way, by singling out the information that appeals to people. Using hidden agenda in a message could make the difference of turning someone into a future law enforcement agent, perhaps because he was sickened by what he read, to a certified terrorist, again perhaps he was ticked off at some bogus news.
Importance cannot be measured because it is a matter of opinion, there is no definitive answer period. What you have are opinions and views. So whether it's a small group of large one, people have distinct perceptions of a situation, and someone again, may misconstrue something creating something that never was.