if everybody used this test, and the people who tested positive seek treatment, then you just reduced the transmission rate among the people who would not otherwise get tested by 93%.
Your argument is based on people either using this test or no test at all. This (inaccurate) test will drive down the number of people who get the more accurate test, resulting in increased numbers of false negatives, which is the real risk.
The second false dichotomy inherent in your position is that people will only have one partner. Multiple partners over the course of a year will increase the transmission rate due to false negatives impacting multiple people.
Simplification - 10 people, all test negative (including 1 false negative). If each person only has sex with 2 other people over the course of a year, it's conceivable that within a year they can all be infected. This scenario is especially likely given that infections are much harder to detect at an early stage.
Comparing HIV to, say, the flu, is a bad example. We're not talking about an HIV vaccine here. Also, simple hand washing and teaching people not to pick their noses will greatly reduce transmission, you can tell when someone has had the flu after a few days just by looking at them or listening to them hacking away, and the flu isn't for life - you're only able to infect someone for a short period of time, then flu season burns itself out as most of the people who can get infected are either infected or over it.
So part of the problem is the need for greater awareness. For example, that 1 in 4 people who contract HIV are women. That using a condom is the best way to guard against infection (because abstinence is neither natural nor realistic, and just sets people up for a fall).
HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in "real-life" studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.
... and of course it also reduces the incidence of other STDs.
We need to do things like giving people both the self-assurance and the almost automatic reflex to say "cut the crap" when a guy says he doesn't want to use a condom because "it will get between us" or "it takes the spontaneity out of it" or "it's like wearing a raincoat" or "if you loved me you'd let me". (in other words, a working "b.s. detector"). And not just in high schools and colleges - this should start in grade school.
It's the parents who don't want their "little precious" to be exposed to "such smut" who end up with kids raising kids, so the fools who preach abstinence need to be exposed for what they are.
A society that won't encourage their kids to attend sex ed classes to get the information they need that could save their life but lets them watch gruesome simulated murders and rapes in high-def as a part of their daily ration of entertainment is messed up.
Both are better than 7% (even 1% sucks, but it shows that it's possible to reach this level today). A 7% error rate is, for all intents and purposes, worse than no test at all. At least with no test, people aren't going to falsely believe that they're not infected. They can take precautions.
The error rate can be brought down. We did it for other types of home testing. Sure, part of it involves taking the time to teach people how to do it. In this case, there's no reason not to go beyond the simple instruction sheet - we can have videos on the net showing the right and wrong way, for example. That's a lot better than "displaying a phone number prominently" that the user can call. The typical user is going to want privacy. Same as a pregnancy test. Same as pretty much any other test - it's their body.
Bandwidth is cheap - a lot cheaper than a funeral.
What's a 1 gig usb key cost in bulk? Throw a video on it and stuff it in the box, and make it worth a $5 credit on the next purchase.
We can do better. We *need* to do better. HIV affects everyone.
Or they can do more research to find out why the false negative rate is 7x higher outside of clinics, then eliminate the factors that cause the problems.
Things like improper storage and handling, not getting a decent sample, etc. We've managed to mitigate most of these issues for other tests, such as blood sugar. For example, (technological improvements) the monitors are now self-calibrating. If you don't get a decently-sized sample, the machine won't give a result rather than give a wrong result. If the test strips are stored wrong, they deactivate. And (human training) the user is told that if a result is really unexpected, take a second sample. An error rate of even 1% would be considered unacceptable.
And yet, for HIV they want to market a test that doesn't detect 7% of all HIV patients? They can do better.
First, the test has been PROVEN to have a false negative rate of 7% outside of clinics. They need to address this issue, identify the causes, and fix them. The FDAs projections are that every year, 3,800 people who use this test and have HIV will wrongly believe that they don't. Want to do a body count projection?
The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.UNAIDS, WHO and UNFPA6
Also, you might want to buy condoms from outside the US. Other countries such as Canada have much stricter standards for breakage resistance. The FDA water test (10 ounces of water) is lame.
A 7x higher false negative rate outside of clinics is not the same. According to YOUR stupid "logic", a 100x higher false negative rate would also be just as defensible.
They should find out why the test fails by almost an order of magnitude outside of clinics, and fix the problem. We're talking about something that is preventable, and can save lives, not put them at risk by giving people who get a false negative an equally false sense that there's no risk.
This test, as it stands now, IS a money grab. And the people pushing it are hoping that everyone will be so gosh-darn politically correct to overlook that the test, as it stands now, is flawed and unnecessarily puts people at risk. The FDA's figures are that, annually, 3,800 people who have HIV will believe they don't - how many people will they unnecessarily infect?
Spoken just like someone who isn't in a high-risk group, and doesn't really need a test.
Try being gay and living in one of those "abstinence-only" conservative areas where most Planned Parenthood type funding has been cut, and "gay outreach" testing programs are non-existent. This option is better than nothing; it may be the ONLY option available for some people.
Riiiight.... because condoms aren't an option - even though studies show they're the best way to prevent the spread of HIV to a partner. Gee, it's too bad that they're so hard to get. It's not like you can pick them up without a prescription, or anonymously from a vending machine, or at WallyWorld or the corner drugstore.
Better to give people a false sense of security with a test that will let 7% of people who are HIV positive think that they're not going to infect someone that they might care about.
7% false negatives is too high. Let them fix the bug in their product, because otherwise the alternative is going to be a lot more people catching a different bug - one that kills - because they think it's safe to forego protection.
a trial conducted by the company showed the home test only correctly detected HIV in those carrying the virus 93 percent of the time. The FDA estimated the test would miss about 3,800 HIV-positive people per year
The FDA estimate of preventing ~4,000 new infections is from the people who got the positive results. However, the number of new infections from the 3,800 who got a false negative and then infect others is left out, and is potentially MUCH greater, never mind that these people will not be starting treatment earlier since they wrongly believe they're HIV-free, and any early symptoms must be from something else, like "the flu" or "over-work" or whatever.
Now, someone's at a bar on a friday night, and they've decided to hook up. What is your alternative? There is none. So they die instead.
Under your scenario, they test, and 7% of those couples where one who has HIV but gets a false negative think "hey, we're okay - no need to take any extra precautions."
It's as stupid, moronic, and backwards as fundies telling their kids to practice abstinence rather than giving them access to effective birth control. The end result is the same in both cases - unsafe unprotected sex.
It probably did, but you know how it is - if it costs more to make it more accurate, the extra cost will hurt sales... so... let people know it's not all that accurate, and they'll buy twice as many to "test a second time, just to be sure." Marketing 101. Same as home pregnancy tests.
Guy meets girl. Girl and guy meet for drinks and nookie. Girl tells guy she gave him AIDS. Guy shoots girl in head. Girl says, "Daaamn! Just kiddin'!"
According to authorities, that's basically what happened between 49-year-old Lloyd Wilkins and his girlfriend on the evening of April 23, 2011. The two had hooked up that evening, and after a few drinks, ended up swapping spit and other bodily fluids. After the lovin' was over, Wilkins' girlfriend apparently said something along the lines of, "Oh, snap! You got the AIDS!"
Wilkins responded by walking into his bedroom and retrieving a 12-gauge, single-shot shotgun from his closet. He pointed it in the general direction of the woman's head. The gun went off, striking the jokester in the brain space. No word on whether he jokingly replied, "Oh, snap! You got the dain bramage!"
Wilkins then called 911 to report that he shot someone. At the same time, the woman called a friend to take her to the hospital. When police arrived on scene, the victim was already on her way to the hospital and Wilkins was waiting for them outside, hands in the air.
"She gave me AIDS," Wilkins told the officer.
Wilkins said he pointed the gun at the woman, but the gun "just went off."
The woman survived, but is deaf in her right ear as a result of the shooting and has undergone several surgeries to mend her scalp. According to her medical records, which were presented as evidence in the case against Wilkins, she does not have AIDS. Authorities said she was joking when she told Wilkins that she had infected him.
On Tuesday, Wilkins pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and possession of an unregistered firearm. He will be sentenced in February.
The clinical test has only 1% false negatives. This test has 7% false negatives. The FDA estimates that 3,800 people per year will think they're not at risk of giving someone HIV when they are. Do you like those numbers? I think the company should be required to make their test much more accurate.
You're the one who considers a 7% false negative rate progress, and says that I must be backward to think otherwise. The false dichotomy (either accept a 7% failure rate or not) is the basis for your attack. Nowhere do you consider that there's a 3rd alternative - make a better test.
As for "a net loss of 4,000 infections a year" - that's over an order of magnitude worse than current tests. That's 4,000 people (and their partners) who will think they're safe when they're not.
To quote your own words, but with the "don't" removed "If you like that, maybe you can be one of them and go die."
This test is a death sentence for thousands of people a year. Of course, if you have a right-wing fundy holy-roller attitude, you'll just love that, won't you? What's it like being on the same side as the self-righteous proud-to-not-knows in Jeebus-land?
It must suck to live in a backward world where progress is considered bad.
It must suck to live in a backword mind where the only alternatives are to either let a flawed test go on the market or not , and where improving the tests accuracy is not even considered an option.
The Nazi child pornographers must be having a tough time picking a side in this debate.
Nah - Toews has it covered either way. Just like when he was banging the baby-sitter. Christian confession, everything okay, all is forgiven. Repeat a few years later, same routine. Fascists have no problem seeing themselves as "special exceptions."
If you RTFA, for every 100 actual cases, it misses 7. That's 7 people who will think that they're HIV-free, and possibly spread it to others.
7% false negatives is a *terrible* number.
a trial conducted by the company showed the home test only correctly detected HIV in those carrying the virus 93 percent of the time. The FDA estimated the test would miss about 3,800 HIV-positive people per year,
The test in a clinical setting has a 1% false negative number, and if you're engaged in high-risk behaviour/in a high-risk situation, you'll be asked to go back for a second test later, further lowering the false negatives to a much smaller number (quick math: what's 1% of 1%? 1 in 10,000. Real-life is not going to be that good, but it will still be much, MUCH lower than 7%).
The test is only 93% accurate in home use when detecting people wiht HIV. In other words, it misses 7 out of every 100 cases... people who will then go on to assume they've dodged the bullet, and can unknowingly give it to others.
For something that is literally going to be involved in making life and death decisions, such a large error rate is unacceptable.
False positive - someone could get seriously beaten, even killed. After all, if you figure you're going to die anyway, why not take it out on the person who you thought gave it to you?
False negative - you're going to spread it to others, plus delay getting treatment yourself.
In both cases, you're still going to need to re-do the test if you're at all sane, so this is just a money grab by some drug co.
You're completely wrong - you cannot get statutory damages if you haven't registered the work. All you can get is provable damages. And Oracle has not presented any proof that any consumer purchased any android device because of rangecheck or timsort (which the judge has been ragging them on), never mind that the judge also said that rangecheck was trivial (it's also purely functional, so not eligible for copyright), and timsort has an "interesting" copyright notice
* * Copyright 2009 Google Inc. All Rights Reserved. * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. * * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as * published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this * particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided * by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code. * * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that * accompanied this code). * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. * * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any * questions. */
Timsort was written by Tim Peters for Python, then ported to Java by Joshua Bloch while he was a Google employee. Do you really expect the judge to award monetary damages for infringement?
BTW: Oracle just caved on the issue. They've agreed to let the judge rule, rather than waste time going to the jury, because they know there's not enough money to be had there to even compensate for the time to argue it, and they want to save the time remaining on their clock (the judge is keeping both sides on a tight leash time-wise) for the patents phase of the trial.
The stupids are out in force today. (yes, I mean you).
Unless you register the copyright, you can only ask for actual damages, not statutory damages.
Oracle didn't present any evidence that they registered copyright to rangecheck and/or timsort. All they presented was a registration for the collective work, as a compilation - and a blank dvd with the "source."
Realizing how much trouble they're in, and that even if the judge decides that they're allowed statutory damages, their damages are now limited to $750 to $30,000.
While it can be adjusted upward to as much as $150,000 if the infringement was willful, Oracle hasn't presented any proof that it was willful, and Google has presented proof that it was a 3rd party contractor - the people at Noser - who decompiled rangecheck, contrary to Google's orders, so in the case of accidental infringement, the damages can be as low as $200.
And that's dependent on the judge first finding that there's no fair use argument, and that the particular elements are in fact eligible for copyright - which in the case of rangecheck is not the case (purely functional elements with no creativity are not eligible for copyright).
So that leaves timsort - which was written by Tim Peters for Python, then ported to Java by Joshua Bloch while he was a Google employee.
Notice who has the copyright? Hint - it's not Oracle.
Now notice the license? GPLv2.
/* * Copyright 2009 Google Inc. All Rights Reserved. * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. * * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as * published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this * particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided * by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code. * * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that * accompanied this code). * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. * * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any * questions. */
package java.util;
/** * A stable, adaptive, iterative mergesort that requires far fewer than * n lg(n) comparisons when running on partially sorted arrays, while * offering performance comparable to a traditional mergesort when run * on random arrays. Like all proper mergesorts, this sort is stable and * runs O(n log n) time (worst case). In the worst case, this sort requires * temporary storage space for n/2 object references; in the best case, * it requires only a small constant amount of space. * * This implementation was adapted from Tim Peters's list sort for * Python, which is described in detail here: * * http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk/Objects/listsort.txt * * Tim's C code may be found here: * * http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk/Objects/listobject.c * * The underlying techniques are described in this paper (and may have * even earlier origins): * * "Optimistic Sorting and Information Theoretic Complexity" * Peter McIlroy * SODA (Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms), * pp 467-474, Austin, Tex
oohh , lookeee, you're all butt-hurt because I said that BSD is better for servers and either Windows or an iDevice for consumers...
The fact is you can't even GIVE away linux. I've spent 15 years using it, and in the last couple of years, the distros have pretty much all gone downhill in terms of stability and ability to handle upgrades w/o breaking something.
I don't like junking 15 years of experience, nor admitting that I wasted so much time pushing something that turned out to in the end to be just a semi-polished turd, but fortunately at least the BSD stuff is still relevant.
But that's okay... just keep forking those distros in the hope that one day one of them will stumble upon the "secret sauce" that gets Linux back up to 2% of the market, where it was before the current decade-long slide started. That would be a 100% improvement, but still a rounding error in the great scheme of things. hmmm?
In the meantime, Android will continue to progress by hiding linux's failings, and the various distros (what is it, ~ 1,000 by now?) will continue their descent into irrelevancy.
Really - everyone I know knows about linux, and NOBODY wants it any more - not even other developers I've worked with. We're ALL fed up. I was the last hold-out, but not any more. Frankly, I just don't give a d*mn any more. It's over. Futz around with different UIs all you want, it'll make no difference, because none of that addresses the core issues - hardware and software compatibility, the memory leaks in so many different programs (why should firefox take almost a gig under ANY circumstances, and not free up all the memory when you close all the tabs???) , the crapware ideas (example: Akonadai, which goes 180 degrees the wrong way wrt the unix philosophy), the fan-boi-ism, the refusal to admit that there are any problems, even when they're reproducible, the "well try this distro... then this one, then this one, then this one" until you find one that works (until it doesn't a few updates later).
Linux sucks for general use. The proof is obvious - people would rather pay Microsoft or Apple than put up with something that just! doesn't! work!
"Oh, but Windows comes pre-installed!" So what? If Linux is so good, and Windows so bad, it should have been able to displace a significant portion of Windows installs. It hasn't. Win8+Metro is Microsoft's biggest mistake yet, but Linux won't be able to capitalize on it - people will either stick with Win7 or buy a mac. Or an ipad. Or an android. What they won't do is switch to any linux distro, because *their* experience has shown that they all suck.
pAnd they don't care what some smelly foot-cheese-eating misogynist freak says. Their definition of freedom includes "freedom from having to fight with the OS on a regular basis to get anything done." On that basis, Linux has proven to be too expensive even if you value your time at $0.
FYI, Siri is not a woman, no matter how much you may want to imagine otherwise when you ask it "Who's the sexiest man in the world?" and it answers, "Wait, there are other men?"
There's not much to argue - rangecheck isn't eligible for copyright by anyone. It's purely functional, there's really only one way to do it, it lacks the element of creativity necessary for copyright protection, and Oracle is grasping at straws. The judge made this quite clear when he told them that they were making a mistake not just accepting an offer of statutory damages and dropping it.
Noser didn't write rangecheck - they decompiled the class file (a fact that both sides now stipulate). However, rangecheck isn't even eligible for copyright protection - it is neither creative nor original, being purely functional. The judge in this case "gets it."
Slashdot Mirror
False dichotomy alert!
Your argument is based on people either using this test or no test at all. This (inaccurate) test will drive down the number of people who get the more accurate test, resulting in increased numbers of false negatives, which is the real risk.
The second false dichotomy inherent in your position is that people will only have one partner. Multiple partners over the course of a year will increase the transmission rate due to false negatives impacting multiple people.
Simplification - 10 people, all test negative (including 1 false negative). If each person only has sex with 2 other people over the course of a year, it's conceivable that within a year they can all be infected. This scenario is especially likely given that infections are much harder to detect at an early stage.
Comparing HIV to, say, the flu, is a bad example. We're not talking about an HIV vaccine here. Also, simple hand washing and teaching people not to pick their noses will greatly reduce transmission, you can tell when someone has had the flu after a few days just by looking at them or listening to them hacking away, and the flu isn't for life - you're only able to infect someone for a short period of time, then flu season burns itself out as most of the people who can get infected are either infected or over it.
We need to do things like giving people both the self-assurance and the almost automatic reflex to say "cut the crap" when a guy says he doesn't want to use a condom because "it will get between us" or "it takes the spontaneity out of it" or "it's like wearing a raincoat" or "if you loved me you'd let me". (in other words, a working "b.s. detector"). And not just in high schools and colleges - this should start in grade school.
It's the parents who don't want their "little precious" to be exposed to "such smut" who end up with kids raising kids, so the fools who preach abstinence need to be exposed for what they are.
A society that won't encourage their kids to attend sex ed classes to get the information they need that could save their life but lets them watch gruesome simulated murders and rapes in high-def as a part of their daily ration of entertainment is messed up.
Both are better than 7% (even 1% sucks, but it shows that it's possible to reach this level today). A 7% error rate is, for all intents and purposes, worse than no test at all. At least with no test, people aren't going to falsely believe that they're not infected. They can take precautions.
The error rate can be brought down. We did it for other types of home testing. Sure, part of it involves taking the time to teach people how to do it. In this case, there's no reason not to go beyond the simple instruction sheet - we can have videos on the net showing the right and wrong way, for example. That's a lot better than "displaying a phone number prominently" that the user can call. The typical user is going to want privacy. Same as a pregnancy test. Same as pretty much any other test - it's their body.
Bandwidth is cheap - a lot cheaper than a funeral.
What's a 1 gig usb key cost in bulk? Throw a video on it and stuff it in the box, and make it worth a $5 credit on the next purchase.
We can do better. We *need* to do better. HIV affects everyone.
Or they can do more research to find out why the false negative rate is 7x higher outside of clinics, then eliminate the factors that cause the problems.
Things like improper storage and handling, not getting a decent sample, etc. We've managed to mitigate most of these issues for other tests, such as blood sugar. For example, (technological improvements) the monitors are now self-calibrating. If you don't get a decently-sized sample, the machine won't give a result rather than give a wrong result. If the test strips are stored wrong, they deactivate. And (human training) the user is told that if a result is really unexpected, take a second sample. An error rate of even 1% would be considered unacceptable.
And yet, for HIV they want to market a test that doesn't detect 7% of all HIV patients? They can do better.
First, the test has been PROVEN to have a false negative rate of 7% outside of clinics. They need to address this issue, identify the causes, and fix them. The FDAs projections are that every year, 3,800 people who use this test and have HIV will wrongly believe that they don't. Want to do a body count projection?
Second, condoms work.
Also, you might want to buy condoms from outside the US. Other countries such as Canada have much stricter standards for breakage resistance. The FDA water test (10 ounces of water) is lame.
They should find out why the test fails by almost an order of magnitude outside of clinics, and fix the problem. We're talking about something that is preventable, and can save lives, not put them at risk by giving people who get a false negative an equally false sense that there's no risk.
This test, as it stands now, IS a money grab. And the people pushing it are hoping that everyone will be so gosh-darn politically correct to overlook that the test, as it stands now, is flawed and unnecessarily puts people at risk. The FDA's figures are that, annually, 3,800 people who have HIV will believe they don't - how many people will they unnecessarily infect?
Riiiight .... because condoms aren't an option - even though studies show they're the best way to prevent the spread of HIV to a partner. Gee, it's too bad that they're so hard to get. It's not like you can pick them up without a prescription, or anonymously from a vending machine, or at WallyWorld or the corner drugstore.
Better to give people a false sense of security with a test that will let 7% of people who are HIV positive think that they're not going to infect someone that they might care about.
7% false negatives is too high. Let them fix the bug in their product, because otherwise the alternative is going to be a lot more people catching a different bug - one that kills - because they think it's safe to forego protection.
7x higher (FTFA) is not "close" at all.
Prudent people don't go in for casual "hook ups" in a bar on a Friday night.
If you're going to troll, you'll have to do a lot better than that. Stupid amateur.
The FDA estimate of preventing ~4,000 new infections is from the people who got the positive results. However, the number of new infections from the 3,800 who got a false negative and then infect others is left out, and is potentially MUCH greater, never mind that these people will not be starting treatment earlier since they wrongly believe they're HIV-free, and any early symptoms must be from something else, like "the flu" or "over-work" or whatever.
Under your scenario, they test, and 7% of those couples where one who has HIV but gets a false negative think "hey, we're okay - no need to take any extra precautions."
It's as stupid, moronic, and backwards as fundies telling their kids to practice abstinence rather than giving them access to effective birth control. The end result is the same in both cases - unsafe unprotected sex.
Or do you not see a problem with that?
It probably did, but you know how it is - if it costs more to make it more accurate, the extra cost will hurt sales ... so ... let people know it's not all that accurate, and they'll buy twice as many to "test a second time, just to be sure." Marketing 101. Same as home pregnancy tests.
It's a fact that some people lose it when they think someone has given them HIV: From last November:
The clinical test has only 1% false negatives. This test has 7% false negatives. The FDA estimates that 3,800 people per year will think they're not at risk of giving someone HIV when they are. Do you like those numbers? I think the company should be required to make their test much more accurate.
As for "a net loss of 4,000 infections a year" - that's over an order of magnitude worse than current tests. That's 4,000 people (and their partners) who will think they're safe when they're not.
To quote your own words, but with the "don't" removed "If you like that, maybe you can be one of them and go die."
This test is a death sentence for thousands of people a year. Of course, if you have a right-wing fundy holy-roller attitude, you'll just love that, won't you? What's it like being on the same side as the self-righteous proud-to-not-knows in Jeebus-land?
It must suck to live in a backword mind where the only alternatives are to either let a flawed test go on the market or not , and where improving the tests accuracy is not even considered an option.
Enjoying your false dichotomy?
Nah - Toews has it covered either way. Just like when he was banging the baby-sitter. Christian confession, everything okay, all is forgiven. Repeat a few years later, same routine. Fascists have no problem seeing themselves as "special exceptions."
False dichotomy. I think you'd agree that a third option - requiring that they make the test much more accurate - is a win/win for everyone.
7% false negatives is a *terrible* number.
The test in a clinical setting has a 1% false negative number, and if you're engaged in high-risk behaviour/in a high-risk situation, you'll be asked to go back for a second test later, further lowering the false negatives to a much smaller number (quick math: what's 1% of 1%? 1 in 10,000. Real-life is not going to be that good, but it will still be much, MUCH lower than 7%).
The test is only 93% accurate in home use when detecting people wiht HIV. In other words, it misses 7 out of every 100 cases ... people who will then go on to assume they've dodged the bullet, and can unknowingly give it to others.
For something that is literally going to be involved in making life and death decisions, such a large error rate is unacceptable.
False positive - someone could get seriously beaten, even killed. After all, if you figure you're going to die anyway, why not take it out on the person who you thought gave it to you?
False negative - you're going to spread it to others, plus delay getting treatment yourself.
In both cases, you're still going to need to re-do the test if you're at all sane, so this is just a money grab by some drug co.
You're completely wrong - you cannot get statutory damages if you haven't registered the work. All you can get is provable damages. And Oracle has not presented any proof that any consumer purchased any android device because of rangecheck or timsort (which the judge has been ragging them on), never mind that the judge also said that rangecheck was trivial (it's also purely functional, so not eligible for copyright), and timsort has an "interesting" copyright notice
Timsort was written by Tim Peters for Python, then ported to Java by Joshua Bloch while he was a Google employee. Do you really expect the judge to award monetary damages for infringement?
BTW: Oracle just caved on the issue. They've agreed to let the judge rule, rather than waste time going to the jury, because they know there's not enough money to be had there to even compensate for the time to argue it, and they want to save the time remaining on their clock (the judge is keeping both sides on a tight leash time-wise) for the patents phase of the trial.
The stupids are out in force today. (yes, I mean you).
Unless you register the copyright, you can only ask for actual damages, not statutory damages.
Oracle didn't present any evidence that they registered copyright to rangecheck and/or timsort. All they presented was a registration for the collective work, as a compilation - and a blank dvd with the "source."
Realizing how much trouble they're in, and that even if the judge decides that they're allowed statutory damages, their damages are now limited to $750 to $30,000.
While it can be adjusted upward to as much as $150,000 if the infringement was willful, Oracle hasn't presented any proof that it was willful, and Google has presented proof that it was a 3rd party contractor - the people at Noser - who decompiled rangecheck, contrary to Google's orders, so in the case of accidental infringement, the damages can be as low as $200.
And that's dependent on the judge first finding that there's no fair use argument, and that the particular elements are in fact eligible for copyright - which in the case of rangecheck is not the case (purely functional elements with no creativity are not eligible for copyright).
So that leaves timsort - which was written by Tim Peters for Python, then ported to Java by Joshua Bloch while he was a Google employee.
http://www.java-frameworks.com/java/openjdk/java/util/TimSort.java.html
Notice who has the copyright? Hint - it's not Oracle.
Now notice the license? GPLv2.
oohh , lookeee, you're all butt-hurt because I said that BSD is better for servers and either Windows or an iDevice for consumers ...
The fact is you can't even GIVE away linux. I've spent 15 years using it, and in the last couple of years, the distros have pretty much all gone downhill in terms of stability and ability to handle upgrades w/o breaking something.
I don't like junking 15 years of experience, nor admitting that I wasted so much time pushing something that turned out to in the end to be just a semi-polished turd, but fortunately at least the BSD stuff is still relevant.
But that's okay ... just keep forking those distros in the hope that one day one of them will stumble upon the "secret sauce" that gets Linux back up to 2% of the market, where it was before the current decade-long slide started. That would be a 100% improvement, but still a rounding error in the great scheme of things. hmmm?
In the meantime, Android will continue to progress by hiding linux's failings, and the various distros (what is it, ~ 1,000 by now?) will continue their descent into irrelevancy.
Really - everyone I know knows about linux, and NOBODY wants it any more - not even other developers I've worked with. We're ALL fed up. I was the last hold-out, but not any more. Frankly, I just don't give a d*mn any more. It's over. Futz around with different UIs all you want, it'll make no difference, because none of that addresses the core issues - hardware and software compatibility, the memory leaks in so many different programs (why should firefox take almost a gig under ANY circumstances, and not free up all the memory when you close all the tabs???) , the crapware ideas (example: Akonadai, which goes 180 degrees the wrong way wrt the unix philosophy), the fan-boi-ism, the refusal to admit that there are any problems, even when they're reproducible, the "well try this distro ... then this one, then this one, then this one" until you find one that works (until it doesn't a few updates later).
Linux sucks for general use. The proof is obvious - people would rather pay Microsoft or Apple than put up with something that just! doesn't! work!
"Oh, but Windows comes pre-installed!" So what? If Linux is so good, and Windows so bad, it should have been able to displace a significant portion of Windows installs. It hasn't. Win8+Metro is Microsoft's biggest mistake yet, but Linux won't be able to capitalize on it - people will either stick with Win7 or buy a mac. Or an ipad. Or an android. What they won't do is switch to any linux distro, because *their* experience has shown that they all suck. pAnd they don't care what some smelly foot-cheese-eating misogynist freak says. Their definition of freedom includes "freedom from having to fight with the OS on a regular basis to get anything done." On that basis, Linux has proven to be too expensive even if you value your time at $0.
Video or it never happened!
FYI, Siri is not a woman, no matter how much you may want to imagine otherwise when you ask it "Who's the sexiest man in the world?" and it answers, "Wait, there are other men?"
There's not much to argue - rangecheck isn't eligible for copyright by anyone. It's purely functional, there's really only one way to do it, it lacks the element of creativity necessary for copyright protection, and Oracle is grasping at straws. The judge made this quite clear when he told them that they were making a mistake not just accepting an offer of statutory damages and dropping it.
Noser didn't write rangecheck - they decompiled the class file (a fact that both sides now stipulate). However, rangecheck isn't even eligible for copyright protection - it is neither creative nor original, being purely functional. The judge in this case "gets it."