I worked in an NHS IT department. Patient data was handled over non-encrypted browser sessions to backend systems written in ASP VB with gaping sql injection mechanisms. We also had a wireless lan with no WEP on it. I brought these to the IT head's attention. I don't work there any more. The network manager who put in the wireless does, as does the guy who coded the web applications. Go figure.
It hasn't entirely improved. The standard defenses when pointing out this sort of stuff are: it's over NHSnet (a "private" intranet containing thousands of practices and hundreds of hospitals, as well as miscellaneous users such as doctors working from home, and univeristy research departments), and that only approved users who operate under strict confidentiality agreements, i.e. every receptionist at every general practice in the country who signed a scrap of paper when they joined.
But the biggest threats to privacy, surprisingly, are not I.T. issues. It's deliberate government policy to annex the private records between doctors and their patients. Surgeries will be forced into handing over these records and have already had demographic information taken without their consent. A brief overview here. I've been working with this system and I exaggerate not at all when I say it's a disaster and riddled with corruption.
Something you can do about this, if you're a UK citizen, is here. And for your own good and all of ours, I sincerely recommend that you do.
It's not the main body of the clinical systems themselves, so you don't need to worry about that side of things (at least not because of IE6). It's the parts that link the system into the new centralised databases. And no doctors actually want that, so quite frankly, the longer it takes to get it working, the better, IMNSHO.
It's also not always Microsoft's fault. I work in the NHS an in Primary Care (GP surgeries amongst others), many places are under strict orders to block the upgrade because clinical software has been written in such a way that it works only with IE6. And there is also the issue that vital software hasn't passed conformence testing with the new version, yet.
It's pretty piss poor that the third party software is so non-standards compliant that this is the case, but, and I say this as someone without a Windows machine in her house, it's hardly Microsoft's fault.
Are they just trying shit stir with this story or what?
Yeah - I think this is jsut an attempt to get a big argument going between zealots so that they can get some revenue for linking or something. Can't see much other reason for it.
It seems that the fault is entirely on the parts of the submitter and editor, as the linked article clearly says vaccine resistant.
That idiocy dispensed with, the problem is less modern farming techniques (although these are bad and do contribute) so much as it is modern concentrated population centres and rapid world wide travel. Someone picks up something nasty in korea and the next day they're spreading round the dense population of New York.
Okay, so now instead of talking about "terrorists" we're talking specifically about Iraq. That's fine, so long as it's recognised we're moving on. One of the worst things the US government's spin department has done has been to try and represent everyone from Al Quaeda to the government of Iran to Hezbollah to the people of Iraq as a great homogenous mess of "terrorists."
As to Iraq, you have a grossly distorted world view if you think people are being killed by their thousands to make the US government look bad or have an ulterior motive of making democracy look bad. It's a mess of blood feuds, of you killed my brother, I kill two of yours, a power struggle between different ethnic factions, a struggle over strategic resources and a break down in social order. I think the rest of the World has a much clearer idea of the relationship between the US government and the US people than the US people do on the whole and few Iraqi people expect the US people to suddenly reign their government in after they let their government invade in revenge for attacks perpetrated by citizens of another (intensely disliked) country. There's a lot of rage against the US invaders and attacks against them are certainly motivated by an attempt to make them withdraw, but not shiite-sunni or anti-kurd violence.
I'm curious for some examples of this anti US government bias, by the way. Iraq has been a humanitarian disaster and the US has lost what control it thought it had over there. The sole beneficiaries of it have been a handful of Iraqi ex-pats who convinced the US government that they could be re-introduced as part of the new governing order, the 48,000 mercenaries euphemisitcally called private security that are employed mainly by the UK and US governments at the cost of hundreds of millions of $US, and of course US corporations such as Haliburton. Quite frankly, any coverage of what's going on in the Middle East right now is going to reflect badly on the US government. That can't really be helped. The only way that this can be countered in the media is to give less information on it to the US public. Which brings us back to this new agency and why I believe that its purpose is to paint a less clear picture of events to the US public. Every additional bit of accurate information on a situation as bad as this, is really only going to damn them more.
I don't believe that the purpose of this new agency is to provide accurate information. I base this on the fact that it will often not be in the interests of this agency to provide accurate information. You only have to look at the way casualty figures and coverage of the wounded has been understated and downplayed. The GP is absolutely right in saying that the propaganda war is very important. Where I disagree strongly with him is what parties it is important for. It is important to the Pentagon and the government. Obviously if information can be distorted to reflect better on these parties, then that is in their interests to do so.
Now if the GP's point was that the media is providing innacurate information that is slanted against these parties as you say, then I agree it is just as bad as innacurate information on behalf of these parties. But I don't believe that is what was meant. I don't believe because he describes it as a propoganda war about who blinks first. He also suffers from the confused thinking that's been put about by the US government in talking blandly about terrorists as one mass, as if Saudi members of Al-Quaeda are one and the same as Hezbollah or palestinian bombers or the Iranian government. How people fighting against an invading army (US in Iraq) are reasonably described as terrorists is beyond me.
The purpose of this agency is not to provide accurate information and I don't believe that was the OP's belief either.
So basically it's important to protect the US public by making sure they get a version of events that doesn't make them want to withdraw or negotiate, etc. Because if the american public have accurate information it can lead them to make an informed choice. And that would be bad. Of course.
As you say, not a show stopper for the home user - but for those of us who sometimes work fixing up or upgrading PCs, wow! You have no idea what a pain it is going through that call-up process again and again. Not to mention if you were trying different things out and swapping bits back and forth.
I think you have an idea there. It seems odd to me that DVD's come out at the end of the series, an historical legacy. It actually makes more sense to release a series on DVD and then after some sales are made, start showing it on TV. At least I think it could make sense.
"US imperialism and the US people are very far from the same thing, I think."
One does not exist, and the other does.
So if someone says "I will bury the Flying Spaghetti Monster," they must actually mean "I will bury my pasta salad," because one does not exist. Regardless of whether the person who actually said it believes in it or not. What you're saying is that what someone else means is determined by your beliefs. That's a little... egotistical, I would say. Is our logic sinking in yet?
The good doctor (doom) beat me to it. You earlier said that when he said US imperialism he actually meant the US. And now you tell us that you're quoting his exact words?
And I really think that it's only fair to take things in context anyway. I think, not being insane, he's not against the US people at all, but is very much against US foreign policy. I think it's quite unfair to blur the two given the vast gulf between what many of the american people want and what their government is doing abroad. US imperialism and the US people are very far from the same thing, I think.
So if someone you don't like does a good deed, then you deride it as cheap and easy to do and a trick to fool people. And if they do a bad thing? Popper would not like your approach to theorems. There is no way someone under your viewpoint can show themselves as good because logically, your mind is made up.
So to summarise your logic: If someone says that it's possible to bury US imperialism, then because you don't believe there is such a thing, they therefore meant bury the US, even if they don't think they did. Therefore it is okay for you to tell people he said something that he didn't because you think your interpretation is more valid? Never mind that millions would disagree.
There is the matter of lying to the World in his efforts to start the war in the first place. Even if one is magnanimous enough to say it was a genuine mistake to invade, rather than pointing at the huge ulterior motives for it, the action of deceit can hardly be called one. It was deliberate and unconscienable.
You've ignored the possibility that Chavez actually despises the actions of the Bush regime and genuinely would like to see a better US foreign policy.
Putin is definitely no purist and money does talk. But the money wont go direct to Russia. It will actually go to US policy makers who will be pushing the case with the WTO that Russia needs to bring it's laws in line with the USA's in order to be part of it. And it will also be just part of the general media money pot along with movies and maybe software.
I've had a look at your links, but you can't actually search their catalogue and the charts they have contain hardy anyone I've heard if. Well it did have Ray Charles in there, but that's hardly reassuring me they have much new and mainstream music.
From what I can see of their website, they offer a subscription service. I don't want that. I want a store where I can go in and purchase exactly what I want.
I also have to give them my credit card and sign up before I can even browse their catalogue. I have no idea if they will have what I want.
You're joking? The people with the motivation to rig the election are the main parties. They're also best placed to get away with it. Who are these "terrorists" that would want to rig the results? As far as a group like Al Quaeda (who I presume you're thinking of here), both the main parties are pretty much identical. They are, after all, funded by the same players and neither has shown much compassion to the people of Saudi Arabia in living memory.
Terrorists want attention and to make a statement. Rigging an election is something that has limited benefit once it is publically known. If an election is or has been rigged, you'll find the culprits much closer to home.
That's ridiculous. There's no information in this article that isn't in the public domain and relatively easy to work out. If someone rigs an election this site would in no way be culpable. I mean I think it would be quite funny if someone did hack the election in an obvious and outrageous way... say 23% of the vote going to the Erisian Liberation Front. But if someone goes and does it, they can't blame me for giving them the idea.
That's one good example. Another is secretaries. Everything confidential seems to go through them in a small business and they always seem to need access to all the sensitive areas of the network.
Incidentally, I run the network at my current employers. Shortly after starting, I restructured all the groups to make it more secure. I then matter of factly told them that I'd removed my access to certain areas that I didn't have the right to access. On occasion, I've added myself back on to accomplish certain things for them. They always find that hugely amusing.
Slashdot Mirror
It hasn't entirely improved. The standard defenses when pointing out this sort of stuff are: it's over NHSnet (a "private" intranet containing thousands of practices and hundreds of hospitals, as well as miscellaneous users such as doctors working from home, and univeristy research departments), and that only approved users who operate under strict confidentiality agreements, i.e. every receptionist at every general practice in the country who signed a scrap of paper when they joined.
But the biggest threats to privacy, surprisingly, are not I.T. issues. It's deliberate government policy to annex the private records between doctors and their patients. Surgeries will be forced into handing over these records and have already had demographic information taken without their consent. A brief overview here. I've been working with this system and I exaggerate not at all when I say it's a disaster and riddled with corruption.
Something you can do about this, if you're a UK citizen, is here. And for your own good and all of ours, I sincerely recommend that you do.
It's not the main body of the clinical systems themselves, so you don't need to worry about that side of things (at least not because of IE6). It's the parts that link the system into the new centralised databases. And no doctors actually want that, so quite frankly, the longer it takes to get it working, the better, IMNSHO.
It's also not always Microsoft's fault. I work in the NHS an in Primary Care (GP surgeries amongst others), many places are under strict orders to block the upgrade because clinical software has been written in such a way that it works only with IE6. And there is also the issue that vital software hasn't passed conformence testing with the new version, yet.
It's pretty piss poor that the third party software is so non-standards compliant that this is the case, but, and I say this as someone without a Windows machine in her house, it's hardly Microsoft's fault.
Are they just trying shit stir with this story or what?
Brilliant. The C Programmer's Guide to Religion.
That was interesting. They're missing about 6 million results for the word "torture".
Yeah - I think this is jsut an attempt to get a big argument going between zealots so that they can get some revenue for linking or something. Can't see much other reason for it.
It seems that the fault is entirely on the parts of the submitter and editor, as the linked article clearly says vaccine resistant.
That idiocy dispensed with, the problem is less modern farming techniques (although these are bad and do contribute) so much as it is modern concentrated population centres and rapid world wide travel. Someone picks up something nasty in korea and the next day they're spreading round the dense population of New York.
Okay, so now instead of talking about "terrorists" we're talking specifically about Iraq. That's fine, so long as it's recognised we're moving on. One of the worst things the US government's spin department has done has been to try and represent everyone from Al Quaeda to the government of Iran to Hezbollah to the people of Iraq as a great homogenous mess of "terrorists."
As to Iraq, you have a grossly distorted world view if you think people are being killed by their thousands to make the US government look bad or have an ulterior motive of making democracy look bad. It's a mess of blood feuds, of you killed my brother, I kill two of yours, a power struggle between different ethnic factions, a struggle over strategic resources and a break down in social order. I think the rest of the World has a much clearer idea of the relationship between the US government and the US people than the US people do on the whole and few Iraqi people expect the US people to suddenly reign their government in after they let their government invade in revenge for attacks perpetrated by citizens of another (intensely disliked) country. There's a lot of rage against the US invaders and attacks against them are certainly motivated by an attempt to make them withdraw, but not shiite-sunni or anti-kurd violence.
I'm curious for some examples of this anti US government bias, by the way. Iraq has been a humanitarian disaster and the US has lost what control it thought it had over there. The sole beneficiaries of it have been a handful of Iraqi ex-pats who convinced the US government that they could be re-introduced as part of the new governing order, the 48,000 mercenaries euphemisitcally called private security that are employed mainly by the UK and US governments at the cost of hundreds of millions of $US, and of course US corporations such as Haliburton. Quite frankly, any coverage of what's going on in the Middle East right now is going to reflect badly on the US government. That can't really be helped. The only way that this can be countered in the media is to give less information on it to the US public. Which brings us back to this new agency and why I believe that its purpose is to paint a less clear picture of events to the US public. Every additional bit of accurate information on a situation as bad as this, is really only going to damn them more.
I don't believe that the purpose of this new agency is to provide accurate information. I base this on the fact that it will often not be in the interests of this agency to provide accurate information. You only have to look at the way casualty figures and coverage of the wounded has been understated and downplayed. The GP is absolutely right in saying that the propaganda war is very important. Where I disagree strongly with him is what parties it is important for. It is important to the Pentagon and the government. Obviously if information can be distorted to reflect better on these parties, then that is in their interests to do so.
Now if the GP's point was that the media is providing innacurate information that is slanted against these parties as you say, then I agree it is just as bad as innacurate information on behalf of these parties. But I don't believe that is what was meant. I don't believe because he describes it as a propoganda war about who blinks first. He also suffers from the confused thinking that's been put about by the US government in talking blandly about terrorists as one mass, as if Saudi members of Al-Quaeda are one and the same as Hezbollah or palestinian bombers or the Iranian government. How people fighting against an invading army (US in Iraq) are reasonably described as terrorists is beyond me.
The purpose of this agency is not to provide accurate information and I don't believe that was the OP's belief either.
So basically it's important to protect the US public by making sure they get a version of events that doesn't make them want to withdraw or negotiate, etc. Because if the american public have accurate information it can lead them to make an informed choice. And that would be bad. Of course.
As you say, not a show stopper for the home user - but for those of us who sometimes work fixing up or upgrading PCs, wow! You have no idea what a pain it is going through that call-up process again and again. Not to mention if you were trying different things out and swapping bits back and forth.
I think you have an idea there. It seems odd to me that DVD's come out at the end of the series, an historical legacy. It actually makes more sense to release a series on DVD and then after some sales are made, start showing it on TV. At least I think it could make sense.
So if someone says "I will bury the Flying Spaghetti Monster," they must actually mean "I will bury my pasta salad," because one does not exist. Regardless of whether the person who actually said it believes in it or not. What you're saying is that what someone else means is determined by your beliefs. That's a little... egotistical, I would say. Is our logic sinking in yet?
The good doctor (doom) beat me to it. You earlier said that when he said US imperialism he actually meant the US. And now you tell us that you're quoting his exact words?
And I really think that it's only fair to take things in context anyway. I think, not being insane, he's not against the US people at all, but is very much against US foreign policy. I think it's quite unfair to blur the two given the vast gulf between what many of the american people want and what their government is doing abroad. US imperialism and the US people are very far from the same thing, I think.
So if someone you don't like does a good deed, then you deride it as cheap and easy to do and a trick to fool people. And if they do a bad thing? Popper would not like your approach to theorems. There is no way someone under your viewpoint can show themselves as good because logically, your mind is made up.
So to summarise your logic: If someone says that it's possible to bury US imperialism, then because you don't believe there is such a thing, they therefore meant bury the US, even if they don't think they did. Therefore it is okay for you to tell people he said something that he didn't because you think your interpretation is more valid? Never mind that millions would disagree.
There is the matter of lying to the World in his efforts to start the war in the first place. Even if one is magnanimous enough to say it was a genuine mistake to invade, rather than pointing at the huge ulterior motives for it, the action of deceit can hardly be called one. It was deliberate and unconscienable.
You've ignored the possibility that Chavez actually despises the actions of the Bush regime and genuinely would like to see a better US foreign policy.
Not everyone is solely interested in power.
Putin is definitely no purist and money does talk. But the money wont go direct to Russia. It will actually go to US policy makers who will be pushing the case with the WTO that Russia needs to bring it's laws in line with the USA's in order to be part of it. And it will also be just part of the general media money pot along with movies and maybe software.
Until then, it appears that it's actually legal.
I've had a look at your links, but you can't actually search their catalogue and the charts they have contain hardy anyone I've heard if. Well it did have Ray Charles in there, but that's hardly reassuring me they have much new and mainstream music.
Sorry.
From what I can see of their website, they offer a subscription service. I don't want that. I want a store where I can go in and purchase exactly what I want.
I also have to give them my credit card and sign up before I can even browse their catalogue. I have no idea if they will have what I want.
Can you give a source for that, please? This isn't me casting doubt, I'm genuinely interested and this sounds very interesting indeed.
You're joking? The people with the motivation to rig the election are the main parties. They're also best placed to get away with it. Who are these "terrorists" that would want to rig the results? As far as a group like Al Quaeda (who I presume you're thinking of here), both the main parties are pretty much identical. They are, after all, funded by the same players and neither has shown much compassion to the people of Saudi Arabia in living memory.
Terrorists want attention and to make a statement. Rigging an election is something that has limited benefit once it is publically known. If an election is or has been rigged, you'll find the culprits much closer to home.
That's ridiculous. There's no information in this article that isn't in the public domain and relatively easy to work out. If someone rigs an election this site would in no way be culpable. I mean I think it would be quite funny if someone did hack the election in an obvious and outrageous way... say 23% of the vote going to the Erisian Liberation Front. But if someone goes and does it, they can't blame me for giving them the idea.
That's one good example. Another is secretaries. Everything confidential seems to go through them in a small business and they always seem to need access to all the sensitive areas of the network.
Incidentally, I run the network at my current employers. Shortly after starting, I restructured all the groups to make it more secure. I then matter of factly told them that I'd removed my access to certain areas that I didn't have the right to access. On occasion, I've added myself back on to accomplish certain things for them. They always find that hugely amusing.