This is probably a more accurate interpretation of what HIPAA means. I still think that it would be unethical for your employer to request blanket access to your medical data in the first place, or to give any incentives for you to give it up, but I'll grant that it is not made illegal by HIPAA.
My worry in this case is that I think it could enable unfair discrimination on the basis of health; and if there is anything that I have learned about corporate America, it's that if they can screw people over, they will.
Health care data is protected under US law and access to it is restricted to those with a specific need-to-know. I don't think it is very likely that anyone's employer has a compelling need to know anything about your health care other than "when" and "how much." They would surely use any additional data to make employment decisions, which is unethical at best, and in many cases already illegal (e.g. nobody should pass one of two equally qualified candidates just because one is in a wheelchair or has recurring migraines).
What exactly are you asking here? If nanomachines might come to resemble viruses?
Well, sure, but aside from some basic behaviors like "consuming resource" and "multiplying" I don't think anyone can really say in what way they will be similiar.
First, life does not boil down to "mere" chemistry very well--there are complex behaviors that it doesn't make much sense to try and describe in terms of chemistry (for example, chemistry can describe how DNA works, but it alone doesn't really tell you how a brain is formed). Second, I think you have exactly the wrong idea with this "self-sustaining via random instability" thing. Living systems (in the short term at least) are the "ball rolling uphill" that runs counter to what we know about randomness and thermodynamics. It is their organization, not their disorganization, that allows living things to perpetuate.
Ok. Stop now. Right now you are trying to explain my own job to me. I'm just not enough of an ass to brag about it on/.
I'm not saying that it's (only) the analysts pushing agendas, although you can't work anywhere in the Beltway and NOT see that. I wonder who you could possibly have worked for, and for how long, that you did not see people pushing agendas from the bottom to the top.
Individual analysts and their managers aside, the administration pushed an agenda and cherry-picked reports that supported it. This is obvious, and yes, it should get your ass canned. That is the point of people asking Bush these questions, capisce?
These issues are discussed in numerous tradecraft papers and anyone who has actually spent some time in the field knows that this is such a danger now due to the "drawdown" in the intelligence services under Bush the First after the Gulf War. Going into the Iraq War we had a serious lack of analysts who could comprehend the danger of telling intel consumers what they wanted to hear. Since you seem to be just a bit rusty, look for a tradecraft whitepaper by John Fox from 2003. I'm sure you must still have buddies in the inside who can track it down for you...right?
I understand the nature of intelligence perfectly. To come to certain conclusions based on available evidence requires either extraordinary ignorance or willful self-deception. It also often requires someone to lie at some point, typically by omission, typically because someone is pushing an agenda. So, when in fact it comes out that the dissenters were ignored--even though their analysis was credible--in favor of analyses that supported something the administration already wanted to do, you can either accept what is plain, or you can continue to delude yourself.
Surely you mean that we have the power to kill ourselves and just about every other living thing on the planet. I'm pretty sure the globe itself will still be revolving around the Sun long after that happens. I mean, there isn't enough power in the whole star fleet to destroy a PLANET.
That explanation makes sense until you consider (e.g.) the Downing Street memo, or that so many key players in this are associated with the Project for a New American Century, who have been advocating taking over Iraq for some time now. The whole "Sorry, we did the best we could with the intel we had" scenario just doesn't wash anymore.
I don't think they make their $7B on sales. They make it by being a distribution engine. That's what the producers for whom Wal-Mart fronts are "paying" for (in the form of reduced margins)--less overhead. As long as Wal-Mart can provide that, I don't think the suppliers will pull out.
To me, it gets at the root that concepts of self and other are fairly arbitrary. It often makes more sense thinging about who I am in the context of family, work, and society.
Not completely arbitrary. If asked, "Where are you?" you can answer "So-and-so from that other point." If they ask "Where is that other point?" you can say "So and so from where I am." It is circular. It is no different from saying "I yam what I yam." True, but devoid of really useful content.
However, I do agree that we are not 100% as autonomous as some would have us believe. Interdependence is important; who I am depends in part on my location in a big web of relationships. It must necessarily influence me, but the me-node is more than just a node.
I appreciate your need to vent at the stoopeed Americains, really, I do.
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines, for example, Culture Wars (their layout on the Trotskyite foundations of neoconservativism is particularly illuminating). Periodicals such as these are considered fringe, typically reserved for that slice of America which is somewhat religious, conservative or libertarian, and thoughtful. They are almost all associated with the conservative Roman Catholic revival in the states, and so are ignored by the majority (either fundamentalist Christian or secular) of people.
So, yeah, there are a lot of morons over here, but that's not everyone.
Sure, but even Miller-Urey could only give us a plausible explanation for how life could have formed. Experiments such as these really can't tell us the explanation, can they?
That always annoys me to hear that. You do know what you're suggesting, right? That we should have let Hitler have Europe, let Hussein continue murdering thousands and have Kuwait, let 3rd world countries suffer under tyranny, and let the terrorists keep killing innocents and building up armies. Why would you want that? If it hits home I guarantee you'd be asking yourself why nobody did anything to stop this. Don't forget, most countries are behind us and sending troops right along side in support. It's easy to exercise the free speech of calling it being a bully, but keep in mind that's probably what lets you do just that. The world isn't perfect...some people have to be dealt with.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. You're right--it's a good idea to ask why nobody stopped 9/11. But when you start to dig it becomes fairly obvious that we created those who attacked us, as a direct result of our foreign policy. Interestingly enough, I remember Newt Gingrich on CNN the night of 9/11 saying somethign similar.
Fighting Hitler is not an example of bullying. We do not have a great track record of helping out 3rd world countries--in fact, if you look at our involvement in South America, we tend to have a history of assisting tyrants (see also: Iraq). When we do intervene it is not to do something morally right, it is because the region is important to us financially or strategically. That's all. So I do not think that your examples are really any good.
Finally--who exactly is "behind" us? Are you counting UNAMI? Lots of the Coalition members are withdrawing, drawing down their presence, or have already withdrawn. I'd say there is a lot more global opposition to our policies than global support for wars that fulfill those policies.
I am positing that the argument "We watched violent cartoons and they did nothing to us!" is incorrect, because as has been demonstrated, there is a positive correlation between the increasing prevalence of violent media and increasing violence in the rest of the culture. Ie, one generation makes Bugs Bunny; the next generation makes somewhat violent films; the one after that, incredibly violent films, etc.
I didn't say that either was "bad," nor that they were bad simply because violence begets more violence (although, that should be obvious). I only proposed that violence in culture and media operates in a positive feedback loop.
That's a pretty nice chain of "ifs" but after reading some research in this field (and, having some personal experience in the matter), I disagree with your conclusions.
Historically, it has always been difficult to get the infantry to want to actually kill someone. After WW2 the military instituted new training techniques to remove this inhibition, which led to previously unseen fire-to-kill rates. It isn't that you have to be "broken down" and/or "brainwashed" in order for these techniques to take effect. The techniques are the "brainwashing" part. It is commonly accepted in the infantry today that violent stimuli (video games, movies, etc.) desensitive people to violence, so it is a lot easier to train a recruit to kill today than it was 50 years ago. Of course, that they are more willing to do violence is only a part of the whole puzzle, but it is a significant part.
Finally, you asked if we should have banned "Taxi Driver" (I'm assuming as a stand-in for all violent movies or other content). It's a disingenuous argument to jump from a stimulus which is very visceral (blowing someone away in Doom 3, say) to saying that next we should ban a much less visceral stimulus, like movies or toy guns. I'm sure it is some form of straw man. That a correlation between America's increasingly violent entertainment options and increasingly violent culture exists is beyond question. The relationship is probably complex, but there is one, and saying things like "Well, Bugs Bunny is pretty violent, and look, I turned out ok!" is, I think, a smokescreen; after all, one impact of violent cartoons back then was that the kids who watched them grew up and gave us Dawn of the Dead and engineered numerous wars. Coincidence?
Incidentally, you might want to check out a book entitled "On Killing" by LtCol Dave Grossman, USA (ret.). Good research on the topic.
K-12 teachers are underpaid, and generally lack a lot of computer skills that are necessary to make free-OSS work.
I run a nonprofit geared towards giving away free computers to underprivileged kids (refurbished older gear running Kubuntu). It has so far been a great success. The school system where I live has just asked me to kit out a few standalones for their Special Ed classrooms, after teachers were so impressed with the Linux desktop. I do not think you give the faculty nearly enough credit.
Dumbass - there's a differnce between simply "that's dumb" and telling someone they should "be quiet" - I have no problem arguing with him "ad hominem" or otherwise - he's the one who took the position of demand that others not respond. You should go back and read the thread.
Furthermore, I believe I stated that I agreed with what he was saying right up to the point where he demanded that others not challenge his opinion. I can only hope he learned more from the exchange than you obviously did. Unless I miss my guess you are one of those who believes they have nothing left to learn...
Exactly where do you think the line is between "I disagree with your ideas" and "Shut the fuck up, you're an idiot?" One fosters discussion and the advancement of ideas and knowledge; the other just makes you look like a clown. Are you interested in the debate at all, or do you just come to the internet to swing your dick around?
In this case, you do miss your guess, by a mile. Honestly, when you come out swinging ("Dumbass," "You think you have nothing left to learn," etc.) you just show your ass. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, capisce?
As for the parent: I think you're reading too much into his rhetoric, simple as that. Maybe he's saying that everyone who disagrees with him should STFU (and so, to him, freedom of speech should not exist). However, I think it's more likely that this is just the way he writes--just as with you, everyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. If you believe that, then which one of us really thinks he's learned it all?
These are all valid concerns, but I don't think this is any different than migrating from, say, 98 to XP. My mom is a teacher, and when they migrated a whole lot of one-off specialized apps. Granted, this was mostly because education departments typically do not take advantage of industry standard applications where they should (e.g. they will create custom database software for storing grades instead of just hiring a SQL administrator).
Also, as far as training issues go, I have shown my Linux desktop to plenty of non-tech-savvy people and they were able to perform basic tasks immediately: when told to get on the web, they click on the globe icon; when told to check e-mail, the envelope, and when told to write a document, they clicked on the pen-and-paper icon. If my girlfriend can pick it up, then I'm guessing your average ten-year-old can.
Finally, I think the greatest transition pains will be felt by the administration itself--teachers, in my experience, are usually pretty good at adapting to new technologies and so forth (every year the Board of Ed. requires them to learn new things). But whether or not Ms. Crabtree, the 70-year-old secretary at Human Resources, who insists on using Wordperfect 1.0 for everything, can be transitioned...that is an issue!:)
I decry your attempt to bully others into silence in a public forum.
If you think he is incorrect you should be able to challenge his beliefs without resorting to ad hominem attacks. He's only voicing his opinion. If that's bullying then I have a pot and a kettle I want to show you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ladies and gentlemen, the sarchasm! ::thunderous applause::
This is probably a more accurate interpretation of what HIPAA means. I still think that it would be unethical for your employer to request blanket access to your medical data in the first place, or to give any incentives for you to give it up, but I'll grant that it is not made illegal by HIPAA.
My worry in this case is that I think it could enable unfair discrimination on the basis of health; and if there is anything that I have learned about corporate America, it's that if they can screw people over, they will.
Health care data is protected under US law and access to it is restricted to those with a specific need-to-know. I don't think it is very likely that anyone's employer has a compelling need to know anything about your health care other than "when" and "how much." They would surely use any additional data to make employment decisions, which is unethical at best, and in many cases already illegal (e.g. nobody should pass one of two equally qualified candidates just because one is in a wheelchair or has recurring migraines).
What exactly are you asking here? If nanomachines might come to resemble viruses?
Well, sure, but aside from some basic behaviors like "consuming resource" and "multiplying" I don't think anyone can really say in what way they will be similiar.
First, life does not boil down to "mere" chemistry very well--there are complex behaviors that it doesn't make much sense to try and describe in terms of chemistry (for example, chemistry can describe how DNA works, but it alone doesn't really tell you how a brain is formed). Second, I think you have exactly the wrong idea with this "self-sustaining via random instability" thing. Living systems (in the short term at least) are the "ball rolling uphill" that runs counter to what we know about randomness and thermodynamics. It is their organization, not their disorganization, that allows living things to perpetuate.
Ok. Stop now. Right now you are trying to explain my own job to me. I'm just not enough of an ass to brag about it on /.
I'm not saying that it's (only) the analysts pushing agendas, although you can't work anywhere in the Beltway and NOT see that. I wonder who you could possibly have worked for, and for how long, that you did not see people pushing agendas from the bottom to the top.
Individual analysts and their managers aside, the administration pushed an agenda and cherry-picked reports that supported it. This is obvious, and yes, it should get your ass canned. That is the point of people asking Bush these questions, capisce?
These issues are discussed in numerous tradecraft papers and anyone who has actually spent some time in the field knows that this is such a danger now due to the "drawdown" in the intelligence services under Bush the First after the Gulf War. Going into the Iraq War we had a serious lack of analysts who could comprehend the danger of telling intel consumers what they wanted to hear. Since you seem to be just a bit rusty, look for a tradecraft whitepaper by John Fox from 2003. I'm sure you must still have buddies in the inside who can track it down for you...right?
I understand the nature of intelligence perfectly. To come to certain conclusions based on available evidence requires either extraordinary ignorance or willful self-deception. It also often requires someone to lie at some point, typically by omission, typically because someone is pushing an agenda. So, when in fact it comes out that the dissenters were ignored--even though their analysis was credible--in favor of analyses that supported something the administration already wanted to do, you can either accept what is plain, or you can continue to delude yourself.
From what exactly do you derive your obligation to tear down other people's beliefs? There is a serious is-ought problem in your thinking.
Surely you mean that we have the power to kill ourselves and just about every other living thing on the planet. I'm pretty sure the globe itself will still be revolving around the Sun long after that happens. I mean, there isn't enough power in the whole star fleet to destroy a PLANET.
That explanation makes sense until you consider (e.g.) the Downing Street memo, or that so many key players in this are associated with the Project for a New American Century, who have been advocating taking over Iraq for some time now. The whole "Sorry, we did the best we could with the intel we had" scenario just doesn't wash anymore.
I don't think they make their $7B on sales. They make it by being a distribution engine. That's what the producers for whom Wal-Mart fronts are "paying" for (in the form of reduced margins)--less overhead. As long as Wal-Mart can provide that, I don't think the suppliers will pull out.
To me, it gets at the root that concepts of self and other are fairly arbitrary. It often makes more sense thinging about who I am in the context of family, work, and society.
Not completely arbitrary. If asked, "Where are you?" you can answer "So-and-so from that other point." If they ask "Where is that other point?" you can say "So and so from where I am." It is circular. It is no different from saying "I yam what I yam." True, but devoid of really useful content.
However, I do agree that we are not 100% as autonomous as some would have us believe. Interdependence is important; who I am depends in part on my location in a big web of relationships. It must necessarily influence me, but the me-node is more than just a node.
I appreciate your need to vent at the stoopeed Americains, really, I do.
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines, for example, Culture Wars (their layout on the Trotskyite foundations of neoconservativism is particularly illuminating). Periodicals such as these are considered fringe, typically reserved for that slice of America which is somewhat religious, conservative or libertarian, and thoughtful. They are almost all associated with the conservative Roman Catholic revival in the states, and so are ignored by the majority (either fundamentalist Christian or secular) of people.
So, yeah, there are a lot of morons over here, but that's not everyone.
Well played, sir. You owe me a new keyboard and monitor, and I owe you about five "Funny" points :)
I have never read this concept stated so elegantly. Thank you!
Sure, but even Miller-Urey could only give us a plausible explanation for how life could have formed. Experiments such as these really can't tell us the explanation, can they?
I call shenanigans. Draconian punishments for minor crimes are not all that effective.
That always annoys me to hear that. You do know what you're suggesting, right? That we should have let Hitler have Europe, let Hussein continue murdering thousands and have Kuwait, let 3rd world countries suffer under tyranny, and let the terrorists keep killing innocents and building up armies. Why would you want that? If it hits home I guarantee you'd be asking yourself why nobody did anything to stop this. Don't forget, most countries are behind us and sending troops right along side in support. It's easy to exercise the free speech of calling it being a bully, but keep in mind that's probably what lets you do just that. The world isn't perfect...some people have to be dealt with.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. You're right--it's a good idea to ask why nobody stopped 9/11. But when you start to dig it becomes fairly obvious that we created those who attacked us, as a direct result of our foreign policy. Interestingly enough, I remember Newt Gingrich on CNN the night of 9/11 saying somethign similar.
Fighting Hitler is not an example of bullying. We do not have a great track record of helping out 3rd world countries--in fact, if you look at our involvement in South America, we tend to have a history of assisting tyrants (see also: Iraq). When we do intervene it is not to do something morally right, it is because the region is important to us financially or strategically. That's all. So I do not think that your examples are really any good.
Finally--who exactly is "behind" us? Are you counting UNAMI? Lots of the Coalition members are withdrawing, drawing down their presence, or have already withdrawn. I'd say there is a lot more global opposition to our policies than global support for wars that fulfill those policies.
So basically, what you're saying is that A is bad because it leads to more A. What an argument!
Actually, no.
I am positing that the argument "We watched violent cartoons and they did nothing to us!" is incorrect, because as has been demonstrated, there is a positive correlation between the increasing prevalence of violent media and increasing violence in the rest of the culture. Ie, one generation makes Bugs Bunny; the next generation makes somewhat violent films; the one after that, incredibly violent films, etc.
I didn't say that either was "bad," nor that they were bad simply because violence begets more violence (although, that should be obvious). I only proposed that violence in culture and media operates in a positive feedback loop.
That's a pretty nice chain of "ifs" but after reading some research in this field (and, having some personal experience in the matter), I disagree with your conclusions.
Historically, it has always been difficult to get the infantry to want to actually kill someone. After WW2 the military instituted new training techniques to remove this inhibition, which led to previously unseen fire-to-kill rates. It isn't that you have to be "broken down" and/or "brainwashed" in order for these techniques to take effect. The techniques are the "brainwashing" part. It is commonly accepted in the infantry today that violent stimuli (video games, movies, etc.) desensitive people to violence, so it is a lot easier to train a recruit to kill today than it was 50 years ago. Of course, that they are more willing to do violence is only a part of the whole puzzle, but it is a significant part.
Finally, you asked if we should have banned "Taxi Driver" (I'm assuming as a stand-in for all violent movies or other content). It's a disingenuous argument to jump from a stimulus which is very visceral (blowing someone away in Doom 3, say) to saying that next we should ban a much less visceral stimulus, like movies or toy guns. I'm sure it is some form of straw man. That a correlation between America's increasingly violent entertainment options and increasingly violent culture exists is beyond question. The relationship is probably complex, but there is one, and saying things like "Well, Bugs Bunny is pretty violent, and look, I turned out ok!" is, I think, a smokescreen; after all, one impact of violent cartoons back then was that the kids who watched them grew up and gave us Dawn of the Dead and engineered numerous wars. Coincidence?
Incidentally, you might want to check out a book entitled "On Killing" by LtCol Dave Grossman, USA (ret.). Good research on the topic.
K-12 teachers are underpaid, and generally lack a lot of computer skills that are necessary to make free-OSS work.
I run a nonprofit geared towards giving away free computers to underprivileged kids (refurbished older gear running Kubuntu). It has so far been a great success. The school system where I live has just asked me to kit out a few standalones for their Special Ed classrooms, after teachers were so impressed with the Linux desktop. I do not think you give the faculty nearly enough credit.
Dumbass - there's a differnce between simply "that's dumb" and telling someone they should "be quiet" - I have no problem arguing with him "ad hominem" or otherwise - he's the one who took the position of demand that others not respond. You should go back and read the thread.
Furthermore, I believe I stated that I agreed with what he was saying right up to the point where he demanded that others not challenge his opinion. I can only hope he learned more from the exchange than you obviously did. Unless I miss my guess you are one of those who believes they have nothing left to learn...
Exactly where do you think the line is between "I disagree with your ideas" and "Shut the fuck up, you're an idiot?" One fosters discussion and the advancement of ideas and knowledge; the other just makes you look like a clown. Are you interested in the debate at all, or do you just come to the internet to swing your dick around?
In this case, you do miss your guess, by a mile. Honestly, when you come out swinging ("Dumbass," "You think you have nothing left to learn," etc.) you just show your ass. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, capisce?
As for the parent: I think you're reading too much into his rhetoric, simple as that. Maybe he's saying that everyone who disagrees with him should STFU (and so, to him, freedom of speech should not exist). However, I think it's more likely that this is just the way he writes--just as with you, everyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. If you believe that, then which one of us really thinks he's learned it all?
Let me explain, I am from Mexico...
...as I said at the beggining I am from Mexico...
:)
I (as a Mexican presumabley)
You meant "Central American," no doubt
These are all valid concerns, but I don't think this is any different than migrating from, say, 98 to XP. My mom is a teacher, and when they migrated a whole lot of one-off specialized apps. Granted, this was mostly because education departments typically do not take advantage of industry standard applications where they should (e.g. they will create custom database software for storing grades instead of just hiring a SQL administrator).
:)
Also, as far as training issues go, I have shown my Linux desktop to plenty of non-tech-savvy people and they were able to perform basic tasks immediately: when told to get on the web, they click on the globe icon; when told to check e-mail, the envelope, and when told to write a document, they clicked on the pen-and-paper icon. If my girlfriend can pick it up, then I'm guessing your average ten-year-old can.
Finally, I think the greatest transition pains will be felt by the administration itself--teachers, in my experience, are usually pretty good at adapting to new technologies and so forth (every year the Board of Ed. requires them to learn new things). But whether or not Ms. Crabtree, the 70-year-old secretary at Human Resources, who insists on using Wordperfect 1.0 for everything, can be transitioned...that is an issue!
I decry your attempt to bully others into silence in a public forum.
If you think he is incorrect you should be able to challenge his beliefs without resorting to ad hominem attacks. He's only voicing his opinion. If that's bullying then I have a pot and a kettle I want to show you.
Those who have no clue about the subject claim something is horrible and/or should be banned because of their flawed ideas about it.
Isn't it a bunch of prostitutes doing the protests? Don't you think they would have some experience with exploitation and violence?