Apology for mixing up posts. I did state you were wrong, and I expressed exactly how you were wrong. If you wish to counter my claims and demonstrate that IP spoofing does not work, and that common law principles of presumed innocent until proven guilty are wrong please do so with facts.
My position is based in facts I know, and can be swayed with additional facts.
When you present a question and provide your own answer, the question becomes rhetorical in nature and is no longer a valid question.
My point is absolutely factual, you are arguing that recent trends of making everything digital and on-line data have "always" been the norm. Your view is factually incorrect on all accounts. It was not quite 2 decades ago that everything was in paper and film. Very little was digital in terms of patient data. I had a full reconstruction of my shoulder and had to hand carry MRIs, Xrays, and folders full of data between my Orthopedic Surgeon and the Hospital because it was illegal for them to make copies and give them to another institution. Patient Client privilege prevented people from copying your data before everything went "digital", and the Government was not an exception. Courts would rarely rule in favor of the Government obtaining medical data because of Patient Client law.
You failing to observe extremely recent history is not an excuse to be a liar. You scummy liar!
You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP. Would you be okay with the IP in logs being held as the gospel truth when you are facing multiple felonies and a long prison sentence?
The second front you are incorrect on, is that in Western justice systems one is assumed innocent. Not that we always practice that theory, but that the theory is built into things like the US Constitution. Again, put the shoe on your own foot. I'm sure we could come up with countless scenarios where you are a plausible criminal. Driving to work makes it plausible that you committed vehicular homicide. Would you like to be brought up charges for every time you have driven your car?
One thing I no longer see with any regularity is what I mentioned twice. Putting the proverbial shoe on your own foot. One should practice it all the times.
He was never tried or convicted, but was pardoned by President Ford. You only need to have the _potential_ to be convicted of a crime to be pardoned. As with Nixon, the President could claim that it would be in the best interests of the country. (Don't misread "could", I chose it intentionally.)
I have no idea why people invent fairy tales when historical facts are readily available.
Generally speaking the Government was prevented from accessing your health care data by law. It was not until the government mandated and regulated recent history that they had access to your data.
Exceptions were people in the Government system, such as Welfare/Veterans, etc... Many veterans avoided Government doctors for exactly that reason.
Instead of claiming someone else needs meds, evaluate your own lack of truth and desire to defend your lies.
If you don't like the label don't perform the act.
Less than 20 years ago we had to hand carry files, lab results, and images from doctor to doctor. "Always" is complete horse shit, and as we have moved to everything being on-line crimes have increased due to opportunity.
The on-line convenience for some has impact to everyone. I'd be willing to bet you can see it if you just opened your eyes.
Two things missing from your summary. First, the health care industry now has to hold massive amounts of data on you, and has to make it available to the Government. This is the price of government mandated and controlled insurance. All of this data makes it simple to steal your identity, which ties into our second item.
Second item: Profit. In addition to using your prescription coverage for codeine, big ticket items are being charged to people because identity theft is so easy. Within the last month or so,. two people hit with tens of thousands of dollars in co-pay for major surgery, and another was hit with fees from a transplant. All of which were done to other people. A bit of investigation determined that the people bought insurance on the black market for their procedures. The better the insurance being stolen, the higher price it retrieves. Shame on the US for using a SSN for nearly everything.
You have an extremely immature and irrational definition of "news" to claim a rant picture is "news". Somehow, I am skeptical you call the person with the "F&*k Hillary" poster over their head "news".
Google also gains nothing from hiding satellite imagery for military sites, although this is a very sensible thing to do and I'm sure most people would agree.
I really don't think you thought that through, because they do get things. Money is a form of power, but there are many other kinds of power. If you really can't think of why Google would not do something for cash, you really are not trying.
The best played fallacy to the ignorant is the ole appeal to emotion, namely intellect and ego. "All the smart people think" is a great gag, and works extremely well. Spend 10 minutes reading comments here, or Reddit, or Twitter, or any other message site, and it's painfully obvious who is too lazy to check any sources.
It gets really tiresome seeing people attempt to claim that all these massive corporations and immensely wealthy people are just powerless to do anything and can't be held responsible for their own actions. Google does what they do for the same reason other powerful companies do, which is nefarious and immoral at best. It should take you all of about 10 seconds of studying the CISPA web campaign to realize that these companies have immense power on politics because masses of people can tune into the message. "Hillary want's us to censor" would have probably ended up in a Sanders candidacy, but Google knows where the power and money should be for them (read Sergey and Larry) to get the best bang for their buck.
Reality is that people don't get rich and powerful by being stupid. We can however say that the opposite is true, so the poor and ignorant will remain so. It's really really easy to get the ignorant to remain that way too.
Prove your allegation,don't just make the allegation. Ensure that the standard measure is fair. If Trump wants to have borders in the US which behave exactly like they do in the UK, Australia,Canada, France, Spain, Brazil, and even Mexico then your claim of racism is false.
Governments are controlled by people with money, who also control the media. Those two groups ensure that unless you look really really hard, you get a reality that they want you to have. They people they want you to believe are "good" are painted that way, and anyone not playing for that team is vilified using all methods possible. An easy example is the constant claim that Trump is racist because he wants to have a functional border. I don't hear the Brits called "racist" because they control their border and prevent free entry for anyone who sneaks through. Trump has plenty of faults they could rationalize, but it is easier to use ad hominem. Funny how the same stories we hear here about Trump being racist are played out in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, etc..
There are few ways to fix the issues. One possible fix is to adjust slander and libel lawsuits which tend not to happen due to case law and stringent requirements. Fox news claiming "racist" is obviously quite different from you calling a person a name. People will attempt to claim that lies are proteced under the first amendment, which is simply not true.
You probably should have skipped the thread too. I never said anything close to what you are implying. How you converted my statements to be "never patch" is concerning. HINT: I never said any such thing, you internalized my comments to fit your personal dilemma with your boss.
You are the guy who makes people install Apache because they need to patch for the vulnerability. You used to work for someone who went out of business right?
Slashdot Mirror
Apology for mixing up posts. I did state you were wrong, and I expressed exactly how you were wrong. If you wish to counter my claims and demonstrate that IP spoofing does not work, and that common law principles of presumed innocent until proven guilty are wrong please do so with facts.
My position is based in facts I know, and can be swayed with additional facts.
When you present a question and provide your own answer, the question becomes rhetorical in nature and is no longer a valid question.
VI, launched through my standard "sh". Down with EMACS and ?SH!
You can stay on my lawn but you need to tolerate the taunts! :)
I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were not providing a complete picture. Read my post again without being defensive.
My point is absolutely factual, you are arguing that recent trends of making everything digital and on-line data have "always" been the norm. Your view is factually incorrect on all accounts. It was not quite 2 decades ago that everything was in paper and film. Very little was digital in terms of patient data. I had a full reconstruction of my shoulder and had to hand carry MRIs, Xrays, and folders full of data between my Orthopedic Surgeon and the Hospital because it was illegal for them to make copies and give them to another institution. Patient Client privilege prevented people from copying your data before everything went "digital", and the Government was not an exception. Courts would rarely rule in favor of the Government obtaining medical data because of Patient Client law.
You failing to observe extremely recent history is not an excuse to be a liar. You scummy liar!
You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP. Would you be okay with the IP in logs being held as the gospel truth when you are facing multiple felonies and a long prison sentence?
The second front you are incorrect on, is that in Western justice systems one is assumed innocent. Not that we always practice that theory, but that the theory is built into things like the US Constitution. Again, put the shoe on your own foot. I'm sure we could come up with countless scenarios where you are a plausible criminal. Driving to work makes it plausible that you committed vehicular homicide. Would you like to be brought up charges for every time you have driven your car?
One thing I no longer see with any regularity is what I mentioned twice. Putting the proverbial shoe on your own foot. One should practice it all the times.
He was never tried or convicted, but was pardoned by President Ford. You only need to have the _potential_ to be convicted of a crime to be pardoned. As with Nixon, the President could claim that it would be in the best interests of the country. (Don't misread "could", I chose it intentionally.)
I have no idea why people invent fairy tales when historical facts are readily available.
Normally yes, I prefer dialogue with individual(s).
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I was thinking almost as nefariously. "Jarred wants to be your friend."
Generally speaking the Government was prevented from accessing your health care data by law. It was not until the government mandated and regulated recent history that they had access to your data.
Exceptions were people in the Government system, such as Welfare/Veterans, etc... Many veterans avoided Government doctors for exactly that reason.
Instead of claiming someone else needs meds, evaluate your own lack of truth and desire to defend your lies.
If you don't like the label don't perform the act.
Less than 20 years ago we had to hand carry files, lab results, and images from doctor to doctor. "Always" is complete horse shit, and as we have moved to everything being on-line crimes have increased due to opportunity.
The on-line convenience for some has impact to everyone. I'd be willing to bet you can see it if you just opened your eyes.
Two things missing from your summary. First, the health care industry now has to hold massive amounts of data on you, and has to make it available to the Government. This is the price of government mandated and controlled insurance. All of this data makes it simple to steal your identity, which ties into our second item.
Second item: Profit. In addition to using your prescription coverage for codeine, big ticket items are being charged to people because identity theft is so easy. Within the last month or so,. two people hit with tens of thousands of dollars in co-pay for major surgery, and another was hit with fees from a transplant. All of which were done to other people. A bit of investigation determined that the people bought insurance on the black market for their procedures. The better the insurance being stolen, the higher price it retrieves. Shame on the US for using a SSN for nearly everything.
So what you just said is that the picture is not news as you originally claimed. Good grief you can't be that daft.
You have an extremely immature and irrational definition of "news" to claim a rant picture is "news". Somehow, I am skeptical you call the person with the "F&*k Hillary" poster over their head "news".
Google also gains nothing from hiding satellite imagery for military sites, although this is a very sensible thing to do and I'm sure most people would agree.
I really don't think you thought that through, because they do get things. Money is a form of power, but there are many other kinds of power. If you really can't think of why Google would not do something for cash, you really are not trying.
The best played fallacy to the ignorant is the ole appeal to emotion, namely intellect and ego. "All the smart people think" is a great gag, and works extremely well. Spend 10 minutes reading comments here, or Reddit, or Twitter, or any other message site, and it's painfully obvious who is too lazy to check any sources.
It gets really tiresome seeing people attempt to claim that all these massive corporations and immensely wealthy people are just powerless to do anything and can't be held responsible for their own actions. Google does what they do for the same reason other powerful companies do, which is nefarious and immoral at best. It should take you all of about 10 seconds of studying the CISPA web campaign to realize that these companies have immense power on politics because masses of people can tune into the message. "Hillary want's us to censor" would have probably ended up in a Sanders candidacy, but Google knows where the power and money should be for them (read Sergey and Larry) to get the best bang for their buck.
Reality is that people don't get rich and powerful by being stupid. We can however say that the opposite is true, so the poor and ignorant will remain so. It's really really easy to get the ignorant to remain that way too.
Censorship != accountability for words by a company, and the fact that you can not see a difference between those concepts is telling.
Prove your allegation,don't just make the allegation. Ensure that the standard measure is fair. If Trump wants to have borders in the US which behave exactly like they do in the UK, Australia,Canada, France, Spain, Brazil, and even Mexico then your claim of racism is false.
Governments are controlled by people with money, who also control the media. Those two groups ensure that unless you look really really hard, you get a reality that they want you to have. They people they want you to believe are "good" are painted that way, and anyone not playing for that team is vilified using all methods possible. An easy example is the constant claim that Trump is racist because he wants to have a functional border. I don't hear the Brits called "racist" because they control their border and prevent free entry for anyone who sneaks through. Trump has plenty of faults they could rationalize, but it is easier to use ad hominem. Funny how the same stories we hear here about Trump being racist are played out in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, etc..
There are few ways to fix the issues. One possible fix is to adjust slander and libel lawsuits which tend not to happen due to case law and stringent requirements. Fox news claiming "racist" is obviously quite different from you calling a person a name. People will attempt to claim that lies are proteced under the first amendment, which is simply not true.
Why learn anything? In a hundred years or less you'll be dead, and it will have been a waste of time.
ad absurdum?
Maybe you should log in to AOL or Prodigy and see for yourself!
You probably should have skipped the thread too. I never said anything close to what you are implying. How you converted my statements to be "never patch" is concerning. HINT: I never said any such thing, you internalized my comments to fit your personal dilemma with your boss.
You are the guy who makes people install Apache because they need to patch for the vulnerability. You used to work for someone who went out of business right?
I'm confused.
Yes, you are. I specifically asked people like you to skip to the next post.