Great. Now using nothing but that pencil and paper, please debug this poorly documented code, turn a picture made by your boss using Microsoft Paintbrush into a fully functional UI, and draw up some UML diagrams for this new feature we are thinking about adding. Oh, and I need it all by end of business today.
Idealism is great until you get into the real world and work on real projects.
You (or your insurance company) provide a return to the doctor in the form of a payment for their services. So in that sense it is two-ways. However you, unlike the doctor, still retain the freedom to waive the privilege, as it only protects your privacy, not your doctors. Otherwise you would never be able to tell anyone if you are ever diagnosed with some medical problem.
This rash and bad cough I have? No, I'm sorry I can't tell you what it is or if I am contagious, or my doctor may sue me.
"Without exhausting existing avenues for complains against Physicians/Surgeons, posting directly on the Internet should be discouraged."
Don't look at this as getting revenge on doctors, look at it as an opportunity to do your homework before you put your personal health in the hands of another person. Yes, any reasonable reader should be skeptical of any review he reads on the Internet, aside from possible fake reviews people are more likely to post if they are upset than if they are satisfied. But that doesn't mean looking over the reviews can't be helpful to a potential patient.
" Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed.. by virtue of visiting a doctor, a patient agrees to put himself/herself under that doctor's care. "
Actually, no. Patients are perfectly free to seek second opinions or disagree with their doctors. And doctor/patient privilege protects the patient's privacy to talk to be honest with their health issues. It doesn't protect the doctor's right to do a poor job.
"The burden is on the patient to find a physician whom he can believe. "
How, if they are not allowed to learn anything before they visit?
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?"
Other than the law?
On the net I can read reviews on CDs, books, electronics, software, apartments, etc. It hasn't destroyed those industries.
"And that list was just culled form a quick look at google using genericized trademarks as the search term. I'm sure there are plenty of others out there if you look for them."
Yeah, because if you can find it using Google it must be accurate. I know Google is/.'s best friend, but that is too much.
Just glancing over those, the dictionary (which I consider to be a much more accurate source) doesn't list spandex, bikini, milk of magnesia, etc., as trademarks. And who the hell ever used the term "zip code" to refer to anything other than a zip code assigned by the post office? And a couple of those have just plain expired.
Just beacuse something is a household name doesn't mean it is a genericized trademark. All you really have is a list of common words and phrases.
Great, unless you are poor and can't afford such a home.
Even if you do have such a house, in a situation like New Orleans it will have been sitting under toxic waters for weeks, possibly months. I still wouldn't classify that as "working fine".
"They are near the ocean, sure, but still aren't vulnerable like a southern city. Storms that hit from North Carolina and farther north are usually moving along the coast and hit at an angle. While this actually sounds like the storm would maintain its strength and devastate the entire coast, the opposite is true. The same forces that pull storms to the north cause a pretty good amount of shear that weaken the storm or simply won't allow it past a certain strength. Furthermore, the cold waters of the North Atlantic also dampen any storm's strength near DC or NY."
Yes, it is less likely that a strong hurricane will hit a northern coastal city than a southern coastal city. No one is disputing that, in fact I even stated that in my last post. What I was arguing was that the ggp was incorrect in stating that the fact that hurricanes lose power when going over land makes cities like Washington and New York safe.
"
Flooding is still a concern due to rainfall in these cities, but any city within a few hundred miles of the coast is vulnerable from that. Fortunately these cities are above sea level and will drain eventually. Any loss of life would be tragic, but nothing like Katrina."
Most coastal cities, north or south, are above sea level. There are very few cities which are nearly as vulernable to a hurricane as New Orleans, but one of those that is happens to be Long Island up in New York. And it has been hit in the past, for instance by the Long Island Express in '38 which killed hundreds.
"In my mind there is no reason whatsoever to fear that a massive Cat 5 could do this amount of destruction anywhere but the Gulf Coast, Florida, and maybe the Georgia/SC area of the SE Coast."
Well Katrina Katrina was only a Cat 4 when it made landfall and since it didn't hit the city directly, its effects on New Orleans are closer to those of a Cat 3. And those can hit as far north as New York, see the above mentioned one that hit Long Island. And Cat 4s such as Hazel can make it up to North Carolina.
In short, devestating storms can and have hit cities like Washington and New York.
Are you trying to imply Washington and New York are nowhere near the ocean? Because my map says differently.
I remember back in 2003 when I believe it was Isabel hit, my family in the DC metro got hit harder than I did in North Carolina due to the flooding. And New York gets hit every once in a while as well. No, they are not hit as often as areas in the southeast, but they are vulnerable.
If a category 4 hurricane were able to make it up to the White Sea, I think you may end up with bigger issues than a little radioactive waste on the sea floor. In order for it to still be that powerful when it got that far north, think of how powerful it would have to have been when it flew over a densely populated Europe. Though you may not want to put one of those off the coast of Florida.
"Plus, with the sheer low cost ($200,000 for an output 1/50th of that of a normal Russian nuclear power plant...so the cost of these to equal a normal Russian nuclear plant would be $10,000,000) I think that $10 million is less than the cost of a normal nuclear power plant. Perhaps we should look at this design as well, I mean, evalute it for chrissakes!"
You mean 1/150?
Add to that, the 200 grand isn't the entire cost. For instance, a quick google of the project reveals that they are paying the Chinese 86.5 million for the barge. I'm guessing the quoted price is either a gross conversion error or its just for some key components of the reactor. Then they have to secure it, these are nice targets for potential terrorists.
"These emissions are more than the entire reduction in emissions the UK has achieved between 1990 and 2002 as part of its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol."
I didn't realize the UK had ratified and began working on their commitments to Kyoto back in 1990, 15 years before it went into force and 7 years before it was written.
Now that I think about it, it would probably make more sense to ratify it before it was written. After all, the only potential effect it could have would be to destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to respond to climate change using technological means.
"Army, Navy, Air force, and Cost guard have all been used for domestic disaster recovery. "
Do I have to cut and paste the entire Posse Comitatus Act here? Yes, they can be deployed should Congress authorize it. However, we have a military organization whose purpose is to act in these situations. Since they are not federal troops, the above mentioned law doesn't apply to them. They just were not deployed in time in this particular incident.
"The appropriate response to the flooding city would have been to rapidly air lift everyone to a few staging grounds where mass transit can move them out of the effected area as rapidly as possible."
Exactly. That is what the state/local governments were supposed to do, they just failed.
"To do this effectively you declare Martial law and commandeer any civilian transport's necessary to expedite this process as much as possible."
Once again, no, that is not what martial law is. You are confusing things. The state and local officials can declare a state of emergency (and in this case the mayor did, though the state claims only they had that authority thus it was invalid), but that is not the same as martial law as defined by US law.
Uhh, they are not claiming it has evolved over the past couple hundred years, but rather over the last 60,000 years. 60,000 years ago there were plenty of forces acting as natural selection on human beings.
" OK, so thousands of people dieing from a natural disaster is not sufficient reasons to declare martial law?"
Absolutely not. Martial law is not a reaction to natural disasters, at least not in free societies. Its a reaction to open rebellion against the government. You don't send in the army to fight a hurricane.
The only reason relvant to the recent disaster he could use would be the looters/gang violence. However, even if they were determined to amount to a full out state of insurrection as opposed to something that can be handled by the national guard (which the state refused to even deploy), he could not just send in the marines to invade a US city. He would have to call up Congress and get their approval as per the Posse Comitatus Act. Another reason why martial law is not a first resposne to natural disasters and looting.
"I don't see how you can't place the blame for this directly on the Whitehouse."
I don't doubt that there are many things you don't see.
"9-11 would have happened had he been in office for 6 months or 6 years because he was not responding to the threat and this happened because he dismantled FEMA and fucked over every agency that would have responded quickly."
Uhh, he didn't dismantle FEMA, he (or more accurately Congress with his approval, but the division of powers is clearly beyond your grasp) integrated it into the Department of Homeland Security under pressure from leading Democrats. And what other agencies are you referring to? FEMA is the only federal level agency that is even involved, everything else is either state or local.
"I would suggest that it's a perfectly accurate idea of what private companies are supposed to do. They are supposed to make money."
Yes, but the origional poster seems to think private companies are supposed to be doing nothing other than serving the best interest of the state. Otherwise they did exactly as should have been expected.
"The whole point is that there are certain things which should not be privatized because privatization dramatically hinders (or prohibits) those things from being useful when they are most needed."
Which is why the evacuation is the responsibility of the local/state government, not private companies. Though its certainly possible that function could be contracted out to private companies like many other services the government needs.
"
We've done well on disaster relief efforts in the past. Don't blame a debacle that is the direct result of the Bush administration and Congress mangling FEMA beyond all recognition, turning our entire homeland security system into a giant bureaucracy that can barely stand up under its own weight, and massively cutting our first response capabilities by cutting funding for everything disaster and emergency-related under the sun on the entire government in general."
Yes, it was recommended by the 9-11 commission and despite the fact that nearly every policy wonk was against it, the government caved under pressure from those claiming the Bush administration was not doing enough to stop terrorism by not wanting to implement every idea the commission came up with.
But thats not what caused the problems you mentioned (the lack of an evacuation and National Guard troops in the area). FEMA cannot order evacuations (as of now, the government may reconsider their position in all of this), nor can they send troops into an American city. The only thing the feds can do in either case is that the president can declare martial law, which should be left as a very last resort.
Unfortunately if members of the transportation industry tried to force people out of their homes and onto their buses/trains/planes they would probably be arrested for kidnapping.
Yes, there are occasions where government provided solutions work better than private industry solutions. Thats why anarchy is not a very popular form of government nowadays. Evacuating an entire town before a hurricane strikes is one of those situations, which is why that is the responsibility of the local and state governments, not private transportation. Why you then try to blame the private companies is beyond me. And what the fuck you think this has to do with the space program is an even bigger mystery.
To be honest, since I did not read the full text of either one (I do not subscribe to the NYT online site) I was also assuming the rest of the text was similar as well due to the parent's claim that they had altered the text (if the two editorials were clearly different, surely he would have noticed).
Of course my origional claim that someone is cheating still stands, just the guilty party is the poster if not the newspaper. He apparently flat out lied in an attempt to claim there is a "vast right wing conspiracy" out there.
So either the Times published two stories with very similar titles and eerily similar lines by coincidence, or someone felt lazy and just changed a few lines and republished the same article. If you have a subscription, feel free to read them and determine which is the case. Since the latter seems more likely, I'm not in the mood to pay them.
Congrats - you're propagating a newly created urban legend designed by left-wing groups to pretend that right-wing groups are misrepresenting the holy New York Times editorial page in a attempt to pretend that Bush really *was* on top, and it was the evil liberal's fault!
"It's just silly to think you can be 5x as productive (or whatever the multiple required for a comparable standard of living here); the Chinese are by no means stupid or lazy. Just go to any US grad school and see."
Well now thats an odd thing to say. If all the jobs were in China now and the US tech market is dead, why would you be able to see any Chinese kids in US grad schools? Why would they come half way around the world to be unemployed for the rest of their lives?
Unless if in reality there are currently more tech opportunities here in the states. Granted as the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will the number of opportunities available in those areas, but so will the cost of living and thus the salaries.
And no, most jobs cannot just as easily be done half way around the world as they can in the cube down the hall. You need to be able to communicate with the people on your project, and unless you are willing to work hours like 9:00 pm to 6:00 am when the other guys are in and fly around the world whenever you need to meet someone face to face, you are not going to be able to do that. So if most of the demand for IT services is going to be in the US, guess who is going to get the lion's share of the job market?
" Well I'm sure a lot of CS degree holders in here would like to be able to get work in the US. Not to have to move to China or India to get a tech job."
I certainly don't want to get a job just because I happen to live in the US. I want to get it on my individual merits. If that means I have to compete with people in China and India, so be it.
"Exporting jobs is just plain bad for any economy. It reduces jobs and increases the money flow out of the country. The US is experiencing some serious economic draining ATM."
First of all, the US has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, we just whine about it more than other countries. Offshoring saves companies money, lowers the prices of products for consumers, frees up resources, and opens up markets in foreign countries to American goods. So in reality, it is quite beneficial to the economy.
I was under the impression that he was referring to people being marked because they read something by someone who had been mistaken for Karl Marx.
Of course then they should have been marked a communist, not a terrorist, so it still doesn't make much sense.
Add to that, that part of the PATRIOT ACT has never been used (for good reason, if you are a terrorist and you know the government can look at library records, clearly you won't be dumb enough to borrow a book linking you to terrorism from a public library). And as far as I know, the court has not given a decision on that power (please correct me if I am wrong), so the whole thing ends up moot. There are plenty of more relevant issues of government power abuse being approved by the Court, such as the recent decision on eminent domain.
"Are you stupid. The court has more power than the president. They are the only institution that can VETO both the president and congress. They are a staple of humainty."
Yes, but "online rights" make up a very small amount of the court's dealings. No one is disputing this is not important news (your quote of the gp included the phrase "Obviously important"), just that this would have made more sense in a category like "Politics". Putting it under the "Your Rights Online" section gives the impression that geeks think all other political issues pale in comparison to whether or not the FBI can search through emails.
"Why did Rehnquist not retire?"
Some people take pride in their jobs. Why would he retire? By all accounts he was able to do his job to the very end.
Slashdot Mirror
Idealism is great until you get into the real world and work on real projects.
This rash and bad cough I have? No, I'm sorry I can't tell you what it is or if I am contagious, or my doctor may sue me.
Don't look at this as getting revenge on doctors, look at it as an opportunity to do your homework before you put your personal health in the hands of another person. Yes, any reasonable reader should be skeptical of any review he reads on the Internet, aside from possible fake reviews people are more likely to post if they are upset than if they are satisfied. But that doesn't mean looking over the reviews can't be helpful to a potential patient.
" Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed.. by virtue of visiting a doctor, a patient agrees to put himself/herself under that doctor's care. "
Actually, no. Patients are perfectly free to seek second opinions or disagree with their doctors. And doctor/patient privilege protects the patient's privacy to talk to be honest with their health issues. It doesn't protect the doctor's right to do a poor job.
"The burden is on the patient to find a physician whom he can believe. "
How, if they are not allowed to learn anything before they visit?
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?"
Other than the law?
On the net I can read reviews on CDs, books, electronics, software, apartments, etc. It hasn't destroyed those industries.
Yeah, because if you can find it using Google it must be accurate. I know Google is /.'s best friend, but that is too much.
Just glancing over those, the dictionary (which I consider to be a much more accurate source) doesn't list spandex, bikini, milk of magnesia, etc., as trademarks. And who the hell ever used the term "zip code" to refer to anything other than a zip code assigned by the post office? And a couple of those have just plain expired.
Just beacuse something is a household name doesn't mean it is a genericized trademark. All you really have is a list of common words and phrases.
Even if you do have such a house, in a situation like New Orleans it will have been sitting under toxic waters for weeks, possibly months. I still wouldn't classify that as "working fine".
Yes, it is less likely that a strong hurricane will hit a northern coastal city than a southern coastal city. No one is disputing that, in fact I even stated that in my last post. What I was arguing was that the ggp was incorrect in stating that the fact that hurricanes lose power when going over land makes cities like Washington and New York safe.
" Flooding is still a concern due to rainfall in these cities, but any city within a few hundred miles of the coast is vulnerable from that. Fortunately these cities are above sea level and will drain eventually. Any loss of life would be tragic, but nothing like Katrina."
Most coastal cities, north or south, are above sea level. There are very few cities which are nearly as vulernable to a hurricane as New Orleans, but one of those that is happens to be Long Island up in New York. And it has been hit in the past, for instance by the Long Island Express in '38 which killed hundreds.
"In my mind there is no reason whatsoever to fear that a massive Cat 5 could do this amount of destruction anywhere but the Gulf Coast, Florida, and maybe the Georgia/SC area of the SE Coast."
Well Katrina Katrina was only a Cat 4 when it made landfall and since it didn't hit the city directly, its effects on New Orleans are closer to those of a Cat 3. And those can hit as far north as New York, see the above mentioned one that hit Long Island. And Cat 4s such as Hazel can make it up to North Carolina.
In short, devestating storms can and have hit cities like Washington and New York.
I remember back in 2003 when I believe it was Isabel hit, my family in the DC metro got hit harder than I did in North Carolina due to the flooding. And New York gets hit every once in a while as well. No, they are not hit as often as areas in the southeast, but they are vulnerable.
The purpose of this device isn't printing out office memos but for business publishing needs.
If a category 4 hurricane were able to make it up to the White Sea, I think you may end up with bigger issues than a little radioactive waste on the sea floor. In order for it to still be that powerful when it got that far north, think of how powerful it would have to have been when it flew over a densely populated Europe. Though you may not want to put one of those off the coast of Florida.
You mean 1/150?
Add to that, the 200 grand isn't the entire cost. For instance, a quick google of the project reveals that they are paying the Chinese 86.5 million for the barge. I'm guessing the quoted price is either a gross conversion error or its just for some key components of the reactor. Then they have to secure it, these are nice targets for potential terrorists.
I didn't realize the UK had ratified and began working on their commitments to Kyoto back in 1990, 15 years before it went into force and 7 years before it was written.
Now that I think about it, it would probably make more sense to ratify it before it was written. After all, the only potential effect it could have would be to destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to respond to climate change using technological means.
Do I have to cut and paste the entire Posse Comitatus Act here? Yes, they can be deployed should Congress authorize it. However, we have a military organization whose purpose is to act in these situations. Since they are not federal troops, the above mentioned law doesn't apply to them. They just were not deployed in time in this particular incident.
"The appropriate response to the flooding city would have been to rapidly air lift everyone to a few staging grounds where mass transit can move them out of the effected area as rapidly as possible."
Exactly. That is what the state/local governments were supposed to do, they just failed.
"To do this effectively you declare Martial law and commandeer any civilian transport's necessary to expedite this process as much as possible."
Once again, no, that is not what martial law is. You are confusing things. The state and local officials can declare a state of emergency (and in this case the mayor did, though the state claims only they had that authority thus it was invalid), but that is not the same as martial law as defined by US law.
Uhh, they are not claiming it has evolved over the past couple hundred years, but rather over the last 60,000 years. 60,000 years ago there were plenty of forces acting as natural selection on human beings.
Absolutely not. Martial law is not a reaction to natural disasters, at least not in free societies. Its a reaction to open rebellion against the government. You don't send in the army to fight a hurricane.
The only reason relvant to the recent disaster he could use would be the looters/gang violence. However, even if they were determined to amount to a full out state of insurrection as opposed to something that can be handled by the national guard (which the state refused to even deploy), he could not just send in the marines to invade a US city. He would have to call up Congress and get their approval as per the Posse Comitatus Act. Another reason why martial law is not a first resposne to natural disasters and looting.
"I don't see how you can't place the blame for this directly on the Whitehouse."
I don't doubt that there are many things you don't see.
"9-11 would have happened had he been in office for 6 months or 6 years because he was not responding to the threat and this happened because he dismantled FEMA and fucked over every agency that would have responded quickly."
Uhh, he didn't dismantle FEMA, he (or more accurately Congress with his approval, but the division of powers is clearly beyond your grasp) integrated it into the Department of Homeland Security under pressure from leading Democrats. And what other agencies are you referring to? FEMA is the only federal level agency that is even involved, everything else is either state or local.
The really funny thing is that they start bragging about their "high paying jobs". Oops.
Yes, but the origional poster seems to think private companies are supposed to be doing nothing other than serving the best interest of the state. Otherwise they did exactly as should have been expected.
"The whole point is that there are certain things which should not be privatized because privatization dramatically hinders (or prohibits) those things from being useful when they are most needed."
Which is why the evacuation is the responsibility of the local/state government, not private companies. Though its certainly possible that function could be contracted out to private companies like many other services the government needs.
" We've done well on disaster relief efforts in the past. Don't blame a debacle that is the direct result of the Bush administration and Congress mangling FEMA beyond all recognition, turning our entire homeland security system into a giant bureaucracy that can barely stand up under its own weight, and massively cutting our first response capabilities by cutting funding for everything disaster and emergency-related under the sun on the entire government in general."
Yes, it was recommended by the 9-11 commission and despite the fact that nearly every policy wonk was against it, the government caved under pressure from those claiming the Bush administration was not doing enough to stop terrorism by not wanting to implement every idea the commission came up with.
But thats not what caused the problems you mentioned (the lack of an evacuation and National Guard troops in the area). FEMA cannot order evacuations (as of now, the government may reconsider their position in all of this), nor can they send troops into an American city. The only thing the feds can do in either case is that the president can declare martial law, which should be left as a very last resort.
Yes, there are occasions where government provided solutions work better than private industry solutions. Thats why anarchy is not a very popular form of government nowadays. Evacuating an entire town before a hurricane strikes is one of those situations, which is why that is the responsibility of the local and state governments, not private transportation. Why you then try to blame the private companies is beyond me. And what the fuck you think this has to do with the space program is an even bigger mystery.
Of course my origional claim that someone is cheating still stands, just the guilty party is the poster if not the newspaper. He apparently flat out lied in an attempt to claim there is a "vast right wing conspiracy" out there.
Then I searched for the similar section of your article ("Anyone who cares about sound budgeting and about the health") and got a different article dated August 19, 2002 titled Taming the Untouchable Corps.
So either the Times published two stories with very similar titles and eerily similar lines by coincidence, or someone felt lazy and just changed a few lines and republished the same article. If you have a subscription, feel free to read them and determine which is the case. Since the latter seems more likely, I'm not in the mood to pay them.
Congrats - you're propagating a newly created urban legend designed by left-wing groups to pretend that right-wing groups are misrepresenting the holy New York Times editorial page in a attempt to pretend that Bush really *was* on top, and it was the evil liberal's fault!
Wow, that was a mouthful.
The sad part is I had to go with an old article since /. already posted their current front page story.
Well now thats an odd thing to say. If all the jobs were in China now and the US tech market is dead, why would you be able to see any Chinese kids in US grad schools? Why would they come half way around the world to be unemployed for the rest of their lives?
Unless if in reality there are currently more tech opportunities here in the states. Granted as the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will the number of opportunities available in those areas, but so will the cost of living and thus the salaries.
And no, most jobs cannot just as easily be done half way around the world as they can in the cube down the hall. You need to be able to communicate with the people on your project, and unless you are willing to work hours like 9:00 pm to 6:00 am when the other guys are in and fly around the world whenever you need to meet someone face to face, you are not going to be able to do that. So if most of the demand for IT services is going to be in the US, guess who is going to get the lion's share of the job market?
I certainly don't want to get a job just because I happen to live in the US. I want to get it on my individual merits. If that means I have to compete with people in China and India, so be it.
"Exporting jobs is just plain bad for any economy. It reduces jobs and increases the money flow out of the country. The US is experiencing some serious economic draining ATM."
First of all, the US has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, we just whine about it more than other countries. Offshoring saves companies money, lowers the prices of products for consumers, frees up resources, and opens up markets in foreign countries to American goods. So in reality, it is quite beneficial to the economy.
Of course then they should have been marked a communist, not a terrorist, so it still doesn't make much sense.
Add to that, that part of the PATRIOT ACT has never been used (for good reason, if you are a terrorist and you know the government can look at library records, clearly you won't be dumb enough to borrow a book linking you to terrorism from a public library). And as far as I know, the court has not given a decision on that power (please correct me if I am wrong), so the whole thing ends up moot. There are plenty of more relevant issues of government power abuse being approved by the Court, such as the recent decision on eminent domain.
Yes, but "online rights" make up a very small amount of the court's dealings. No one is disputing this is not important news (your quote of the gp included the phrase "Obviously important"), just that this would have made more sense in a category like "Politics". Putting it under the "Your Rights Online" section gives the impression that geeks think all other political issues pale in comparison to whether or not the FBI can search through emails.
"Why did Rehnquist not retire?"
Some people take pride in their jobs. Why would he retire? By all accounts he was able to do his job to the very end.