That is a very naive view. There is no way that our system of medicine can possibly monitor doctors effectively enough to enforce the Hippocratic Oath. That makes the oath a non-issue. We also know that unless the doctor kills you, permanently maims you in a way that can be proven to have been to be from the prescription, or the popular media decides to railroad a particular treatment, doctors are not held responsible for the drugs he prescribes.
The Hippocratic Oath is just not a factor in most medical care.
Parents should know what is going on with their children's health, and when a doctor that says they don't know what the spots which happen to look just like chicken pox are, so you should just go home, you can't just take their word for it.
Wow. That is a lot of space used for strawman and ad hominim attacks. Try rereading the thread, and maybe you will understand what the conversation was about.
Well, in 1900, you didn't have adults having sex with 16 year old kids. Why? Because in 1900, a 16 year old wasn't a kid. It is sometimes amazing how bad the epidemic has become that has reduced an entire nation to the point that it takes ~30% longer to reach adulthood than it did just 100 years ago.
I would agree with the '70s though. There is no way that a parent with only partial custody of their child is going to be able to keep track of what their child is doing. At this point most most parents share custody, often having minority time, with the state through our 'public education' system.
And this is yet another reason that people don't trust doctors. Instead of seeing a person as a patient, and quite frankly, the single most experienced person with their body, you see an "asshat". You don't want someone who is a partner in keeping themselves healthy. You want someone who does what you tell them. You, someone who thinks that 30 minutes is WAY to long to discuss a persons treatment.
I have no doubt that if you went into a restaurant, and the waiter told you what you were going to order, you would tell him no, and order what you actually like. Why in the world would you think that someone would take less part in their own health.
Your hostile arrogance simply reinforces the distrust of doctors. I know that I don't want someone with your level of hostile arrogance cooking my food, and I definitely don't want someone with your level of hostile arrogance deciding important factors in my health.
Really? So, explain to me what happened to the the test to check for Chicken Pox that seemed to disappear between the time that one doctor told my wife that there was no test to see if a child had chicken pox, and the time that a second doctor schedule the test at the lab. Given that I have had many people express that they have had the same kinds of experience with doctors telling them things that are incorrect, your qualifier of 'competent' must only apply to a small percentage of them.
Of course there is the alternative that the incorrect information that many doctors give to their patients is not because they got it wrong, but because they are simply lying. I have a hard time believing that any pediatrician is unfamiliar with the test to see if a child has been exposed to chicken pox.
Don't think that I am characterizing people in the medical field as evil. They are simply human. That means that sometimes they make mistakes, cover their asses, and take the path of least resistance. They are simply human. They sometimes do good work, and sometimes do bad work, just like people in any other field. Thinking that they are somehow infallible gods, just because they are doctors is naive at best. Unfortunately because they are in positions of power, they will often fall prey to the human failures that manifest with people in positions of power.
Part of the problem is that often the patient DOES know better than the doctor. I can honestly say that I have not had a doctor do, or say anything to me that I did not already know since I was about 10 years old. I have on the other hand had doctors tell me things that were simply wrong. I'm sure there are some good doctors out there, but the nature of our medical industry leaves most of us diagnosing our own illness. Not out of hubris, but out of necessity.
You really should vote. If everyone who doesn't vote now, would start voting for "The guy that can't win", whether that is a presidential, state, or local campaign, it would do wonders for scaring the other candidates into behaving better. When you say you are an anti-voter because you don't vote out of protest, you are playing right into the lead candidates hands. The true 'anti-vote' is to vote for someone that you don't believe can win. This both the effect of not supporting the current system which is mostly a 'vote for who you think can win so you can feel like a winner yourself' system, as well as throwing a little scare into those who will win.
I would agree with this 15 or 20 years ago, but over the last decade or two, the credit providers have been offering larger and larger lines of credit to people with lower and lower incomes. It has even gotten to the point that credit lines are being offered to people who are unemployed. I would hazard a guess that the number of poor over the age of about 21 or 22 would come up in the negatives.
The "wasted vote" is a problem, but there is a demographic that needs to be targeted for this attitude. Those that don't vote at all because they don't think their vote counts. If you know someone who isn't going to vote, or is randomly picking a candidate because the know that they don't know who the candidates are, push them to vote for anyone but the front runners. These people are already PLANNING to 'waste their votes'. Explain to them that the candidate they are voting for doesn't have a chance, but that by them voting for a third party, they can help scare whoever does win into behaving more responsibly. Since their vote wasn't going to be used anyways, they are not losing anything by voting for a candidate that won't win.
Really, if a third pary candidate could get even 10% of the votes, it would push the front runners to look at his platform and consider it in an attempt to woo his constituency.
It doesn't really count as Godwin when the discussion is about making a segment of society "Obsolete". It is really sad just how sexist our society is against men. You would think that we could have learned from our past, but unfortunately we haven't. We just change who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed.
Wrong. Tivo may have a better interface, but that is not what the patent is for. The point of 'prior art' is so that someone doesn't come along and patent something that is in common use. The AIW was an off the shelf product that was in common use prior to Tivo. The PCs that they were commonly put into did the things described in the patent. If having a product on the shelves, being bought and used does not constitute 'prior art', then what does?
I'm pretty sure that video capture cards on the PC predated the Tivo. I see that AIW was first introduced on 11/11/96. The Tivo patent is dated 6/30/98. I'm pretty sure that devices that did what the patent claims were down right common by 98. The only thing that Tivo did that was cool was put it in a nice stereo looking case, and had a nice UI.
I know that the AIW pro that is sitting here next to me did everything described by the patent. And it predates the Tivo patent. I don't see how Dish successfully lost this case.
I believe it was GoVideo that had the two tape VCR. With this VCR, you could record one show and watch another previously recorded program. You could also start recording a show from the point you wanted to get up. This would allow you to continue watching from the point that you left off. In essence pausing.
While I agree that the isn't even close to enough popular support for a revolution for the same reasons, it would appear that the framers of our republic did not believe that there is such a thing as a long term solution. If they did, they would have taken it. They clearly believed that like most things governments wear out, and periodically need to be replaced. Hopefully with one that is better than the previous.
I would have to agree with them that there may not be a perfect government.
Not that I am suggesting people take up arms, but don't you think that the Founders of the US understood this? Why do you think they put the second amendment in place? It is asinine that it is a guarantee to hunt, as that would make about as much sense as the current congress making a law that guaranteed you the right to go to the grocery store. Like wise, it is absurd to think that it is for military use, as no nation every formed before or after, as ever felt the need to guarantee itself the right to a military. The idea is ludicrous. The reason that the 2nd amendment was put in was because the country had just gone through a revolutionary war that would have been impossible if private citizens had not been armed. Gun for the purpose of overthrowing their current oppressive government was considered a good thing. Certainly there were those in power even then that saw this as a threat to their own welfare. We can deduce this from the fact that it is in the Bill of Rights (amendments to the Constitution) instead of in the Constitution itself.
We can debate all day long about whether the Founding Fathers were right or wrong, but there is no question that they assumed it would be necessary for the populace to hold the United States Government at gunpoint.
Not to get into the rest of your debate, but yes, most people are secretly bankrupt. The current housing crash is a ready sign. If most people sold everything they owned, and tried to pay their debts, they would come out in the negatives. Now, given that the government and media are not going to start reporting that the country is bankrupt, the only reliable data I can use is what I personally have observed.
Coming from a perspective of someone just entering the upper middle class, a good 90% of the people I have talked to about money are worth less than $0. This includes the people "wealthier" and "poorer" than me whom I have had discussions with. I have a very hard time believing that any significant portion of the economically lower class have greater financial worth than the middle class. So, while I cannot speak of the very wealthy, the middle class and poor are as a group bankrupt. That does not include, as your advisory points out, the debt that is held in trust by our government.
Then if you take a drink of water that was delivered through the plumbing yet expect him to pay you for watching your movie, you are 'freeloading'. You are comparing copyright to work for hire. any analogy that tries to make them the same is fundamentally flawed. I also know that you have read plenty of posts that clearly point out to you that copyright was created for the benefit of the consumer, not the producer, so pretending like the producer is a victim is dishonest.
Bzzt! Yourself. If OOXML does not lock out competition in the consulting field, then IBM could make exactly the same amount of services revenue by convincing customers to convert their existing Word files (in the binary formats) to OOXML. So, that still leaves us with the only way that MS's accusations could be accurate is if OOXML locked out competition, and thus becomes MS explaining why you should use ODF instead of OOXML.
"They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."
The only way that this could be true is if MS's OOXML format somehow locked out competitors in the consulting services industry. Hmmm... Is MS not arguing for the dropping of OOXML? It sure sounds like it.
From Wikipedia: "Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime."
Given that this article is directly about propaganda, you get a free pass in comparing them to the Nazis.
This is nothing like the coffee incident. Sane people expect to be injured if they dump coffee in their lap. Sane people understand that coffee, like tea is often made with boiling water. Making coffee with boiling water has been common for as long as people have been drinking coffee. On the other hand, flashlights that start fires is pretty new. Children regularly play by putting flashlights to their own faces as well as each others.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a very naive view. There is no way that our system of medicine can possibly monitor doctors effectively enough to enforce the Hippocratic Oath. That makes the oath a non-issue. We also know that unless the doctor kills you, permanently maims you in a way that can be proven to have been to be from the prescription, or the popular media decides to railroad a particular treatment, doctors are not held responsible for the drugs he prescribes.
The Hippocratic Oath is just not a factor in most medical care.
Parents should know what is going on with their children's health, and when a doctor that says they don't know what the spots which happen to look just like chicken pox are, so you should just go home, you can't just take their word for it.
Wow. That is a lot of space used for strawman and ad hominim attacks. Try rereading the thread, and maybe you will understand what the conversation was about.
You have misread the thread. You should reread it to understand the two positions.
Well, in 1900, you didn't have adults having sex with 16 year old kids. Why? Because in 1900, a 16 year old wasn't a kid. It is sometimes amazing how bad the epidemic has become that has reduced an entire nation to the point that it takes ~30% longer to reach adulthood than it did just 100 years ago.
I would agree with the '70s though. There is no way that a parent with only partial custody of their child is going to be able to keep track of what their child is doing. At this point most most parents share custody, often having minority time, with the state through our 'public education' system.
And this is yet another reason that people don't trust doctors. Instead of seeing a person as a patient, and quite frankly, the single most experienced person with their body, you see an "asshat". You don't want someone who is a partner in keeping themselves healthy. You want someone who does what you tell them. You, someone who thinks that 30 minutes is WAY to long to discuss a persons treatment.
I have no doubt that if you went into a restaurant, and the waiter told you what you were going to order, you would tell him no, and order what you actually like. Why in the world would you think that someone would take less part in their own health.
Your hostile arrogance simply reinforces the distrust of doctors. I know that I don't want someone with your level of hostile arrogance cooking my food, and I definitely don't want someone with your level of hostile arrogance deciding important factors in my health.
Really? So, explain to me what happened to the the test to check for Chicken Pox that seemed to disappear between the time that one doctor told my wife that there was no test to see if a child had chicken pox, and the time that a second doctor schedule the test at the lab. Given that I have had many people express that they have had the same kinds of experience with doctors telling them things that are incorrect, your qualifier of 'competent' must only apply to a small percentage of them.
Of course there is the alternative that the incorrect information that many doctors give to their patients is not because they got it wrong, but because they are simply lying. I have a hard time believing that any pediatrician is unfamiliar with the test to see if a child has been exposed to chicken pox.
Don't think that I am characterizing people in the medical field as evil. They are simply human. That means that sometimes they make mistakes, cover their asses, and take the path of least resistance. They are simply human. They sometimes do good work, and sometimes do bad work, just like people in any other field. Thinking that they are somehow infallible gods, just because they are doctors is naive at best. Unfortunately because they are in positions of power, they will often fall prey to the human failures that manifest with people in positions of power.
Part of the problem is that often the patient DOES know better than the doctor. I can honestly say that I have not had a doctor do, or say anything to me that I did not already know since I was about 10 years old. I have on the other hand had doctors tell me things that were simply wrong. I'm sure there are some good doctors out there, but the nature of our medical industry leaves most of us diagnosing our own illness. Not out of hubris, but out of necessity.
Now, that was funny.
You really should vote. If everyone who doesn't vote now, would start voting for "The guy that can't win", whether that is a presidential, state, or local campaign, it would do wonders for scaring the other candidates into behaving better. When you say you are an anti-voter because you don't vote out of protest, you are playing right into the lead candidates hands. The true 'anti-vote' is to vote for someone that you don't believe can win. This both the effect of not supporting the current system which is mostly a 'vote for who you think can win so you can feel like a winner yourself' system, as well as throwing a little scare into those who will win.
The true anti-voter votes for the loser.
I would agree with this 15 or 20 years ago, but over the last decade or two, the credit providers have been offering larger and larger lines of credit to people with lower and lower incomes. It has even gotten to the point that credit lines are being offered to people who are unemployed. I would hazard a guess that the number of poor over the age of about 21 or 22 would come up in the negatives.
No, it does not. No doubt the Tivo uses multiple memory chips for part of its buffering. Besides, the patent does not say on one piece of media.
The "wasted vote" is a problem, but there is a demographic that needs to be targeted for this attitude. Those that don't vote at all because they don't think their vote counts. If you know someone who isn't going to vote, or is randomly picking a candidate because the know that they don't know who the candidates are, push them to vote for anyone but the front runners. These people are already PLANNING to 'waste their votes'. Explain to them that the candidate they are voting for doesn't have a chance, but that by them voting for a third party, they can help scare whoever does win into behaving more responsibly. Since their vote wasn't going to be used anyways, they are not losing anything by voting for a candidate that won't win.
Really, if a third pary candidate could get even 10% of the votes, it would push the front runners to look at his platform and consider it in an attempt to woo his constituency.
It doesn't really count as Godwin when the discussion is about making a segment of society "Obsolete". It is really sad just how sexist our society is against men. You would think that we could have learned from our past, but unfortunately we haven't. We just change who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed.
Wrong. Tivo may have a better interface, but that is not what the patent is for. The point of 'prior art' is so that someone doesn't come along and patent something that is in common use. The AIW was an off the shelf product that was in common use prior to Tivo. The PCs that they were commonly put into did the things described in the patent. If having a product on the shelves, being bought and used does not constitute 'prior art', then what does?
I'm pretty sure that video capture cards on the PC predated the Tivo. I see that AIW was first introduced on 11/11/96. The Tivo patent is dated 6/30/98. I'm pretty sure that devices that did what the patent claims were down right common by 98. The only thing that Tivo did that was cool was put it in a nice stereo looking case, and had a nice UI.
I know that the AIW pro that is sitting here next to me did everything described by the patent. And it predates the Tivo patent. I don't see how Dish successfully lost this case.
I believe it was GoVideo that had the two tape VCR. With this VCR, you could record one show and watch another previously recorded program. You could also start recording a show from the point you wanted to get up. This would allow you to continue watching from the point that you left off. In essence pausing.
While I agree that the isn't even close to enough popular support for a revolution for the same reasons, it would appear that the framers of our republic did not believe that there is such a thing as a long term solution. If they did, they would have taken it. They clearly believed that like most things governments wear out, and periodically need to be replaced. Hopefully with one that is better than the previous.
I would have to agree with them that there may not be a perfect government.
Not that I am suggesting people take up arms, but don't you think that the Founders of the US understood this? Why do you think they put the second amendment in place? It is asinine that it is a guarantee to hunt, as that would make about as much sense as the current congress making a law that guaranteed you the right to go to the grocery store. Like wise, it is absurd to think that it is for military use, as no nation every formed before or after, as ever felt the need to guarantee itself the right to a military. The idea is ludicrous. The reason that the 2nd amendment was put in was because the country had just gone through a revolutionary war that would have been impossible if private citizens had not been armed. Gun for the purpose of overthrowing their current oppressive government was considered a good thing. Certainly there were those in power even then that saw this as a threat to their own welfare. We can deduce this from the fact that it is in the Bill of Rights (amendments to the Constitution) instead of in the Constitution itself.
We can debate all day long about whether the Founding Fathers were right or wrong, but there is no question that they assumed it would be necessary for the populace to hold the United States Government at gunpoint.
Not to get into the rest of your debate, but yes, most people are secretly bankrupt. The current housing crash is a ready sign. If most people sold everything they owned, and tried to pay their debts, they would come out in the negatives. Now, given that the government and media are not going to start reporting that the country is bankrupt, the only reliable data I can use is what I personally have observed.
Coming from a perspective of someone just entering the upper middle class, a good 90% of the people I have talked to about money are worth less than $0. This includes the people "wealthier" and "poorer" than me whom I have had discussions with. I have a very hard time believing that any significant portion of the economically lower class have greater financial worth than the middle class. So, while I cannot speak of the very wealthy, the middle class and poor are as a group bankrupt. That does not include, as your advisory points out, the debt that is held in trust by our government.
Then if you take a drink of water that was delivered through the plumbing yet expect him to pay you for watching your movie, you are 'freeloading'. You are comparing copyright to work for hire. any analogy that tries to make them the same is fundamentally flawed. I also know that you have read plenty of posts that clearly point out to you that copyright was created for the benefit of the consumer, not the producer, so pretending like the producer is a victim is dishonest.
Bzzt! Yourself. If OOXML does not lock out competition in the consulting field, then IBM could make exactly the same amount of services revenue by convincing customers to convert their existing Word files (in the binary formats) to OOXML. So, that still leaves us with the only way that MS's accusations could be accurate is if OOXML locked out competition, and thus becomes MS explaining why you should use ODF instead of OOXML.
Now where's my $200?
"They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."
The only way that this could be true is if MS's OOXML format somehow locked out competitors in the consulting services industry. Hmmm... Is MS not arguing for the dropping of OOXML? It sure sounds like it.
From Wikipedia: "Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime."
Given that this article is directly about propaganda, you get a free pass in comparing them to the Nazis.
This is nothing like the coffee incident. Sane people expect to be injured if they dump coffee in their lap. Sane people understand that coffee, like tea is often made with boiling water. Making coffee with boiling water has been common for as long as people have been drinking coffee. On the other hand, flashlights that start fires is pretty new. Children regularly play by putting flashlights to their own faces as well as each others.