Old-way: develop physical model of how we think things work, test a few cases, refine model.
New way: collect a huge relevant data set, mine the data for interrelationships, make a correlation.
Correlation models replace scientific models. no more need for the hypothesis testing.
I'll ignore the religious digression, as specific religious interpretations on the right of just killing is irrelevant to the secular issue of medical action in just killing (or facilitation).
so To please no one doesn't include government facilitation? will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. "he" seems pretty clearly to indicate the patient, not "anyone else the patient may later harm".
I assume (in agreement with your statemests) in modern practice there is still a separate executioner who actually pushes the button(s)?
Was a doctor involved at all in any of the execution practice (apart from death pronouncement) back in the time when the Oath was created? (chopping block methods obviously answering the question). I'm assuming Socrates didn't drink physician prescribed hemlock.
So, even if one argues the 'he may assist in execution for the greater good' angle, the oath doesn't say he must actively prevent death when he isn't charged to do so. As long as he isn't prescribing or administering the execution methods, I'd say he's unquestionably within the bounds of the oath. If he is, well, there doesn't seem to be a greater good clause in there. The physician's duty is to the patient's wellbeing. It is someone else's duty to the greater good. He doesn't have to actively prevent such action in support of the greater good, but if he wants to abide by the oath, he should not be the administrator.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
in light of the first two lines, please explain the interpretation by which a doctor may still carry out the death penalty. (I'm not trolling, just curious because I don't see that in there.)
agreed. our patent lawyers always push the notebook (signed and dated regularly of course) not because it's a slam dunk evidentiary piece, but because it's the one most likely to be accepted as convincing proof by a jury. It's not a matter of having the earliest date. It's a matter of having the earliest date that you can convince the jury to be valid.
We had some email discussions and and emailed a digitally signed version to our patent lawyer's paralegal for recording. According to the lawyer, he said there were two useful dates: (1) the date indicated in the digitally signed email. (2) the date the paralegal printed out the info, notarized it with witnesses, and filed it (Monday morning after the weekend). He said in court he'd use (2) as the date if he could, and (1) only if he really had to, because he could reasonably assume a jury would accept (2) and it should withstand the other side's attempts to discredit it. (1) would only be as good as a jury would trust a digitally signed email as an unalterable proof of origin date. Even producing email server records and trying to show some sort of history tied to a fixed server date, there's little way to prove nothing was alterable, and he'd have a hard time in front of a jury with it.
actually, the ENTIRE POINT of a patent is to get a (temporary) monopoly advantage over competition by protecting intellectual property. It's property you plan to use to kick everyone else's butt in the marketplace because only you have it.
very true. first to conceive in the US, not first to patent. If they can show a signed, dated notebook detailing the invention (because we all know software developers keep bound laboratory notebooks) that sets the invention date before the release of the software, then things could differ. At least, that's with infringing patent suits. Not sure if it works the same with regard to prior art and single patent validation.
also, international laws differ, but i believe in the US you have 1 year from the date of first public disclosure to submit a patent application. So, Trend Micro might even be able to point back to a publication (presentation, etc) of the idea up to a year before their patent application, and claim that the other company was just copying their invention.
Sounds like they might have to dig back farther than that software release date.
The military's been in it all along. It's just that the word Cyber finally got cool. Soon they'll turn it into a verb: Private, cyber that paradigm shift NOW!!
Never forget that the government, and especially the military, is just a big, inefficient, management heavy 1970's style corporation.
SUV/truck hybrids are designed to do two things: (1) give better low end torque with smaller engines, (2) make people feel like they're being green. They are not designed to improve fuel economy, although in some driving conditions, slight improvements may occur.
in a car-on-car collision, though, don't forget that there are two kinetic masses that must come to a stop.
I remember a lecture from one of my profs who used to work with the NTSB. He mentioned crash fatality studies where moving from a car-car collision to a car-suv collision made little change on the probability of death to the SUV driver, but significantly increased the probability of death to the car driver. thus, according to that metric, the bigger vehicle only serves to increase the other person's chance of dying without making you any safer.
nice. i was looking at a completely broken business model to present to class. thanks.
the problem with political campaigns? it's a gamble. that's okay for a campaign, but not for my dollars going toward a product the consumer wants. Businesses are about getting money up front to fund production of a product, then selling it at the market bearable price to recoup your costs. Customers don't like gambling away their product purchasing dollars.
back in the day, everyone I knew who could type the copy command would copy pc games. these are people who would have no idea now how to actually download warez. they used to make copy protection just complex enough to stop that person. if his friends liked the game, they'd actually buy a copy if he couldn't just give them one. so, copy protection at that level makes sense. it when they make it so complex that it degrades playability (or install-ability) for the legit user that they've gone too far.
yes, kind of. but we all know the ability to miniaturize things is in no way novel or interesting, especially when it significantly improves capabilities.
helium doesn't cool things to low temps. you cool the helium down to low temps, and then pump the cooled helium against your heat source. it takes a lot of energy to cool the helium in the first place, and would take up a lot of space.
It costs them the same if their bandwidth is maximized or if nobody is downloading anything
There are less electrons in zeros than in ones, so the traffic weighs less easing the load on their routers.
But nooo, that would COST them money where as putting this change on how much you can download will only GAIN them money. Guess which one they are going forward with?
The one that makes the most business sense? Big surprise.
Wow. Two AC's who know nothing! Let me think, Massachusetts:
MIT
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Harvard
BU
BC
Northeastern
Tufts
UofM-pick one
yeah, there's a few tech companies coming out of those.
Actually, it's not the X-Prize driving these. It was the DARPA grand challenge (the one with the autonomous vehicles). Off the top of my head, I don't recall which pre-dates which, but the success (and notoriety) of the DARPA prize program has led the powers at be to give authority for additional prize programs in other areas. DoD is currently sponsoring a Wearable Power prize program, and I'm not at all surprised to see DOE get in on the deal as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Old-way: develop physical model of how we think things work, test a few cases, refine model. New way: collect a huge relevant data set, mine the data for interrelationships, make a correlation. Correlation models replace scientific models. no more need for the hypothesis testing.
so To please no one doesn't include government facilitation? will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. "he" seems pretty clearly to indicate the patient, not "anyone else the patient may later harm".
I assume (in agreement with your statemests) in modern practice there is still a separate executioner who actually pushes the button(s)?
Was a doctor involved at all in any of the execution practice (apart from death pronouncement) back in the time when the Oath was created? (chopping block methods obviously answering the question). I'm assuming Socrates didn't drink physician prescribed hemlock.
So, even if one argues the 'he may assist in execution for the greater good' angle, the oath doesn't say he must actively prevent death when he isn't charged to do so. As long as he isn't prescribing or administering the execution methods, I'd say he's unquestionably within the bounds of the oath. If he is, well, there doesn't seem to be a greater good clause in there. The physician's duty is to the patient's wellbeing. It is someone else's duty to the greater good. He doesn't have to actively prevent such action in support of the greater good, but if he wants to abide by the oath, he should not be the administrator.
interesting...
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
in light of the first two lines, please explain the interpretation by which a doctor may still carry out the death penalty. (I'm not trolling, just curious because I don't see that in there.)We had some email discussions and and emailed a digitally signed version to our patent lawyer's paralegal for recording. According to the lawyer, he said there were two useful dates: (1) the date indicated in the digitally signed email. (2) the date the paralegal printed out the info, notarized it with witnesses, and filed it (Monday morning after the weekend). He said in court he'd use (2) as the date if he could, and (1) only if he really had to, because he could reasonably assume a jury would accept (2) and it should withstand the other side's attempts to discredit it. (1) would only be as good as a jury would trust a digitally signed email as an unalterable proof of origin date. Even producing email server records and trying to show some sort of history tied to a fixed server date, there's little way to prove nothing was alterable, and he'd have a hard time in front of a jury with it.
actually, the ENTIRE POINT of a patent is to get a (temporary) monopoly advantage over competition by protecting intellectual property. It's property you plan to use to kick everyone else's butt in the marketplace because only you have it.
also, international laws differ, but i believe in the US you have 1 year from the date of first public disclosure to submit a patent application. So, Trend Micro might even be able to point back to a publication (presentation, etc) of the idea up to a year before their patent application, and claim that the other company was just copying their invention.
Sounds like they might have to dig back farther than that software release date.
Never forget that the government, and especially the military, is just a big, inefficient, management heavy 1970's style corporation.
quite a long time ago. see SpamCop for a current version. I'm sure historical data is available in the forums.
um... have you ever caught a "the gimp should improve its user interface" discussion? didn't think so.
SUV/truck hybrids are designed to do two things: (1) give better low end torque with smaller engines, (2) make people feel like they're being green. They are not designed to improve fuel economy, although in some driving conditions, slight improvements may occur.
I remember a lecture from one of my profs who used to work with the NTSB. He mentioned crash fatality studies where moving from a car-car collision to a car-suv collision made little change on the probability of death to the SUV driver, but significantly increased the probability of death to the car driver. thus, according to that metric, the bigger vehicle only serves to increase the other person's chance of dying without making you any safer.
Read parent in Krusty the Klown voice for maximum amusement.
nice. i was looking at a completely broken business model to present to class. thanks. the problem with political campaigns? it's a gamble. that's okay for a campaign, but not for my dollars going toward a product the consumer wants. Businesses are about getting money up front to fund production of a product, then selling it at the market bearable price to recoup your costs. Customers don't like gambling away their product purchasing dollars.
back in the day, everyone I knew who could type the copy command would copy pc games. these are people who would have no idea now how to actually download warez. they used to make copy protection just complex enough to stop that person. if his friends liked the game, they'd actually buy a copy if he couldn't just give them one. so, copy protection at that level makes sense. it when they make it so complex that it degrades playability (or install-ability) for the legit user that they've gone too far.
and your crappy version of choice? (I assume you're referring to Maxima, which I would call less than crappy unless you like polished documents )
yes, kind of. but we all know the ability to miniaturize things is in no way novel or interesting, especially when it significantly improves capabilities.
correct. PC builders are limited to what a single wallplug can produce. 110AC at ~10A is all you're getting.
unless you pump at a sufficient rate to remove any bubble prior to reaching CHF.
IIRC the silicon channels are passivated with a Silicon Dioxide layer (think glass). That should act as a barrier to any chemical reactions.
probably because the idea is crap. but then I never saw the movie.
helium doesn't cool things to low temps. you cool the helium down to low temps, and then pump the cooled helium against your heat source. it takes a lot of energy to cool the helium in the first place, and would take up a lot of space.
wow, no mcdonalds for you, huh?
It costs them the same if their bandwidth is maximized or if nobody is downloading anything
There are less electrons in zeros than in ones, so the traffic weighs less easing the load on their routers.
But nooo, that would COST them money where as putting this change on how much you can download will only GAIN them money. Guess which one they are going forward with?
The one that makes the most business sense? Big surprise.
Wow. Two AC's who know nothing! Let me think, Massachusetts: MIT Worcester Polytechnic Institute Harvard BU BC Northeastern Tufts UofM-pick one yeah, there's a few tech companies coming out of those.
Actually, it's not the X-Prize driving these. It was the DARPA grand challenge (the one with the autonomous vehicles). Off the top of my head, I don't recall which pre-dates which, but the success (and notoriety) of the DARPA prize program has led the powers at be to give authority for additional prize programs in other areas. DoD is currently sponsoring a Wearable Power prize program, and I'm not at all surprised to see DOE get in on the deal as well.