You know, it's very easy to say "simply don't buy their games", but with that attitude, we'd most likely never get any form of entertainment anymore, because almost all of them include some restriction or price tag we're not happy with.
Funny how people stop believing in this "free market magic" they otherwise defend tooth and nail against all the evilz communist socialists (i.e. anyone who doubts that somehow the magic will solve all problems ever).
Maybe with that attitude, we would be getting some entertainment without the restrictions or price tag we're not happy with?
The choice remains between sticking up for your own values and missing out on some piece of entertainment you're dying to experience, or accepting the restrictions and enjoy the game after all.
No, the choice is between giving them your money to play their game, or downloading a torrent and playing their game. Come to the real world. This is the real choice.
They cannot be sued for anything and owe him nothing. They are acting within their rights.
Then those rights need to be redefined.
He paid for a game. He is entitled to a game. I don't know how much simpler it can get. I hope this goes to court and the judge finally throws out these EULA and after-purchase "agreements" as the one-sided extortion nonsense they are.
and it has absolutely nothing that compares to SELinux.
No it doesn't. However, I'm one of the very early SELinux fans and for a few years one of its evangelists, and I quite like the sandbox feature that OS X has gotten with 10.5 - that definitely needs some spicing up, documentation and publicity. While it's closer to systrace or AppArmor than SELinux, it does solve many of the most common problems.
But that doesn't translate to science being able to decide at what point a fetus is a person.
No, it doesn't.
But it enables us, when we decide, to make an informed decision instead of coming up with some arbitrary garbage.
A scientist however could not tell you if the already born child has any more or less value than the 1 month old fetus because "value" isn't something you can measure by itself.
You can. What science doesn't do is define your currency. Once you have defined what you mean by "value", science can help you come up with the, well, value of your value. The numbers.
The problem is that we throw around terms in everyday speech without defining them or, indeed, having even the faintest idea of what we mean. I once got into a heavy fight with a philosophy teacher about the "value of a human being". Those terms ignite us emotionally, so we usually skip the step of checking what the heck the other guy is really talking about.
And yes, I agree that abortion is a political issue, but that is mostly because there are so many other aspects that enter the question. If it were just about a child and a (maybe, or not) mother, the issue would be a lot easier. But it is also about social values, moral values, religion, control and power. To name just the top five.
It's strange that isn't it. It's like with psychology, none of those behavioral neuro-scientists have psychology degree's yet they feel OK in debunking theories where they can
Stupid argument. These fields are closely linked and both sides acknowledge that.
Of course scientific fields are just definitions, and overlap. That wasn't the argument and some cheap dialectics won't change the facts.
As for the testable - direct experiments are a bit difficult to get permission for when your subject is a planet you don't want to ruin. But according to my last data, the current models are pretty good in fitting the known facts, and as such the confidence is high that their predictions will be somewhat good.
Essentially, when the majority of the science community has agreed on something, the burden shifts to the critics to come up with the better models. It's a bit like democracy: Getting something voted "yes" is usually the hard part, once accomplished, the remaining "no"ers have the hard work to do if they want to get it changed again.
Indeed. And his arguments are (or have been) taken seriously by the science community, and refuted with data and number. Unfortunately, after that he went off claiming there's a conspiracy. I think that's when the other scientists stopped taking him seriously.
"The whole truth" is a holy grail that'll never be attained, but a good model that can predict reality closely is a pretty good substitute.
And don't forget what "closely" means in many fields by now: That the differences between theory and observed reality are so small that we need to build multi-million dollar special equipment just to be able to - maybe - measure them.
The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides.
Name names!
Who are the scientists who are on the other side of global warming, or evolution/creationism? When you list their names, please list their fields of science as well. That is going to be enlightening to you. You will find that there indeed are scientists who don't believe in evolution, for example. Strangely, they usually aren't even in the field of biology. Same for climate change.
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life.
Ideologies and morality do not spontaneously emerge from nothing. They are also the products of context and evolution (in a wider sense). Science can bring new points-of-view and shed light on things not previously known.
For example, we now have a fairly rough idea about this thing primitive humans called "soul" for lack of better understanding. We can make - still rough, but substantiated by evidence - guesses at the point, or rather phase, in which a cluster of rapidly duplicating cells within a female body begins to take on autonomous existence. In other words, the point/phase at which a new individuum comes into being. Those facts do provide insights that can help create a new morality regarding abortion, it could help us define the line.
That could be because the debate has been decided. People who keep it up are doing it for political reasons, not scientific ones. When is the last time some global warming critic brought new facts to the table?
We get new information daily, we get contrary information daily, we get supportive information daily,
Where is it? If the critics have so much new information, then where is it? For the information to be "new" in any non-trivial sense, it would have to be of a kind that does not fit the current models. Everything else is just the same old boring stuff. The 1505th confirmation of a theory doesn't qualify as "new" anymore.
Of course it is wrong - science is always wrong. It is simply a process of iteratively reducing the amount of error by which you are wrong. And, quite frankly, the current scientific margin of error in most fields is far beyond comprehension. How far is it from LA to NY? How precisely do you want the answer? We have scientific theories in many fields that can give you answers in their respective fields that are equal to giving you the LA-NY distance in millimeters, with the margin of error meaning they're not quite sure about the numbers after the decimal point.
Science is not a status quo. Science is a method by which to improve the status quo. We had times when the ether was a scientific theory, then it was replaced by a better theory. Any and all current theories are up for grabs - if you can come up with a better one.
That includes peer review. If you have a method that can be proven to provide better results, show it.
High frequency trading is beneficial to investors, and the market place as a whole.
The usual strawman of pointing something in black and white.
There is no discussion about people serious and knowledgeable about the topic that speculation in its various forms provides the advantage of providing liquidity and reduce price differences.
That does not automatically mean that any and all speculation is good. Because these gains come at a price. The speculators profits, namely. So the market gains liquidity and better price-finding, at the cost of some money being sapped out of the market.
There is a point where the cost outweighs the benefit.
The answer is not to destroy HFT and drive speculators away. It is to cut these costly activities down to an agreeable point. The problem we face is that "the market" can not fix it, for the same reason that a screwdriver can't repair itself and a debugger can't debug itself.
Corporate tax rates and economic growth have a strong negative correlation.
You have a number of hidden assumption there that I'm not certain you are even aware of. Like a) economic growth comes from corporations b) economic growth is a good thing and/or necessary for wealth
I doubt both of them. Economic growth happens in an economy. Right now, the corporations take the biggest share, but my wording is carefully chosen - I do not think they create it as much as they profit from it. If there were no major corporations, economic growth would still happen, just to others.
And I do not think our current paradigm of growth is holy, nor sustainable. Everyone outside economics and politics knows that exponential growth is not something you can sustain indefinitely. Something will give, sooner or later. There was a time in economics when stability was a value. Many companies have realized that sustainable growth is better than explosive growth. Many, many smaller companies are doing perfectly well with no growth. It appears the stock markets are the ones who demand constant growth, not reality.
That problem has been solved 20 years ago. Some nifty crypto does the trick. There are, in fact, plenty of decentralized electronic currency implementations around. Their problem is that nobody uses them.
Nothing that crazy is needed just add a 10c per trade tax, the only problem is all the major trading countries would need to do it simultaneously or else the market would just move.
Everyone says that, but is it true? Look at who is saying it. Mostly the people we know for being in bed with the stock market exploiters. The same people who bailed out the big banks with our tax money, while before and after telling us that they need to cut this and cut that because they don't have enough money.
It's a strawman.
Here's a much more likely scenario:
Imagine one large country or region (the US, or the EU) starts to introduce a trade tax. Say, 0.01% - irrelevant to any real trades, destructive to margin trading. So real trade won't move, because moving would be more expensive. Some high-volume and all margin traders would move. Say the EU starts the tax. So they move to the US, to Asia, etc.
But now the US and Asia and everyone else are in an interesting position. Instead of elaborating on it, let's play it through: The US also introduces a trade tax, but at 0.005% - half of the EU, mostly same effect. Real traders couldn't care less and stay put. Some high-volume traders stay, most margin traders go out of business or move to Asia.
Now Asia's in the same position. A bit of quick thinking reveals that they can make billions in taxes by introducing a 0.001% trade tax. So they do. Real trades stay put, as before. High-volume trades move to Asia, though some move back to the US and EU since operating costs and other factors start being more important than the tax difference. Margin trading stops being profitable unless the margin is considerable enough to be worth it.
Saying that you can't be the first because everyone else doesn't do it ignores the fact that "everyone else" is not a static entity. There are many, many cases throughout history where "everyone else" was just waiting for someone to make the first move.
It's a strawman. Don't fall for it. Anyone saying "we would love to, but we can't, it needs to be introduced simultaneously world-wide." really means "I don't want to".
Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop.
There's your solution, right there, staring you in the face.
Judge the article, not its subject. If someone or some place or some thing has enough going for it that a good article of some length can be written about it, and if there are other sources mentioning the subject, then it most probably is notable enough to stay.
The entire notability criterium is bullshit. Anything worthwhile can be covered by other WP:* rules, and the only purpose it serves is to give self-absorbed assholes on a powertrip something to shoot with.
And as long as it exists, I won't contribute to Wikipedia. And I know that I'm by far not alone with that sentiment.
Five people individually have five sets of rights. Five people forming a corporation results in six sets of rights, because the corporation is a new entity with its own set of rights.
That is one additional set of rights. It really is that simple, no amount of cheap rhetorics will get you around the simple math.
I personaly don't see why people working together should have less rights than people working alone.
They don't. The people working at a corporation are nowhere even the subject of the discussion. The rights at stake are additional rights given to the corporation.
I personally don't see why people working together should have more rights than people working alone.
In an environment of thousands of servers (or even dozens), deep-diving into a problem [generally] is a waste of time. While it is interesting intellectually, there is no other benefit.
Except, of course, finding what the heck was wrong in the first place and fixing it, preventing future outtages.
Sometimes, rebuilding is faster than fixing, and in some contexts, it makes sense. Even then, the original machine should still be examined and the "root cause" (if you need a management buzzwod) identified. At the very least, a reasonable amount of time should be given towards the attempt. It's true that it is pointless to dig around for days and days - but that is not a reason to not at least start looking, as it might turn out you only need a few hours. And more often than not, finding the real problem tells you something that helps you a) fix other bugs, b) avoid the same problem on the next server, c) avoid a repeat performance, d) makes you realize what you thought was a random server crash was really a break-in / hardware failure / systematic problem and other, additional steps need to be taken. All of the above have happened before, you would by far not be the first.
A proper incident management process does allocate resources towards follow-up examination. The right thing to do is not suppress it with generic blabla about wasted time, but to set the proper amount of resources for your organisation. Maybe it's half an hour and no money, so some sysadmin can check the logs and do a quick check-up. Maybe it's a full-out forensics analysis. That depends on your needs, your resources, your environment and context.
Sanity in copyright law? Gosh, you look different. Haven't seen you for years. How's life? Must be horrible, you look like an abuse victim. You sure you're not taking drugs?
$2000 is very, very expensive for a laptop. Period. You can get a high-quality, durable PC laptop like a ThinkPad T510 for around $900.
I assume you're the same kind of people who whine that $50k is very, very expensive for a car, because you can buy a Yugo for $4k.
Sure you can. But BMW or Mercedes still sell a lot of cars. It doesn't take much thinking to imagine that price may not be the only thing that people care about. Whenever I rent a car, I happily pay a few bucks extra so I can have a nice one, because after a day of driving, it sure makes a difference. And that difference is worth money to me.
As someone who's gone that route a long time ago - do it, you won't be sorry.
My girlfriend currently uses the MacBook Pro that I bought four and a half years ago. It starts showing its age and stuff like games requires low graphics settings to run, but it's still more than good enough for most things. And despite lots of travel and some considerable abuse, a slightly dented CD/DVD tray (meaning ejecting a disc sometimes takes 2 or 3 attempts) is the only hardware problem it's ever had.
Keys - the physical ones, not the cryptographic - are quite easily forged. Nevertheless, keys are in widespread use and generally considered secure enough for most uses. These tokens can certainl be forged, but it will almost certainly require one of a) physical posession of the card for a while and/or b) special equipment.
For either case is valid that if you manage to do that within the hospital setting, you are capable of worse things than having access to a nurse account.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, it's very easy to say "simply don't buy their games", but with that attitude, we'd most likely never get any form of entertainment anymore, because almost all of them include some restriction or price tag we're not happy with.
Funny how people stop believing in this "free market magic" they otherwise defend tooth and nail against all the evilz communist socialists (i.e. anyone who doubts that somehow the magic will solve all problems ever).
Maybe with that attitude, we would be getting some entertainment without the restrictions or price tag we're not happy with?
The choice remains between sticking up for your own values and missing out on some piece of entertainment you're dying to experience, or accepting the restrictions and enjoy the game after all.
No, the choice is between giving them your money to play their game, or downloading a torrent and playing their game. Come to the real world. This is the real choice.
They cannot be sued for anything and owe him nothing. They are acting within their rights.
Then those rights need to be redefined.
He paid for a game. He is entitled to a game. I don't know how much simpler it can get. I hope this goes to court and the judge finally throws out these EULA and after-purchase "agreements" as the one-sided extortion nonsense they are.
and it has absolutely nothing that compares to SELinux.
No it doesn't. However, I'm one of the very early SELinux fans and for a few years one of its evangelists, and I quite like the sandbox feature that OS X has gotten with 10.5 - that definitely needs some spicing up, documentation and publicity. While it's closer to systrace or AppArmor than SELinux, it does solve many of the most common problems.
But that doesn't translate to science being able to decide at what point a fetus is a person.
No, it doesn't.
But it enables us, when we decide, to make an informed decision instead of coming up with some arbitrary garbage.
A scientist however could not tell you if the already born child has any more or less value than the 1 month old fetus because "value" isn't something you can measure by itself.
You can. What science doesn't do is define your currency. Once you have defined what you mean by "value", science can help you come up with the, well, value of your value. The numbers.
The problem is that we throw around terms in everyday speech without defining them or, indeed, having even the faintest idea of what we mean. I once got into a heavy fight with a philosophy teacher about the "value of a human being". Those terms ignite us emotionally, so we usually skip the step of checking what the heck the other guy is really talking about.
And yes, I agree that abortion is a political issue, but that is mostly because there are so many other aspects that enter the question. If it were just about a child and a (maybe, or not) mother, the issue would be a lot easier. But it is also about social values, moral values, religion, control and power. To name just the top five.
It's strange that isn't it. It's like with psychology, none of those behavioral neuro-scientists have psychology degree's yet they feel OK in debunking theories where they can
Stupid argument. These fields are closely linked and both sides acknowledge that.
Of course scientific fields are just definitions, and overlap. That wasn't the argument and some cheap dialectics won't change the facts.
As for the testable - direct experiments are a bit difficult to get permission for when your subject is a planet you don't want to ruin. But according to my last data, the current models are pretty good in fitting the known facts, and as such the confidence is high that their predictions will be somewhat good.
Essentially, when the majority of the science community has agreed on something, the burden shifts to the critics to come up with the better models. It's a bit like democracy: Getting something voted "yes" is usually the hard part, once accomplished, the remaining "no"ers have the hard work to do if they want to get it changed again.
Indeed. And his arguments are (or have been) taken seriously by the science community, and refuted with data and number. Unfortunately, after that he went off claiming there's a conspiracy. I think that's when the other scientists stopped taking him seriously.
"The whole truth" is a holy grail that'll never be attained, but a good model that can predict reality closely is a pretty good substitute.
And don't forget what "closely" means in many fields by now: That the differences between theory and observed reality are so small that we need to build multi-million dollar special equipment just to be able to - maybe - measure them.
The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides.
Name names!
Who are the scientists who are on the other side of global warming, or evolution/creationism?
When you list their names, please list their fields of science as well. That is going to be enlightening to you. You will find that there indeed are scientists who don't believe in evolution, for example. Strangely, they usually aren't even in the field of biology. Same for climate change.
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life.
Ideologies and morality do not spontaneously emerge from nothing. They are also the products of context and evolution (in a wider sense). Science can bring new points-of-view and shed light on things not previously known.
For example, we now have a fairly rough idea about this thing primitive humans called "soul" for lack of better understanding. We can make - still rough, but substantiated by evidence - guesses at the point, or rather phase, in which a cluster of rapidly duplicating cells within a female body begins to take on autonomous existence. In other words, the point/phase at which a new individuum comes into being. Those facts do provide insights that can help create a new morality regarding abortion, it could help us define the line.
That could be because the debate has been decided. People who keep it up are doing it for political reasons, not scientific ones. When is the last time some global warming critic brought new facts to the table?
We get new information daily, we get contrary information daily, we get supportive information daily,
Where is it? If the critics have so much new information, then where is it? For the information to be "new" in any non-trivial sense, it would have to be of a kind that does not fit the current models. Everything else is just the same old boring stuff. The 1505th confirmation of a theory doesn't qualify as "new" anymore.
Of course it is wrong - science is always wrong. It is simply a process of iteratively reducing the amount of error by which you are wrong. And, quite frankly, the current scientific margin of error in most fields is far beyond comprehension. How far is it from LA to NY? How precisely do you want the answer? We have scientific theories in many fields that can give you answers in their respective fields that are equal to giving you the LA-NY distance in millimeters, with the margin of error meaning they're not quite sure about the numbers after the decimal point.
Science is not a status quo. Science is a method by which to improve the status quo. We had times when the ether was a scientific theory, then it was replaced by a better theory. Any and all current theories are up for grabs - if you can come up with a better one.
That includes peer review. If you have a method that can be proven to provide better results, show it.
High frequency trading is beneficial to investors, and the market place as a whole.
The usual strawman of pointing something in black and white.
There is no discussion about people serious and knowledgeable about the topic that speculation in its various forms provides the advantage of providing liquidity and reduce price differences.
That does not automatically mean that any and all speculation is good. Because these gains come at a price. The speculators profits, namely. So the market gains liquidity and better price-finding, at the cost of some money being sapped out of the market.
There is a point where the cost outweighs the benefit.
The answer is not to destroy HFT and drive speculators away. It is to cut these costly activities down to an agreeable point. The problem we face is that "the market" can not fix it, for the same reason that a screwdriver can't repair itself and a debugger can't debug itself.
Corporate tax rates and economic growth have a strong negative correlation.
You have a number of hidden assumption there that I'm not certain you are even aware of. Like
a) economic growth comes from corporations
b) economic growth is a good thing and/or necessary for wealth
I doubt both of them. Economic growth happens in an economy. Right now, the corporations take the biggest share, but my wording is carefully chosen - I do not think they create it as much as they profit from it. If there were no major corporations, economic growth would still happen, just to others.
And I do not think our current paradigm of growth is holy, nor sustainable. Everyone outside economics and politics knows that exponential growth is not something you can sustain indefinitely. Something will give, sooner or later. There was a time in economics when stability was a value. Many companies have realized that sustainable growth is better than explosive growth. Many, many smaller companies are doing perfectly well with no growth. It appears the stock markets are the ones who demand constant growth, not reality.
That problem has been solved 20 years ago. Some nifty crypto does the trick. There are, in fact, plenty of decentralized electronic currency implementations around. Their problem is that nobody uses them.
Nothing that crazy is needed just add a 10c per trade tax, the only problem is all the major trading countries would need to do it simultaneously or else the market would just move.
Everyone says that, but is it true? Look at who is saying it. Mostly the people we know for being in bed with the stock market exploiters. The same people who bailed out the big banks with our tax money, while before and after telling us that they need to cut this and cut that because they don't have enough money.
It's a strawman.
Here's a much more likely scenario:
Imagine one large country or region (the US, or the EU) starts to introduce a trade tax. Say, 0.01% - irrelevant to any real trades, destructive to margin trading. So real trade won't move, because moving would be more expensive. Some high-volume and all margin traders would move. Say the EU starts the tax. So they move to the US, to Asia, etc.
But now the US and Asia and everyone else are in an interesting position. Instead of elaborating on it, let's play it through: The US also introduces a trade tax, but at 0.005% - half of the EU, mostly same effect. Real traders couldn't care less and stay put. Some high-volume traders stay, most margin traders go out of business or move to Asia.
Now Asia's in the same position. A bit of quick thinking reveals that they can make billions in taxes by introducing a 0.001% trade tax. So they do. Real trades stay put, as before. High-volume trades move to Asia, though some move back to the US and EU since operating costs and other factors start being more important than the tax difference. Margin trading stops being profitable unless the margin is considerable enough to be worth it.
Saying that you can't be the first because everyone else doesn't do it ignores the fact that "everyone else" is not a static entity. There are many, many cases throughout history where "everyone else" was just waiting for someone to make the first move.
It's a strawman. Don't fall for it. Anyone saying "we would love to, but we can't, it needs to be introduced simultaneously world-wide." really means "I don't want to".
This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.
and porn stars, manga characters and Star Trek episodes. Don't forget about the really important stuff, will you?
Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop.
There's your solution, right there, staring you in the face.
Judge the article, not its subject. If someone or some place or some thing has enough going for it that a good article of some length can be written about it, and if there are other sources mentioning the subject, then it most probably is notable enough to stay.
The entire notability criterium is bullshit. Anything worthwhile can be covered by other WP:* rules, and the only purpose it serves is to give self-absorbed assholes on a powertrip something to shoot with.
And as long as it exists, I won't contribute to Wikipedia. And I know that I'm by far not alone with that sentiment.
Not at all.
Five people individually have five sets of rights.
Five people forming a corporation results in six sets of rights, because the corporation is a new entity with its own set of rights.
That is one additional set of rights. It really is that simple, no amount of cheap rhetorics will get you around the simple math.
I personaly don't see why people working together should have less rights than people working alone.
They don't. The people working at a corporation are nowhere even the subject of the discussion. The rights at stake are additional rights given to the corporation.
I personally don't see why people working together should have more rights than people working alone.
The people certainly not.
But why does the group need extra rights for itself, if all the people within it already have them?
In an environment of thousands of servers (or even dozens), deep-diving into a problem [generally] is a waste of time. While it is interesting intellectually, there is no other benefit.
Except, of course, finding what the heck was wrong in the first place and fixing it, preventing future outtages.
Sometimes, rebuilding is faster than fixing, and in some contexts, it makes sense. Even then, the original machine should still be examined and the "root cause" (if you need a management buzzwod) identified. At the very least, a reasonable amount of time should be given towards the attempt. It's true that it is pointless to dig around for days and days - but that is not a reason to not at least start looking, as it might turn out you only need a few hours. And more often than not, finding the real problem tells you something that helps you
a) fix other bugs,
b) avoid the same problem on the next server,
c) avoid a repeat performance,
d) makes you realize what you thought was a random server crash was really a break-in / hardware failure / systematic problem and other, additional steps need to be taken.
All of the above have happened before, you would by far not be the first.
A proper incident management process does allocate resources towards follow-up examination. The right thing to do is not suppress it with generic blabla about wasted time, but to set the proper amount of resources for your organisation. Maybe it's half an hour and no money, so some sysadmin can check the logs and do a quick check-up. Maybe it's a full-out forensics analysis. That depends on your needs, your resources, your environment and context.
Sanity in copyright law? Gosh, you look different. Haven't seen you for years. How's life? Must be horrible, you look like an abuse victim. You sure you're not taking drugs?
$2000 is very, very expensive for a laptop. Period. You can get a high-quality, durable PC laptop like a ThinkPad T510 for around $900.
I assume you're the same kind of people who whine that $50k is very, very expensive for a car, because you can buy a Yugo for $4k.
Sure you can. But BMW or Mercedes still sell a lot of cars. It doesn't take much thinking to imagine that price may not be the only thing that people care about. Whenever I rent a car, I happily pay a few bucks extra so I can have a nice one, because after a day of driving, it sure makes a difference. And that difference is worth money to me.
As someone who's gone that route a long time ago - do it, you won't be sorry.
My girlfriend currently uses the MacBook Pro that I bought four and a half years ago. It starts showing its age and stuff like games requires low graphics settings to run, but it's still more than good enough for most things. And despite lots of travel and some considerable abuse, a slightly dented CD/DVD tray (meaning ejecting a disc sometimes takes 2 or 3 attempts) is the only hardware problem it's ever had.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense.
Keys - the physical ones, not the cryptographic - are quite easily forged. Nevertheless, keys are in widespread use and generally considered secure enough for most uses. These tokens can certainl be forged, but it will almost certainly require one of a) physical posession of the card for a while and/or b) special equipment.
For either case is valid that if you manage to do that within the hospital setting, you are capable of worse things than having access to a nurse account.