Tor might be an alternative, but the best way to deal with the issue is to attack the privacy problem, head on. The post claims that there is no general public outcry, and that claim is wrong. There's lots of outcry. There's no one bribing politicians-- and that's why every thing you do is tracked, and that tracking is for sale.
Privacy is dead forever. Technological trends will render privacy dead no matter what laws you pass. Technology determines privacy not the law.
They'll just put anyone who uses it under the most intense surveillance, hack their computers, creep into their house when they aren't around, etc. This is effectively better than making it illegal because it gives users a false sense of security. While they use Tor, they are being monitored by the secret services.
Tor does not prevent monitoring or surveillance. Surveillance that can see everything you do at your computer, everything you type, etc. What good is Tor under surveillance? It's useless if you're using it to go against the government.
If the source and implementation is closed it could be backdoored from the kernel to the compiler to the random number generator to the crypto algorithm implementation.
Here is a problem though, since Windows is closed source what good is Tor or crypto in that environment? If you have to use crypto for any reason other than to protect your passwords then its probably at risk whether you use open source or not. Just one bug or backdoor allowing a RAT to interface with your computer and gain root/superuser or anything like that and all your keys are compromised. Key generation would have to be done in hardware. Entropy is also an issue you probably wont easily solve. There is a very long way to go before any crypto implementation will be secure and mainstream. Linux has not changed that game because you install one wrong piece of software and you've got a backdoor and it could be disguised as a legit piece of software. Since not every piece of software run on Linux is open source you don't know for a fact.
Just having female leaders is worthless if those leaders aren't any more responsible than the male leaders who preceded them. It's about responsible leadership not male to female ratios.
Hey everybody, I made this movie. I was the writer, director, producer, co-editor, and an actor, and I did a bunch of other shit too such as remove hiss from over 900 individual audio clips! It was awesome. If anyone is interested in knowing anything about this great film please ask me and I will be happy to try and answer.
Thanks for giving the movie a watch, I'm happy to have your support!
I would love to be as productive as you, and to make a film like you did even if its released for free. How did you schedule your time to do it all so quickly and how did you avoid costly mistakes?
But that is completely irrelevant. Any private entitty that maintains detailed information about an individual US citizen should be required to disclose those records to the individual in question under any circumstances. That goes for my doctor, Facebook, whatever. There may be any number of reasonable exceptions to this, but disclosure should be the default expectation. In the case of healthcare I believe that any cases of disclosure that are actually harmful to patient care are rare exceptions that prove the rule.
So to the 69% of physicians who prefer restricting patient access: Fuck off.
Until you get sick and you don't know the reason for it. That is when you'll want access to any and all medical information about yourself that you can get access to if it can reveal anything about your condition. What about your genetic history? your allergies? You might not even know about that.
I was having heart palpitations and the doctor said it was probably anxiety and prescribed me some pills. I never took one of them because I am not an anxious person. When I started having the issue, I certainly got anxious...thinking I might die with one of these attacks.
I decided to look it up. I found that there were too many things that cause it. So I decided to treat it like an experiment. One day, I found that I had the issue, both at work, and on my way home from work. I had to pull over on the road, thinking I was having a heart attack. The only thing I could think of was my diet that day had an abnormal amount of Coke Zero.
So I looked up the ingredients and found aspartame and its purported link to heart palpitations. I stopped drinking Coke Zero cold turkey. I never had the issue come back. I then drank a couple more to see if the issue would come back, and it did. Like clockwork...a couple hours have drinking it, I would start having issues. So I stopped drinking it again and no problems.
A few months later, I had the issue again. The only thing I was doing different was that I had some gum. I rarely ever chew gum, so I suspected it was the cause...sure enough: aspartame. It happened again several months later: this time fake sugar in brownies brought in by a co-worker.
While being diagnosed with the pig flu (which sucked at the time, but made me immune to everything for a couple years), I told my doctor that I discovered the cause for the heart palpitations. I told him my whole process of determination and experimentation. He was quite shocked. I knew he didn't believe me at first, but with the stuff mentioned above, it is quite convincing.
For the record, I have no problem with sucralose.
Exactly. Doctors usually diagnose based on models of the typical or average patient. They don't consider the individual. You might have a particular allergy to aspartame or be sensitive to certain chemicals. In fact most people are sensitive to certain things and not others. That is where the current paradigm of medicine fails.
To fix it we need to apply the big data tools and technology to individualize treatment just like how Google individualizes a search experience.
Probably because (a) he has more than one patient to manage and may have forgotten about the gall bladder incident (especially if it was a single acute incident that went away, as opposed to something needing surgery), (b) he may not have had time to review her chart for the past year, given the number of patients he had to see, how far his office was backed up, etc., and (c) the actual number of patients who manifest dizziness as a symptom as a result of a gall bladder attack may well be very small.
I doubt that you expected an actual answer, but these seem to be most likely. None of these, by the way, are unexpected or unusual or even get close to a notion of malpractice. In the end, you are correct in your last statement.
That is why we have computers and AI. Doctors don't have to pick everything up. Patients should be able to pick certain things up on their own to make a doctors life easier. Also with big data and the ability to analyze it, a lot of doctors will be able to take advantage of technology to empower themselves to deal with the big data problem and so should patients. Personalized or individualized medicine requires the patient to be empowered and involved.
Doctors don't know everything. They're trained to spot the most common problems, but it's really, really easy to stump a doctor. My GF has been having dizzy spells. She went to her GP, who sent her to an ENT, who sent her to an audiologist. None had any ideas.
So she spends some time on Google, and finds out that dizziness can be a side effect of gall bladder attacks(through over stimulation of the vagus nerve which causes a sudden drop of blood pressure). And she had seen the same GP a year earlier about her gall bladder problems. Why didn't the GP pick this up?
No, patients should be encouraged to do as much research as they can. You as a patient care more about your issue than anyone else. You know more about your body than anyone else. You should be a partner with your doctor in your own health care.
The main problem is patients don't have access to knowledge about themselves. If a patient has their medical records, their genome and DNA information, all of this, and if there are AI running on super computers which a patient can consult with, which can tell the patient about the latest research that pertains to or involves their conditions, this would be great. A doctor is still needed but the role of a doctor is going to have to change over time as technology can diagnose, and as patients can monitor a lot of things from home using electronics. The problem is dealing with Big Data and transforming it into something relevant to the patient.
If you ask doctors if patients NEED access, they should say no. If you ask doctors if patients have a right to access their records you'll get a different answer.
Going forward, some IBM Watson + website will also be providing interpretations... if they can get around the legal and political issues it will eventually out perform real doctors at diagnosis (who are not that good at it.)
Exactly and when that happens it will be essential that patients own their medical records and have access to knowledge. Patients are going to have to take more responsibility for their own health outcomes.
Of course patients who are ill informed or not knowledgeable about their own conditions will make those errors. That is why we need to open up, let patients gain as much knowledge as they can about their own conditions so that there isn't a knowledge imbalance between patient and doctor and the patient and doctor can actually discuss the pros and cons of different treatments in accordance to their specific medical records. Computers and artificial intelligence will solve the knowledge problem and make it so doctors and patients can rely on the artificial intelligence to handle stuff like drug interactions, allergies, and risk/benefit analysis type stuff. At that point the computer and AI may recommend certain treatments to the patient and the doctor and then they can discuss it with their doctor.
Even if violence against women were the most important issue today, this resolution is lacking some sort of reference to actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that pornography is the cause. For years, people have been blaming games, movies, and TV for everything with no actual reasoning behind it.
So even if they ban overt pornography it doesn't change the fact that covert subliminal pornography will exist. You watch TV and ads selling inanimate objects shaped like a phallus? Why aren't feminists angry at the shake weight? That is what they'll end up with if this passes.
This is exactly why consolidation and centralization of power is so dangerous: it leverages the injustice that inevitably results from coercive authority. Whatever flavor of injustice is currently in fashion will be extended and compounded by orders of magnitude. Instead of the isolated cases of injustice that result from small independent states, what you get with consolidation of political power is a nuclear explosion of injustice.
Of course, for the elite few at the top of the pyramid, consolidation of power is the road to riches.
I agree. That is why we should give all power in the world to the Pope. He is our father.
And Tor wouldn't even be needed. The porn will simply go underground and subliminal. How do you enforce a ban on subliminal messages in ads? You can't.
Instead of directly using porn to advertise they'll use innuendo, subliminal messages, and clever word play to put the thoughts of sex in peoples heads.
The point? There is nothing you can do to censor sexuality which won't make it worse. Corporations are going to program the masses using sex and advertising one way or another. Sexual metaphors will program the subconscious masses into desiring stuff without even understanding consciously why.
Whether or not you can wear a suit and tie is irrelevant in 2013.
Here's a clue, fuckwit: not everyone works in California for pseudo-hippies who think a pair of jeans without vomit stains is dresswear.
If you can go to MIT you should be trying to work for yourself. Why would you go to an engineering school if not to either join a startup or start your own? The point is if you're at MIT it makes more sense to start your career at MIT by working on a project with your friends at MIT and turn that into a business. The idea that you have to find a job to make a living instead of creating a new product is part of the problem. If you have the minds and the backing to create a new product then its better to do that for certain.
Thanks for the review. Everything you've written makes MIT sound like an excellent school. One where you go to do some serious learnings, instead of just fuck around.
What other universities are like this?
MIT had and has one of the best social scenes. Don't believe him.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this supposed to be a big surprise or big deal? It's not to anyone who knows about information security.
Tor might be an alternative, but the best way to deal with the issue is to attack the privacy problem, head on. The post claims that there is no general public outcry, and that claim is wrong. There's lots of outcry. There's no one bribing politicians-- and that's why every thing you do is tracked, and that tracking is for sale.
Privacy is dead forever. Technological trends will render privacy dead no matter what laws you pass. Technology determines privacy not the law.
They'll just put anyone who uses it under the most intense surveillance, hack their computers, creep into their house when they aren't around, etc. This is effectively better than making it illegal because it gives users a false sense of security. While they use Tor, they are being monitored by the secret services.
Tor does not prevent monitoring or surveillance. Surveillance that can see everything you do at your computer, everything you type, etc. What good is Tor under surveillance? It's useless if you're using it to go against the government.
If the source and implementation is closed it could be backdoored from the kernel to the compiler to the random number generator to the crypto algorithm implementation.
Here is a problem though, since Windows is closed source what good is Tor or crypto in that environment? If you have to use crypto for any reason other than to protect your passwords then its probably at risk whether you use open source or not. Just one bug or backdoor allowing a RAT to interface with your computer and gain root/superuser or anything like that and all your keys are compromised. Key generation would have to be done in hardware. Entropy is also an issue you probably wont easily solve. There is a very long way to go before any crypto implementation will be secure and mainstream. Linux has not changed that game because you install one wrong piece of software and you've got a backdoor and it could be disguised as a legit piece of software. Since not every piece of software run on Linux is open source you don't know for a fact.
I doubt American hackers have lives which aren't bitter and boring as well. That is the life of a hacker.
Just having female leaders is worthless if those leaders aren't any more responsible than the male leaders who preceded them. It's about responsible leadership not male to female ratios.
Hey everybody, I made this movie. I was the writer, director, producer, co-editor, and an actor, and I did a bunch of other shit too such as remove hiss from over 900 individual audio clips! It was awesome. If anyone is interested in knowing anything about this great film please ask me and I will be happy to try and answer.
Thanks for giving the movie a watch, I'm happy to have your support!
I would love to be as productive as you, and to make a film like you did even if its released for free. How did you schedule your time to do it all so quickly and how did you avoid costly mistakes?
But that is completely irrelevant. Any private entitty that maintains detailed information about an individual US citizen should be required to disclose those records to the individual in question under any circumstances. That goes for my doctor, Facebook, whatever. There may be any number of reasonable exceptions to this, but disclosure should be the default expectation. In the case of healthcare I believe that any cases of disclosure that are actually harmful to patient care are rare exceptions that prove the rule.
So to the 69% of physicians who prefer restricting patient access: Fuck off.
Until you get sick and you don't know the reason for it. That is when you'll want access to any and all medical information about yourself that you can get access to if it can reveal anything about your condition. What about your genetic history? your allergies? You might not even know about that.
I was having heart palpitations and the doctor said it was probably anxiety and prescribed me some pills. I never took one of them because I am not an anxious person. When I started having the issue, I certainly got anxious...thinking I might die with one of these attacks.
I decided to look it up. I found that there were too many things that cause it. So I decided to treat it like an experiment. One day, I found that I had the issue, both at work, and on my way home from work. I had to pull over on the road, thinking I was having a heart attack. The only thing I could think of was my diet that day had an abnormal amount of Coke Zero.
So I looked up the ingredients and found aspartame and its purported link to heart palpitations. I stopped drinking Coke Zero cold turkey. I never had the issue come back. I then drank a couple more to see if the issue would come back, and it did. Like clockwork...a couple hours have drinking it, I would start having issues. So I stopped drinking it again and no problems.
A few months later, I had the issue again. The only thing I was doing different was that I had some gum. I rarely ever chew gum, so I suspected it was the cause...sure enough: aspartame. It happened again several months later: this time fake sugar in brownies brought in by a co-worker.
While being diagnosed with the pig flu (which sucked at the time, but made me immune to everything for a couple years), I told my doctor that I discovered the cause for the heart palpitations. I told him my whole process of determination and experimentation. He was quite shocked. I knew he didn't believe me at first, but with the stuff mentioned above, it is quite convincing.
For the record, I have no problem with sucralose.
Exactly. Doctors usually diagnose based on models of the typical or average patient. They don't consider the individual. You might have a particular allergy to aspartame or be sensitive to certain chemicals. In fact most people are sensitive to certain things and not others. That is where the current paradigm of medicine fails.
To fix it we need to apply the big data tools and technology to individualize treatment just like how Google individualizes a search experience.
Why didn't the GP pick this up?
Probably because (a) he has more than one patient to manage and may have forgotten about the gall bladder incident (especially if it was a single acute incident that went away, as opposed to something needing surgery), (b) he may not have had time to review her chart for the past year, given the number of patients he had to see, how far his office was backed up, etc., and (c) the actual number of patients who manifest dizziness as a symptom as a result of a gall bladder attack may well be very small.
I doubt that you expected an actual answer, but these seem to be most likely. None of these, by the way, are unexpected or unusual or even get close to a notion of malpractice. In the end, you are correct in your last statement.
That is why we have computers and AI. Doctors don't have to pick everything up. Patients should be able to pick certain things up on their own to make a doctors life easier. Also with big data and the ability to analyze it, a lot of doctors will be able to take advantage of technology to empower themselves to deal with the big data problem and so should patients. Personalized or individualized medicine requires the patient to be empowered and involved.
Doctors don't know everything. They're trained to spot the most common problems, but it's really, really easy to stump a doctor. My GF has been having dizzy spells. She went to her GP, who sent her to an ENT, who sent her to an audiologist. None had any ideas.
So she spends some time on Google, and finds out that dizziness can be a side effect of gall bladder attacks(through over stimulation of the vagus nerve which causes a sudden drop of blood pressure). And she had seen the same GP a year earlier about her gall bladder problems. Why didn't the GP pick this up?
No, patients should be encouraged to do as much research as they can. You as a patient care more about your issue than anyone else. You know more about your body than anyone else. You should be a partner with your doctor in your own health care.
The main problem is patients don't have access to knowledge about themselves. If a patient has their medical records, their genome and DNA information, all of this, and if there are AI running on super computers which a patient can consult with, which can tell the patient about the latest research that pertains to or involves their conditions, this would be great. A doctor is still needed but the role of a doctor is going to have to change over time as technology can diagnose, and as patients can monitor a lot of things from home using electronics. The problem is dealing with Big Data and transforming it into something relevant to the patient.
If you ask doctors if patients NEED access, they should say no. If you ask doctors if patients have a right to access their records you'll get a different answer.
Going forward, some IBM Watson + website will also be providing interpretations... if they can get around the legal and political issues it will eventually out perform real doctors at diagnosis (who are not that good at it.)
Exactly and when that happens it will be essential that patients own their medical records and have access to knowledge. Patients are going to have to take more responsibility for their own health outcomes.
Of course patients who are ill informed or not knowledgeable about their own conditions will make those errors. That is why we need to open up, let patients gain as much knowledge as they can about their own conditions so that there isn't a knowledge imbalance between patient and doctor and the patient and doctor can actually discuss the pros and cons of different treatments in accordance to their specific medical records. Computers and artificial intelligence will solve the knowledge problem and make it so doctors and patients can rely on the artificial intelligence to handle stuff like drug interactions, allergies, and risk/benefit analysis type stuff. At that point the computer and AI may recommend certain treatments to the patient and the doctor and then they can discuss it with their doctor.
What could be more important than to finally gain complete control over your thoughts? That is the easiest way to gain control of your brain.
is the answer to asymptomatic schizophrenic unchasity.
If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, is that violence against men?
That is what will happen if porn is banned. The sexual energy will be expressed everywhere else in a sexually orgasmic explosion of erotic potential.
Even if violence against women were the most important issue today, this resolution is lacking some sort of reference to actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that pornography is the cause. For years, people have been blaming games, movies, and TV for everything with no actual reasoning behind it.
So even if they ban overt pornography it doesn't change the fact that covert subliminal pornography will exist. You watch TV and ads selling inanimate objects shaped like a phallus? Why aren't feminists angry at the shake weight? That is what they'll end up with if this passes.
This is exactly why consolidation and centralization of power is so dangerous: it leverages the injustice that inevitably results from coercive authority. Whatever flavor of injustice is currently in fashion will be extended and compounded by orders of magnitude. Instead of the isolated cases of injustice that result from small independent states, what you get with consolidation of political power is a nuclear explosion of injustice.
Of course, for the elite few at the top of the pyramid, consolidation of power is the road to riches.
I agree. That is why we should give all power in the world to the Pope. He is our father.
And Tor wouldn't even be needed. The porn will simply go underground and subliminal. How do you enforce a ban on subliminal messages in ads? You can't.
Instead of directly using porn to advertise they'll use innuendo, subliminal messages, and clever word play to put the thoughts of sex in peoples heads.
The point? There is nothing you can do to censor sexuality which won't make it worse. Corporations are going to program the masses using sex and advertising one way or another. Sexual metaphors will program the subconscious masses into desiring stuff without even understanding consciously why.
Then let's build enough prisons (concentration camps?) to put those scumbags in.
Whether or not you can wear a suit and tie is irrelevant in 2013.
Here's a clue, fuckwit: not everyone works in California for pseudo-hippies who think a pair of jeans without vomit stains is dresswear.
If you can go to MIT you should be trying to work for yourself. Why would you go to an engineering school if not to either join a startup or start your own? The point is if you're at MIT it makes more sense to start your career at MIT by working on a project with your friends at MIT and turn that into a business. The idea that you have to find a job to make a living instead of creating a new product is part of the problem. If you have the minds and the backing to create a new product then its better to do that for certain.
The highest end mac does not compare to the highest end PC.
Thanks for the review. Everything you've written makes MIT sound like an excellent school. One where you go to do some serious learnings, instead of just fuck around.
What other universities are like this?
MIT had and has one of the best social scenes. Don't believe him.