What if we found the gene for intelligence? This law would say the employer cannot favor you because you have the high intelligence gene or set of genes.
And I think THAT IS STUPID AS HELL. This is the main reason why I'm against this bill. It favors this false idea of genetic equality,but there is no genetic equality. Some of us are simply more talented than others and our whole economy is based around that.
Because if you happen to have good genes and be brilliant and poor, now they can't hire you based on that. If there is a gene or intelligence and you have it, you're no better than a semi retarded person.
Of course in other countries they wont have this, so if you are smart and poor, get the hell out of the USA because you are doomed.
If you are rich, you'll be just fine because genes don't matter when you have millions or billions of dollars. Genes only matter when you are poor and the only thing distinguishing you from all the others is your extraordinary IQ.
I think the option we have is to choose whether we want the government to give us it's race based medicine, or whether we want the insurance companies to genetically discriminate.
I'd rather have genetic discrimination over racial discrimination because at least genetic discrimination is based on science and not religion and pseudo-science.
There are very few businesses that as a rule are genuinely evil, but insurance companies are one in that category. The whole idea of the entity that has to pay for your health only benefiting when they do not is morally flawed.
Health care needs to be a right, and the risk or cost spread over everyone, with no one excluded. This also means that any benefit in savings must be good for the whole. Private profit making business can not be part of this for it to really be fair to all.
We could have had really top notch health care for everyone for less than we have spent on this silly war in Iraq, and with the give away's big political donors in the name of 911, we could all have our own Doctor.
Health care just needs to come from general revenue, like the Military, and cover every one. We spend more on weapons than the rest of the world combines, and most of that is greedy contracters gouging us. Just the waste in the Pentagon budget could cover everyone.
I really think it is time to take our government back and have it serve us.
So There
From the article
"âoeThis bill removes a significant obstacle to the advancement of personalized medicine,â said Edward Abrahams, the executive director of the Personalized Medicine Coalition. His group is an organization of drug and diagnostic companies, academic institutions and patient groups that advocate using genetic information to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient."
Personalized medicine. PERSONALIZED.
I'm not in favor of personalized medicine. The idea disgusting to me. I'm sorry but I don't want the federal government to be creating personalized "race based" medicine. I'd rather keep the corrupt insurance companies because at least the insurance companies are reasonable.
The government is religious and irrational. The government still asks on the census what our race is while congress is busy trying to keep insurance companies from asking what our genes are!
I know you claim to be libertarian, but if you are libertarian how would you feel if, once the government controls all the drugs, all the doctors, all the hospitals, and all the healthcare in the country, that it decides to ask each applicant their race, and then based on this information give out different medications to different races?
How would you feel if the government also assigned different doctors to different races and classes, so that the "good" races get the best doctors and your race gets the shitty doctor?
And to top it all off, how would you feel if the government decided to promote race based medicine for you and your children, specifically designed for your race and your tendencies?
Personally, I think the government has too much control and influence as it is, and I don't know why you'd think the government would be responsible with healthcare when the FDA is busy allowing poison pills to be doled out like Vioxx.
Another problem you and everyone refused to consider is how genetic discrimination will influence hiring practices and as a result influence the economy. What if we discover the intelligence gene or series of genes?
Now you'll be forced to hire people who are dumb and without any natural talent simply because they have a right not to be genetically discriminated against, all while other countries screen their employees for desirable genetic traits such as intelligence and hires only the qualified employees.
The result is that the USA will forever be doomed in the global economy. Other countries will genetically discriminate and use it to their advantage economically and politically while we dumb ourselves down or dilute our talent by watering it down.
The US government still believes in race. It asks you for your race on the US census. Do you trust the US government to be your physician and decide which prescriptions you get?
I certainly don't want my race based medicine. How about you?
I do think privately owned corporations should have the right to discriminate anyway they like in the hiring process. If they want to genetically discriminate because they think it will help their bottom line, they should have the right.
Should your business be forced to hire people who clearly aren't qualified? And if you could do a simple genetic test to determine say, intelligence capability, why the hell should the government have the right to tell you that you can't discriminate based on intelligence?
What about creativity? What about just physical muscle building capability? If you are hiring someone who has to be able to lift heavy objects, don't you want the ability for example, to genetically test individuals to see who is most genetically fit for that job?
Some people for example just ARE going to grow bigger muscles than others and there is a genetic basis behind this. Some people just ARE going to become smarter and more intelligent than others, or more creative, or just have certain talents and these special abilities have a genetic basis.
Why should corporations be forced to hire people who don't have talent over people who do, simply to avoid genetic discrimination? If talent, intelligence, physical strength are all genetic, and we have to judge an employee on these abilities, it would be a lot easier if we could just scan their DNA rather than give them all sorts of personality tests and make them do endurance and strength testing, and make them take a pen and paper IQ test.
And even then they could make the argument that they failed these tests due to bad genes and force you to hire them.
If this bill were restricted JUST to insurance companies and healthcare I'd support it, but thats not what this bill wants to do.
This bill wants to tell us who we can and can't hire. Read the bill more carefully and you'll see that it attempts to ban genetic discrimination in the hiring process. Banning genetic discrimination in hiring will reduce global economic efficiency and ruin the US economy.
Other countries will end the IQ testing and start DNA testing to see which people are the most intelligent and then hire all of those people. Other countries will start DNA testing to find who it's Mozarts and Bachs are and then it's corporations and record companies will genetically discriminate to hire or train these people.
If we ban genetic discrimination in hiring, it's going to doom the US economy to a slow death due to inefficiency and economic stupidity. The only difference between two candidates in some cases will be their personality traits, and their genetic traits/talents.
In the future we will instantly know which individuals will make the best athletes, their genetic test might tell the NFL or NBA that you'll at least have the physical capability to grow big, fast, strong, run fast, etc.
The company which wants to hire the best and the brightest should not be prevented from using every means available to determine who the best and the brightest are. DNA testing CAN help a corporation know an individuals traits and this can help in the hiring process in the same way personality testing and polygraph testing can help.
I think it's just plain dumb to ban ALL forms of genetic discrimination in ALL areas of public and private life, and thats what this bill hopes to do. It's not trying to simply ban MEDICAL genetic discrimination, read it more carefully, it wants to ban ALL forms of genetic discrimination even in hiring.
So if you currently are trying to hire the smart worker, and we someday discover the gene for intelligence, or for creativity, now you won't be able to hire all the smart people because of this law. Instead these smart people will be given jobs overseas where it's legal to genetically discriminate and you'll be able to thank your short sighted congressmen for this bill along with the rest of their stupid bills.
Intelligence, natural talent, personality traits, all that now has to be ignored when deciding whom to hire. What if I only want to hire people with a certain personality type, and a certain level of intelligence, and I could simply ask them to submit a DNA test which will tell me all of these features and traits.
If I decide not to hire them because they have a genetic trait that makes them Klepto and more likely to steal, thats genetic discrimination. If I refuse to hire them because they have a genetic trait that while having no obvious impact on their physical health, has major impacts on their mental health, I'm supposed to still hire them else it's genetic discrimination?
This means we'd have to hire people who clearly aren't qualified for certain jobs else it's genetic discrimination.
I don't think the law is well written or properly worded, and I think its intentionally vague. The goal is to force employers to hire people, who aren't qualified to do the task because of some genetic trait.
People seem to forget that most of our behavior patterns, our intelligence, and our traits come from genes. So now we are supposed to hire someone who has the gene to have gambling problems, or hire people who have the addiction gene, when there might be someone without that gene who is more qualified?
I'm all for removing genetic discrimination from insurance companies, but what about the hiring process? I think genetic discrimination should be allowed in hiring, because lets face it, you couldn't decide who to hire if you don't at least consider the genetic potential of your employee, be it the potential to lift heavy objects, or the potential to work around money, or alcohol without stealing it, or becoming addicted to it.
Anyone who has an argument against this, present the argument, but I'm against this law and I hope it fails to pass. I think genetic discrimination is the only way to have any sorta economic efficiency in the global economy.
Healthcare is a seperate issue. If this bill were to bane genetic discrimination in the very narrow situation of insurance companies providing healthcare I'd support it, but thats NOT what this bill does and people need to read it more carefully. This bill is ANTI libertarian!
Without genetic discrimination, how would we decide who to hire? If we decide based on intelligence, thats genetic discrimination.
If intelligence is a gene, this law will force us to hire the stupid people even if they aren't qualified simply because it's genetic discrimination if we don't.
So how are we going to discriminate at all if not genetically? Every human trait is a gene, so if we hire people we think may be loyal and we later find there is a loyalty gene, that is genetic discrimination.
If we hire someone who might be more naturally talented or creative, the person who isn't talented or creative could claim they are being genetically discriminated against if we find that natural talents and creativity have a genetic basis.
Can anyone refute these arguments? If personality traits have a genetic basis, and employees currently use personality tests to decide who to hire, is it genetic discrimination to refuse to hire someone who does not have the right genes for the job, whatever that job is?
It's as simple as designing a steganographic protocol into either the file system, or the file sharing application.
Example, you want to send me an a file, on your Linux machine you combine 10 files into one big PDF file. The PDF file looks like a legit file with text, images etc, and the file name is also very boring, but associated with this file we both know a secret word known only between us.
The only way I can decrypt it into the correct file out of the 10 files you combined into it is if I know the exact secret word out of the 10 secret words that you picked.
So let our secret word be magic, there are 9 other words which would decode the PDF into any of the 9 other files, but because only you know the secret word, you enter it and you get the encrypted file.
Simple steganography. This will probably never be something for windows users, but I'm surprised Linux, the so called Free Software Operating System does not have it built into the file system.
Ultimately this just means you have to design good software. Design a steganographic protocol for P2P and a steganographic file system for linux. That would be a start.
One example of a protocol I can think of off the top of my head is a stego P2P protocol where I sent you a file with a secret word associated with this file, the file looks like an ordinary legal PDF file, you can even read it, but if you enter the secret word the PDF file decrypts into the real file.
You could even add unlimited layers so that you can get 10 different files from 10 different secret words.
The only solution to defending privacy would be to develop Steganographic software solutions. A steg file system is already in development called stegFS.
And theres plenty of theories on how to do it. The question is who is actually going to write the software and who is going to pay for it?
I don't think theres enough demand for it, but in theory of course it's possible to have privacy and security. I think most linux users are more focused on paying for getting games working in Linux through Transgaming than they are focused on protecting their privacy.
Eventually critical mass will be reached and this will change. The result will be better software and hardware.
The solution is actually simple. It's just a matter of people deciding to code it. And I don't think the will is currently there, but where theres a will theres a way.
The first step would be finishing up the development of StegFS, porting it to the newest Linux Kernel and all the distributions. And let the SERIOUS users have privacy.
Software encryption isn't very good because it's not like you can trust closed source windows to actually encrypt without being buggy.
Hardware encryption is what you'll need to protect your privacy. Hardware encryption, combined with an updated Privacy enhanced Linux, and you'll have a solution.
You'll want to move your entire OS onto CD/DVD and into ram as well. All files stored on the harddrive should be stored in encrypted form, including the swap and cache.
And you'd probably want a stegnographic file system, or a plugin on top of the current linux filesystem you use.
There you go, there is your solution. All you have to do is assemble a team of coders and write the software. It's probably going to cost a bit of money to pay for some of the software, as I can see a steganographic file system plugin being difficult to code.
This just means you and your smart friends will have to develop legal technologies to protect yourself from entrapment.
I think entrapment is the whole point of this. Not only can you be entrapped by a cop into being a pedophile, but you can also be sent an illegal file by a cop and then arrested for accepting it.
So figure out a way to make it more difficult for yourself to be entrapped, or just expect to be entrapped.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are genetically cognitively impaired, do you have a right not to be genetically discriminated against?
Either you will get genetic discrimination from insurance companies based on reason and science.
Or you can get race based medicine from your government that still believes in race and asks what your race is on the census.
I'd rather deal with the scientists myself.
What if we found the gene for intelligence? This law would say the employer cannot favor you because you have the high intelligence gene or set of genes.
And I think THAT IS STUPID AS HELL. This is the main reason why I'm against this bill. It favors this false idea of genetic equality
Because if you happen to have good genes and be brilliant and poor, now they can't hire you based on that. If there is a gene or intelligence and you have it, you're no better than a semi retarded person.
Of course in other countries they wont have this, so if you are smart and poor, get the hell out of the USA because you are doomed.
If you are rich, you'll be just fine because genes don't matter when you have millions or billions of dollars. Genes only matter when you are poor and the only thing distinguishing you from all the others is your extraordinary IQ.
I think the option we have is to choose whether we want the government to give us it's race based medicine, or whether we want the insurance companies to genetically discriminate.
I'd rather have genetic discrimination over racial discrimination because at least genetic discrimination is based on science and not religion and pseudo-science.
Health care needs to be a right, and the risk or cost spread over everyone, with no one excluded. This also means that any benefit in savings must be good for the whole. Private profit making business can not be part of this for it to really be fair to all.
We could have had really top notch health care for everyone for less than we have spent on this silly war in Iraq, and with the give away's big political donors in the name of 911, we could all have our own Doctor.
Health care just needs to come from general revenue, like the Military, and cover every one. We spend more on weapons than the rest of the world combines, and most of that is greedy contracters gouging us. Just the waste in the Pentagon budget could cover everyone.
I really think it is time to take our government back and have it serve us.
So There
From the article
"âoeThis bill removes a significant obstacle to the advancement of personalized medicine,â said Edward Abrahams, the executive director of the Personalized Medicine Coalition. His group is an organization of drug and diagnostic companies, academic institutions and patient groups that advocate using genetic information to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient."
Personalized medicine. PERSONALIZED.
I'm not in favor of personalized medicine. The idea disgusting to me. I'm sorry but I don't want the federal government to be creating personalized "race based" medicine. I'd rather keep the corrupt insurance companies because at least the insurance companies are reasonable.
The government is religious and irrational. The government still asks on the census what our race is while congress is busy trying to keep insurance companies from asking what our genes are!
I know you claim to be libertarian, but if you are libertarian how would you feel if, once the government controls all the drugs, all the doctors, all the hospitals, and all the healthcare in the country, that it decides to ask each applicant their race, and then based on this information give out different medications to different races?
How would you feel if the government also assigned different doctors to different races and classes, so that the "good" races get the best doctors and your race gets the shitty doctor?
And to top it all off, how would you feel if the government decided to promote race based medicine for you and your children, specifically designed for your race and your tendencies?
Personally, I think the government has too much control and influence as it is, and I don't know why you'd think the government would be responsible with healthcare when the FDA is busy allowing poison pills to be doled out like Vioxx.
Another problem you and everyone refused to consider is how genetic discrimination will influence hiring practices and as a result influence the economy. What if we discover the intelligence gene or series of genes?
Now you'll be forced to hire people who are dumb and without any natural talent simply because they have a right not to be genetically discriminated against, all while other countries screen their employees for desirable genetic traits such as intelligence and hires only the qualified employees.
The result is that the USA will forever be doomed in the global economy. Other countries will genetically discriminate and use it to their advantage economically and politically while we dumb ourselves down or dilute our talent by watering it down.
The US government still believes in race. It asks you for your race on the US census. Do you trust the US government to be your physician and decide which prescriptions you get?
I certainly don't want my race based medicine. How about you?
I do think privately owned corporations should have the right to discriminate anyway they like in the hiring process. If they want to genetically discriminate because they think it will help their bottom line, they should have the right.
Should your business be forced to hire people who clearly aren't qualified? And if you could do a simple genetic test to determine say, intelligence capability, why the hell should the government have the right to tell you that you can't discriminate based on intelligence?
What about creativity? What about just physical muscle building capability? If you are hiring someone who has to be able to lift heavy objects, don't you want the ability for example, to genetically test individuals to see who is most genetically fit for that job?
Some people for example just ARE going to grow bigger muscles than others and there is a genetic basis behind this. Some people just ARE going to become smarter and more intelligent than others, or more creative, or just have certain talents and these special abilities have a genetic basis.
Why should corporations be forced to hire people who don't have talent over people who do, simply to avoid genetic discrimination? If talent, intelligence, physical strength are all genetic, and we have to judge an employee on these abilities, it would be a lot easier if we could just scan their DNA rather than give them all sorts of personality tests and make them do endurance and strength testing, and make them take a pen and paper IQ test.
And even then they could make the argument that they failed these tests due to bad genes and force you to hire them.
If this bill were restricted JUST to insurance companies and healthcare I'd support it, but thats not what this bill wants to do.
This bill wants to tell us who we can and can't hire. Read the bill more carefully and you'll see that it attempts to ban genetic discrimination in the hiring process. Banning genetic discrimination in hiring will reduce global economic efficiency and ruin the US economy.
Other countries will end the IQ testing and start DNA testing to see which people are the most intelligent and then hire all of those people. Other countries will start DNA testing to find who it's Mozarts and Bachs are and then it's corporations and record companies will genetically discriminate to hire or train these people.
If we ban genetic discrimination in hiring, it's going to doom the US economy to a slow death due to inefficiency and economic stupidity. The only difference between two candidates in some cases will be their personality traits, and their genetic traits/talents.
In the future we will instantly know which individuals will make the best athletes, their genetic test might tell the NFL or NBA that you'll at least have the physical capability to grow big, fast, strong, run fast, etc.
The company which wants to hire the best and the brightest should not be prevented from using every means available to determine who the best and the brightest are. DNA testing CAN help a corporation know an individuals traits and this can help in the hiring process in the same way personality testing and polygraph testing can help.
I think it's just plain dumb to ban ALL forms of genetic discrimination in ALL areas of public and private life, and thats what this bill hopes to do. It's not trying to simply ban MEDICAL genetic discrimination, read it more carefully, it wants to ban ALL forms of genetic discrimination even in hiring.
So if you currently are trying to hire the smart worker, and we someday discover the gene for intelligence, or for creativity, now you won't be able to hire all the smart people because of this law. Instead these smart people will be given jobs overseas where it's legal to genetically discriminate and you'll be able to thank your short sighted congressmen for this bill along with the rest of their stupid bills.
Intelligence, natural talent, personality traits, all that now has to be ignored when deciding whom to hire. What if I only want to hire people with a certain personality type, and a certain level of intelligence, and I could simply ask them to submit a DNA test which will tell me all of these features and traits.
If I decide not to hire them because they have a genetic trait that makes them Klepto and more likely to steal, thats genetic discrimination. If I refuse to hire them because they have a genetic trait that while having no obvious impact on their physical health, has major impacts on their mental health, I'm supposed to still hire them else it's genetic discrimination?
This means we'd have to hire people who clearly aren't qualified for certain jobs else it's genetic discrimination.
I don't think the law is well written or properly worded, and I think its intentionally vague. The goal is to force employers to hire people, who aren't qualified to do the task because of some genetic trait.
People seem to forget that most of our behavior patterns, our intelligence, and our traits come from genes. So now we are supposed to hire someone who has the gene to have gambling problems, or hire people who have the addiction gene, when there might be someone without that gene who is more qualified?
I'm all for removing genetic discrimination from insurance companies, but what about the hiring process? I think genetic discrimination should be allowed in hiring, because lets face it, you couldn't decide who to hire if you don't at least consider the genetic potential of your employee, be it the potential to lift heavy objects, or the potential to work around money, or alcohol without stealing it, or becoming addicted to it.
Anyone who has an argument against this, present the argument, but I'm against this law and I hope it fails to pass. I think genetic discrimination is the only way to have any sorta economic efficiency in the global economy.
Healthcare is a seperate issue. If this bill were to bane genetic discrimination in the very narrow situation of insurance companies providing healthcare I'd support it, but thats NOT what this bill does and people need to read it more carefully. This bill is ANTI libertarian!
Without genetic discrimination, how would we decide who to hire? If we decide based on intelligence, thats genetic discrimination.
If intelligence is a gene, this law will force us to hire the stupid people even if they aren't qualified simply because it's genetic discrimination if we don't.
So how are we going to discriminate at all if not genetically? Every human trait is a gene, so if we hire people we think may be loyal and we later find there is a loyalty gene, that is genetic discrimination.
If we hire someone who might be more naturally talented or creative, the person who isn't talented or creative could claim they are being genetically discriminated against if we find that natural talents and creativity have a genetic basis.
Can anyone refute these arguments? If personality traits have a genetic basis, and employees currently use personality tests to decide who to hire, is it genetic discrimination to refuse to hire someone who does not have the right genes for the job, whatever that job is?
I think this is a crappy law.
What I'm saying is, Linux is not as free as it could or should be. Linux has gone commercial.
Granted, Linux is more free than Windows, but thats not really saying much.
MagikFS
There is a steganographic file system in development for linux called magikfs. If you value your privacy, you'll want to check it out.
MagikFS
It's as simple as designing a steganographic protocol into either the file system, or the file sharing application.
Example, you want to send me an a file, on your Linux machine you combine 10 files into one big PDF file. The PDF file looks like a legit file with text, images etc, and the file name is also very boring, but associated with this file we both know a secret word known only between us.
The only way I can decrypt it into the correct file out of the 10 files you combined into it is if I know the exact secret word out of the 10 secret words that you picked.
So let our secret word be magic, there are 9 other words which would decode the PDF into any of the 9 other files, but because only you know the secret word, you enter it and you get the encrypted file.
Simple steganography. This will probably never be something for windows users, but I'm surprised Linux, the so called Free Software Operating System does not have it built into the file system.
Ultimately this just means you have to design good software. Design a steganographic protocol for P2P and a steganographic file system for linux. That would be a start.
One example of a protocol I can think of off the top of my head is a stego P2P protocol where I sent you a file with a secret word associated with this file, the file looks like an ordinary legal PDF file, you can even read it, but if you enter the secret word the PDF file decrypts into the real file.
You could even add unlimited layers so that you can get 10 different files from 10 different secret words.
The only solution to defending privacy would be to develop Steganographic software solutions. A steg file system is already in development called stegFS.
And theres plenty of theories on how to do it. The question is who is actually going to write the software and who is going to pay for it?
I don't think theres enough demand for it, but in theory of course it's possible to have privacy and security. I think most linux users are more focused on paying for getting games working in Linux through Transgaming than they are focused on protecting their privacy.
Eventually critical mass will be reached and this will change. The result will be better software and hardware.
The solution is actually simple. It's just a matter of people deciding to code it. And I don't think the will is currently there, but where theres a will theres a way.
Steganographic file system
StegFS
The first step would be finishing up the development of StegFS, porting it to the newest Linux Kernel and all the distributions. And let the SERIOUS users have privacy.
Software encryption isn't very good because it's not like you can trust closed source windows to actually encrypt without being buggy.
Hardware encryption is what you'll need to protect your privacy. Hardware encryption, combined with an updated Privacy enhanced Linux, and you'll have a solution.
You'll want to move your entire OS onto CD/DVD and into ram as well. All files stored on the harddrive should be stored in encrypted form, including the swap and cache.
And you'd probably want a stegnographic file system, or a plugin on top of the current linux filesystem you use.
There you go, there is your solution. All you have to do is assemble a team of coders and write the software. It's probably going to cost a bit of money to pay for some of the software, as I can see a steganographic file system plugin being difficult to code.
If you use a software random number generator, it's not really random.
Encryption would be a start, but you need hardware encryption.
All they'd have to do is scan the filenames to see what the md5 or fingerprint is and then they'd know what it is.
This just means you and your smart friends will have to develop legal technologies to protect yourself from entrapment.
I think entrapment is the whole point of this. Not only can you be entrapped by a cop into being a pedophile, but you can also be sent an illegal file by a cop and then arrested for accepting it.
So figure out a way to make it more difficult for yourself to be entrapped, or just expect to be entrapped.
This is why Google needs to get into the hardware business.
It doesn't matter which party you vote for or which church you go to, they all teach submission.
Submission Theology