Yes, I know, this is Slashdot and you'll ruin your karma if you go around reading articles before commenting. Oh wait, you haven't got any. Right.
Seriously though... the article makes a clear distinction between looking for intruders (legal) which the article advocates and "hacking back" (illegal) which it doesn't.
So this AC post is completely barking up the wrong tree (or a troll). I admit that the article is the usual clueless CEO bumf, but at least don't make it into something it isn't.
Either way there's nothing whatsoever "insightful" about this response.
Perhaps I was too rash to attribute meaning to the precise definition of "photograph". As I think of it now, the redefinition of "scan" looks much more meaningful.
However, from a practical point of view I think there is a marked difference between the amended and un-amended version of the law.
The un-amended version of the law seems to offer me some protection against Google and Facenook extracting facial information from photographs without my consent, putting that into their databases, and using it to scan for me all over the Internet.
The amended version clearly gives anyone leave to extract facial information from photographs and use it to scan for me in all and any photographs they encounter, search for my face all over the Internet, build a database from the results, and use that however they please.
As it happens this is precisely what Google and Facebook were preparing for and are planning to do.
Therefore the net effect of the amendment is to defuse a potential obstacle to their mode of operation by removing a small but essential element of protection. Completely in line with what the article summary claims.
Suppose your buddy takes a photograph with you and him in it. Scans it if it's a physical photograph, and uploads it to Google or Facebook who run it through face-recognition software that measures your face and extracts your facial features, store it in a database, and then use those features to identify you in each and very photograph they get.
Let's examine your position under the pre-amendment law and the amended law.
In the pre-amendment version, "photographs" (physical ones) aren't "biometric information", so the law (lines 3-4) doesn't help you there. But now your buddy takes a digital photograph (or scans the physical one). Is it still exempted from being "biometric information?". The law doesn't say in so many words, so it might be or it might not be.
Now they run the digital image through some face-recognition and measurement software and extract facial features. Are those extracted features "biometric identifiers"?
The pre-amendment text strongly suggests they are: (lines 1-2: " "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.")
That's because extracting those features is a scan of sorts of your "face geometry". So they're (likely: I'm not a lawyer, but I do know logic) protected by the un-amended version of that law.
Now consider the amended text.
Lines 3-4 state: "Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, physical or digital photographs,"
So your digitised photograph isn't "biometric information" and therefore not protected. But what if I scan it and use measurement -and-feature-extraction software on it? It's still face geometry, right?
The amendment says specifically excludes any data obtained by processing your digital image from ever being considered a "biometric identifier" because this process is not a "scan" of your face geometry.
Lines 21-23 say: ""Scan" means data resulting from an in-person process whereby a part of the body is traversed by a detector or an electronic beam."
Image processing and feature-extraction aren't in-person processes, and therefore don't qualify as "scan". Neat eh?
So after the amendment digitising and extracting features from your digital image (the mainstream way Google and Facebook will process all photographs with people's faces in them) is not a biometric identifier and hence isn't protected.
Sorry but you're completely wrong and I take particular offense at your use of weasel-words like "clarify". The law is _not_ being "clarified", it's being altered.
The article's summary is perfectly accurate in that it states that the proposed changes are aimed at allowing Facebook and Google to identify people from any online photographs they may get their hands on.
The changes in the wording of the law (that you so helpfully posted, thanks for that) do precisely that by (1) excluding photographs of any kind from the definition of "biometric information" and narrowing down the definition a "scan" to a procedure that physically passes a sensor over any part of your body.
The language of the law still prohibits me from scanning your retina or your fingerprints (than handy scanner in your mobile phone) and using that to identify you online. As in: ""Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry."
However it clearly allows anyone to scan photographs (one or more) of your face, use facial recognition software on that or even do a 3-D reconstruction job to make a 3-D model of your head, and use that to identify you online.
The only thing you need to do to understand that is to read the law from the point of view of Google or Facebook and ask: "Will this law prevent me from ID'ing everyone online we can get a picture of?".
The answer is a clear "No, this (amended) law will not prevent me from ID'ing people online based on scanning and analysing their photographs !".
Err... solved? What's there to be solved? Is there a problem?
Surely people can bring their second-amendment firearm with them in the car? They'll be able to protect themselves. If everyone did that, shooters would have no chance, right?
So if you think there is some kind of problem here, what you want is to write in-car guns into the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations as mandatory piece of safety equipment. Body armour is optional (since you might prefer to armour your car instead).
There. Your little problem solved in a way you'll like!
The only problem is that, like climate change, it's already too late. We should have taken control of antibiotics use *before* antibiotic-immune bacteria evolved. Now it's too late.
No it's not.
Pardon me for being crude, but the fact that we are seeing one patient infected by an antibiotic resistant bacteria doesn't mean the end of the world (except perhaps for that one patient).
By and large we'll continue being able to treat bacterial infections with antibiotics, but the probability of some of those cases not responding to treatment will increase from practically zero to almost zero. More if you're in a hospital that doesn't take sufficient care in the antiseptic department (e.g. cleaning the wards, operating theatres, elementary hygiene on part of staff before touching a patient, and medical equipment). Too bad for the individuals involved, but not a big threat to the population as a whole.
Those primarily exposed to higher risk are patients undergoing cancer therapy, complex surgery, arthritis, dialysis, and transplantation surgery (see http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista... pp. 24). The populations concerned are substantial, but with good antiseptic measures only a small percentage will be infected (and run an increased risk of dying).
Of course the CDC warns about consequences (as is it's job). See e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista... . They point to linkage between irresponsible antibiotics use and antibiotics resistance and promote "good stewardship" to slow down the spread of antibiotic resistance (see e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista... ).
In fact the CDC have proposed an action plan (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf ) for dealing with antibiotic resistance (see: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista.... ) which has been funded by congress (this year).
Sorry to disappoint you: (1) the sky isn't falling down (2) our "silver bullet" antibacterial treatment just got tarnished a little, so that risks of getting a fatal infection when you're in the vulnerable population segment increase (3) there's nothing you can specifically do about that (except trying not to get a condition that requires you to receive treatment) (4) what you can do is supporting commonsense measures (like those proposed by the CDC) to slow down the spread and reduce the risk of getting infected.
You'll note that (1) monensin is only one of the antibiotics used in livestock fodder and (2) that not all antibiotics used are ionophores (which means: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) that they can pass through the cell membrane in a specific way). Plain old penicillin (which is nicely broad-spectrum, so that lots and lots of bacteria get to feel the evolutionary pressure) is an example of an antibiotic that doesn't work like the "ionophore" type of antibiotics.
Wide-spread use of low-dosage antibiotics is an ideal environment for bacteria to acquire tricks like enzymes that disable certain classes of antibiotics, thus rendering them resistant. So you get reservoirs in which resistant bacteria can thrive.
Then people eat that meat, providing a direct route into humans. Besides which those bacteria exit their reservoirs in other ways and end up in the environment.
So you get resistant bacteria passing through human guts and e.g. in sewers. If there hadn't been any, there would be almost no source of antibiotics resistant bacteria.
The other main avenue is Americans demanding (and getting) antibiotics prescriptions that (a) aren't useful and (b) often enough aren't finished. Resulting in selection opportunities for antibiotics resistant bacteria inside the human body.
Now bacteria swap genetic traits with each other all the time, by simply exchanging bits of DNA. Both in the sewers and in people's guts.
Meaning you get a diffuse pathway of antibiotic resistance from foodstock to humans, from humans to other humans, and in e.g. sewers. Not something that will immediately cause problems, but one with a finite probability to, sooner or later, lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria to spread. That's where the law of large numbers kicks in, e.g. by rolling the dice continuously by routinely dosing feedstock with antibiotics.
I grant you that the actual pathways are less than obvious, and rely on the law of large numbers to deliver their payload. But that the probability is that sooner or that payload (resistant bacteria in humans) will be delivered. In fact it's all but guaranteed.
So, the best way to stop such bacteria from making the journey is to make sure that there aren't any being evolved. The second best way is to make sure that there aren't many being evolved.
Both avenues require cessation of livestock antibiotics and much tighter control on antibiotics prescriptions.
Apart from your gratuitous use of the f-word, I agree.
Perhaps this woman's imminent death can serve as a rallying point to ban the (grossly irresponsible) use of antibiotics in foodstock fodder.
Expect the foodstock industry to fight any such suggestion tooth and nail of course. Such a ban will cost them money since foodstock put on weight more slowly when not dosed with low levels of antibiotics, and any scare stories about antibiotics-resistant bacteria are "so many radical treehuggers' fantasies" of course.
"Huh... it's already happened you say? I thought we had another five years at least. Hmm... denounce the linkage a speculation based on evolution theory, increase the lobbyist budget, and see if we can't get a deal with a nice understanding conservative presidential candidate."
Why oh why do we need to actually see an antibiotics-resistant bacteria infect somebody before we'll acknowledge the blindingly obvious about to happen?
Sorry, but you cannot have Joe P. Public operating a cellphone jammer whenever and wherever he likes.
Doing so will infringe more on others' rights to operate a cellphone than can be justified by allowing any individual the right to jam. That's built into the technology.
This sort of assessment is built into the structure of the laws, and now it has emerged in the form of an administrative measure (backed up by laws that grant the FCC authority to manage wireless spectrum issues),.
You as an individual may or may not agree, but this is just the way the laws are set up... and now it's backed up by fines.
Arguments about prisons and law-enforcement officers don't cut it, because the same reasoning that found that the interests of would-be jammers are outweighed by those of other members to the public is almost certain to come down on the side of the interest of those with a legitimate interest in jamming cellphone communication.
In other words: law enforcement officers and organisations like prisons are allowed to do what ordinary members of the public aren't.
It can't very well be otherwise, can it? So we'd better get to get used to it.
I disagree with the idea that "people in power" keep information from "The Public" that would enable them to discern their own best interest/
Unfortunately "The Public" has been conditioned to ignore such information.
As in: "everybody knows that the most affluent companies are successfully using tax loopholes to avoid paying large amounts of tax", but "The public" has been trained to respond with gems like: "It's 'legal' so it's Ok.", "You'll always lose out aagainst 'The Market'" and "Better the money stays with industry than 'Da Gubbamint', and "We don't want Big Government" and "It's da pooh - lie - tishuns what dunnit".
And other gems of coherent well-informed thinking.
The only thing "people in power" need to hide is repeated ("The Public has a short memory") authenticated videos ("The Public doesn't read") of themselves conspiring in the clearest, bluntest terms imaginable (or The Public won't catch on), to intentionally ("to The Public mere self-serving greed is Ok), illegally and maliciously deprive "The Public" of their rights.
Now that's a pretty low bar to pass, don't you think?
We'[ve had half a century of investigative journalism to tell us about ethical standards in commerce, the way industry can purchase influence, the way in which (i.m.h.o. especially Conservatives) have paved the way for the fullest expression of industry interests in politics and uncounted economic, legal, sociological, and political studies to underpin this and its effects.
What The Public need (in order to catch on) is politics in the form of a reality show. Like errm... a Trump interview?
Care to substantiate any part of that disparaging comment?
Last time I looked both the first and second amendments were in rude good health. Plus all other essential freedoms.
Please don't confuse "freedom" with "I want things done my way", or "I'm angry about... whatever" with "someone's encroaching on my freedom". Citizens will always have duties, will always face laws and regulations, will always need experts to formulate policy details for them and then administrate that policy, and will always have to pay tax to pay for all of that.
Even mr. Trump has no plans to change any of that, and won't change any of that if he ever came to think about it. Chaos like that would be bad for business, you see.
Plus it would be an extremely unstable state of being, because some gang boss would step in where the government withdraws.
I can tell you're not a true radical Conservative.
If I understand (radical) Conservative thought right, the single most detrimental organisation we know is "The Government", and one of the worst things they can possibly do is to interfere with "The Market". In whattever form or shape.
So here's (my impression of) the Conservatove take on things: the FCC is one of the tentacles of The Government, and it's trying to interfere with Private Enterprise (i.e. the Cable industry). Now that's Wrong... and should be stopped at once.
We know there are always some who find excuses about this-or-that short-term benefit that might arise from Government Interference. Well, this is the way in which Big Government proponents work their favourite pasttime: trying to insert The Government (or its subsidiaries) into ever more aspects of our society by letting The Government overstep its current level of authority and hence acquire new levels of authority. Now this can only lead to new levels of bureaucracy and more Government expenditure.
In this view there is only one sane policy: resist the temptation to let The Government meddle yet again, step aside, and let The Market solve the problem.
The additional benefit of this is: you can zip through the daily news like nobody's business and tell at a glance who is Wrong and who is Right. All it takes a little backbone to ignore the continuous pleas and indignant squawks from activists, do-gooders, and (leftist) consumer organisations.
AMD is simply monetising its Intellectual Property. It owes this to its shareholders because this generates revenues Today and dividends Tomorrow, and that's all that matters.
Speculation on the possibility of deminishing returns in future cannot and should not drive this policy decision decision.
Anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly applaud this decision on any but financial grounds (has AMD obtained a a good price for its licenses ?) has left the Path of True Capitalism. Be told.
In the past ten years time we've taken two huge steps already: (1) deciding that we really are seeing climate change and of late (2) that it's definitely mankind's doing. All that flies in the face of practically all of "conservative" politics, conservative thinking (and more importantly: "conservative" gut-feeling).
The next question is: Ok, so we're causing climate change; so what do we do about it?
And yes, some of the ideas out there are pretty radical (i.e. crazy). That's of course not to say that impopular (lifestyle) changes absolutely cannot be imposed on the population at large. They can (even if the same "conservative" politics seem to violently resist that notion).
The best course of action is not so self-evident since it touches upon a fundamental issue of our society. If some sub-group wishes to engage in a conduct that's endangering the rest of us, do we have the right to compel them to stop?
And what do we do if and when we find that some among us are using such compulsory measures to further their own agenda?
So, before we resort to any crude compulsory measures, we'd better make triple certain that (1) they are absolutely necessary (i.e. there is no more cost-effective way to achieve something equivalent using e.g. persuasion, education, innovation, stimulation, subsidies, taxation, or regulation) and (2) that imposing them is really unavoidable and therefore justified and (3) that we have a viable way of dealing with groups (or nations) that deliberately refrain from taking measures in order to gain material advantage..
Seen in this light I think we'll be seeing more low-key measures that simply internalise external costs (e.g. through taxation) than draconic and disruptive ones.
Let's not forget there's a bright side to all this too. As a society we're pretty good at adapting and innovating. It's likely that we can find areas in which we're better able to adapt than others.
Take the manufacturing industry for example, let's say: steel making. Who is likely to be more adaptive to stricter environmental standards: the Chinese, European, or US industries? Who's therefore likely to gain competitive advantages from stricter regulation (backed by e.g. international agreements and import tariffs)? I'm not pessimistic.
Companies can bloody well pay their state taxes or bug out. Their decision.
And yes, it might become more difficult for them to hoodwink their (EU) state tax office when they have to disclose what they earn and how much tax they pay in which other EU state.
In the US you can't avoid the IRS either by clever apportionment of your business between Vermont, Wisconsin and Hawaii. You're free however to pack up in one state if you think you're better off in another state for tax reasons.
In that way, state taxes simply become a factor in location choice, along with all the others. I fail to see the problem with that.
And how is that article relevant? You're relieved our planet didn't turn into a second Venus perhaps? Good for you.
Youre relieved to see we've got fossils from hot and cold periods?
Well, I'm not. I'm not interested in whether a couple of dinosaurs got wet feet ages ago. But I *am* interested in the impact of a changing climate on our society.
Like draughts where we live because changing weather patterns make it rain elsewhere, huge tracts of land becoming too dry for ordinary agriculture, wars over water resources, developing countries being destabilised more and spewing forth waves of refugees, cities flooding because sea levels rise a few feet, increased energy levels in our atmosphere leading to more extreme weather (like bigger storms and hurricanes).
I'd rather do without such developments, thanks. Nevermind what happened to a bunch of dinos long ago.
Mr. Cuban's gripes have nothing to do with the FDA. From the article that has his interview It's the SEC that cramps his style.
As to SEC rules being "vague", try formulating a set of clear rules and then watch everyone abusing the loopholes.
Perhaps the largest part of the previous economic crisis (and the current lacklustre economy) is a direct result of runaway developments in the financial sector. Notably the stock market with its myriad derivatives, leverages, and trade of "risk". Those were all 100% legal when the mortgage crisis broke.
As to the 100 shades of grey that mt. Cuban refers to: how about (voluntarily) sticking to the 10 shades closest to pure white, and leaving it at that?
Don't tell me you can't make a startup successful without resorting to financial antics that you have reason to suspect the SEC might frown on.
So I get the impression his indignation really isn't about genuine concern for poor struggling startup who would otherwise lack sufficient capital to succeed.
Generally speaking, you don't get to be a billionaire without being thoroughly self-serving. Valuable to society, yes, but still self-serving. So let's be careful to what extent we accommodate such people's wishes, eh?
The point isn't whether an autonomous vehicle can be made totally safe, the only thing that matters is whether it's safer than a human behind the wheel. And that's a much easier bar to pass.
Uncomfortable as it might be, autonomous cars causing a few deaths per year isn't a problem. Not as long as it's insurable (which it will only be if it doesn't happen too often, both compared to the current situation and in absolute numbers).
And besides... reliability of service is not a design objective in a phone OS. It's designed to serve as a platform to gain market share at the lowest possible cost.
File systems, networking stacks, and process swapping on the other hand are designed with reliability in mind. And Novell servers were. And mainframe OS'es are. And avionics are. How often do any of those crash? Compared to the failure rates you'd get if those tasks were carried out by hand?.
All this talk about "the American people" and how they should have a voice is simply a pretext on part of partisan politicians with which to cover their obvious manouvering to get a justice of their own political stripe on the supreme court. It is a deeply irresponsible move.
The "American people" have agreed on a set of rules on how supreme court justices are nominated and appointed. Party-political opportunists would now abandon those rules, simply because they feel like it.
It's a nice illustration of their egocentric and aggressive mindset and willingness to bend (or simply flout) any inconvenient rules.
In all fairness, for who would ever believe they themselves would pause to "give the American people a voice on important matters" if they were in a position to nominate? Never! They just wouldn't. But they're fine with trying to impose this idea on others.
The fitbit has been on the market for how long now? Two years?
Before the fitbit there was simply no convenient, off-the-shelf and affordable way to collect people's body operating characteristics.That emerged with fitbit.
Then it will have taken awhile for knowledge of this technology to spread as far as those employers. They will have taken some time to hit on the idea, and set up a programme to start keeping tabs on their workers in this way. How long will that have taken? Half a year from the launch of fitbit?
Then it will have taken whatever governmental department we're talking about here some time to take notice in the first place (I'm guessing they only noticed because someone complained), assign it a priority, set up a team, officially figure out what was actually going on, and formulate a Governmental Position on the subject.
So if this governmental department issued a ruling now, it can't have taken them more than about 1.5 - 2 years to go from complaint to ruling. Not all that slow, as governments go, right?
Because that means it hurts them. So we're on to something.
Redouble the efforts, install a taskforce, pass a bill to subsidise on-line companies that have to cope with large amounts of propaganda from recognised terrorist groups!
And keep an eye and an ear out for their next complaint....
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though ... the article makes a clear distinction between looking for intruders (legal) which the article advocates and "hacking back" (illegal) which it doesn't.
So this AC post is completely barking up the wrong tree (or a troll). I admit that the article is the usual clueless CEO bumf, but at least don't make it into something it isn't.
Either way there's nothing whatsoever "insightful" about this response.
Perhaps I was too rash to attribute meaning to the precise definition of "photograph". As I think of it now, the redefinition of "scan" looks much more meaningful.
However, from a practical point of view I think there is a marked difference between the amended and un-amended version of the law.
The un-amended version of the law seems to offer me some protection against Google and Facenook extracting facial information from photographs without my consent, putting that into their databases, and using it to scan for me all over the Internet.
The amended version clearly gives anyone leave to extract facial information from photographs and use it to scan for me in all and any photographs they encounter, search for my face all over the Internet, build a database from the results, and use that however they please.
As it happens this is precisely what Google and Facebook were preparing for and are planning to do.
Therefore the net effect of the amendment is to defuse a potential obstacle to their mode of operation by removing a small but essential element of protection. Completely in line with what the article summary claims.
Suppose your buddy takes a photograph with you and him in it. Scans it if it's a physical photograph, and uploads it to Google or Facebook who run it through face-recognition software that measures your face and extracts your facial features, store it in a database, and then use those features to identify you in each and very photograph they get.
Let's examine your position under the pre-amendment law and the amended law.
In the pre-amendment version, "photographs" (physical ones) aren't "biometric information", so the law (lines 3-4) doesn't help you there. But now your buddy takes a digital photograph (or scans the physical one). Is it still exempted from being "biometric information?". The law doesn't say in so many words, so it might be or it might not be.
Now they run the digital image through some face-recognition and measurement software and extract facial features. Are those extracted features "biometric identifiers"?
The pre-amendment text strongly suggests they are: (lines 1-2: " "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.") That's because extracting those features is a scan of sorts of your "face geometry". So they're (likely: I'm not a lawyer, but I do know logic) protected by the un-amended version of that law.
Now consider the amended text.
Lines 3-4 state: "Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, physical or digital photographs,"
So your digitised photograph isn't "biometric information" and therefore not protected. But what if I scan it and use measurement -and-feature-extraction software on it? It's still face geometry, right?
The amendment says specifically excludes any data obtained by processing your digital image from ever being considered a "biometric identifier" because this process is not a "scan" of your face geometry.
Lines 21-23 say: ""Scan" means data resulting from an in-person process whereby a part of the body is traversed by a detector or an electronic beam."
Image processing and feature-extraction aren't in-person processes, and therefore don't qualify as "scan". Neat eh?
So after the amendment digitising and extracting features from your digital image (the mainstream way Google and Facebook will process all photographs with people's faces in them) is not a biometric identifier and hence isn't protected.
Sorry but you're completely wrong and I take particular offense at your use of weasel-words like "clarify". The law is _not_ being "clarified", it's being altered.
The article's summary is perfectly accurate in that it states that the proposed changes are aimed at allowing Facebook and Google to identify people from any online photographs they may get their hands on.
The changes in the wording of the law (that you so helpfully posted, thanks for that) do precisely that by (1) excluding photographs of any kind from the definition of "biometric information" and narrowing down the definition a "scan" to a procedure that physically passes a sensor over any part of your body.
The language of the law still prohibits me from scanning your retina or your fingerprints (than handy scanner in your mobile phone) and using that to identify you online. As in: ""Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry."
However it clearly allows anyone to scan photographs (one or more) of your face, use facial recognition software on that or even do a 3-D reconstruction job to make a 3-D model of your head, and use that to identify you online.
The only thing you need to do to understand that is to read the law from the point of view of Google or Facebook and ask: "Will this law prevent me from ID'ing everyone online we can get a picture of?".
The answer is a clear "No, this (amended) law will not prevent me from ID'ing people online based on scanning and analysing their photographs !".
Err ... solved? What's there to be solved? Is there a problem?
Surely people can bring their second-amendment firearm with them in the car? They'll be able to protect themselves. If everyone did that, shooters would have no chance, right?
So if you think there is some kind of problem here, what you want is to write in-car guns into the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations as mandatory piece of safety equipment. Body armour is optional (since you might prefer to armour your car instead).
There. Your little problem solved in a way you'll like!
No it's not.
Pardon me for being crude, but the fact that we are seeing one patient infected by an antibiotic resistant bacteria doesn't mean the end of the world (except perhaps for that one patient).
By and large we'll continue being able to treat bacterial infections with antibiotics, but the probability of some of those cases not responding to treatment will increase from practically zero to almost zero. More if you're in a hospital that doesn't take sufficient care in the antiseptic department (e.g. cleaning the wards, operating theatres, elementary hygiene on part of staff before touching a patient, and medical equipment). Too bad for the individuals involved, but not a big threat to the population as a whole.
Those primarily exposed to higher risk are patients undergoing cancer therapy, complex surgery, arthritis, dialysis, and transplantation surgery (see http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista... pp. 24). The populations concerned are substantial, but with good antiseptic measures only a small percentage will be infected (and run an increased risk of dying).
Of course the CDC warns about consequences (as is it's job). See e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista... . They point to linkage between irresponsible antibiotics use and antibiotics resistance and promote "good stewardship" to slow down the spread of antibiotic resistance (see e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista... ).
In fact the CDC have proposed an action plan (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf ) for dealing with antibiotic resistance (see: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresista.... ) which has been funded by congress (this year).
Sorry to disappoint you: (1) the sky isn't falling down (2) our "silver bullet" antibacterial treatment just got tarnished a little, so that risks of getting a fatal infection when you're in the vulnerable population segment increase (3) there's nothing you can specifically do about that (except trying not to get a condition that requires you to receive treatment) (4) what you can do is supporting commonsense measures (like those proposed by the CDC) to slow down the spread and reduce the risk of getting infected.
See for example here: http://consumersunion.org/news... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You'll note that (1) monensin is only one of the antibiotics used in livestock fodder and (2) that not all antibiotics used are ionophores (which means: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) that they can pass through the cell membrane in a specific way). Plain old penicillin (which is nicely broad-spectrum, so that lots and lots of bacteria get to feel the evolutionary pressure) is an example of an antibiotic that doesn't work like the "ionophore" type of antibiotics.
Wide-spread use of low-dosage antibiotics is an ideal environment for bacteria to acquire tricks like enzymes that disable certain classes of antibiotics, thus rendering them resistant. So you get reservoirs in which resistant bacteria can thrive.
Then people eat that meat, providing a direct route into humans. Besides which those bacteria exit their reservoirs in other ways and end up in the environment.
So you get resistant bacteria passing through human guts and e.g. in sewers. If there hadn't been any, there would be almost no source of antibiotics resistant bacteria.
The other main avenue is Americans demanding (and getting) antibiotics prescriptions that (a) aren't useful and (b) often enough aren't finished. Resulting in selection opportunities for antibiotics resistant bacteria inside the human body.
Now bacteria swap genetic traits with each other all the time, by simply exchanging bits of DNA. Both in the sewers and in people's guts.
Meaning you get a diffuse pathway of antibiotic resistance from foodstock to humans, from humans to other humans, and in e.g. sewers. Not something that will immediately cause problems, but one with a finite probability to, sooner or later, lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria to spread. That's where the law of large numbers kicks in, e.g. by rolling the dice continuously by routinely dosing feedstock with antibiotics.
I grant you that the actual pathways are less than obvious, and rely on the law of large numbers to deliver their payload. But that the probability is that sooner or that payload (resistant bacteria in humans) will be delivered. In fact it's all but guaranteed.
So, the best way to stop such bacteria from making the journey is to make sure that there aren't any being evolved. The second best way is to make sure that there aren't many being evolved.
Both avenues require cessation of livestock antibiotics and much tighter control on antibiotics prescriptions.
Perhaps this woman's imminent death can serve as a rallying point to ban the (grossly irresponsible) use of antibiotics in foodstock fodder.
Expect the foodstock industry to fight any such suggestion tooth and nail of course. Such a ban will cost them money since foodstock put on weight more slowly when not dosed with low levels of antibiotics, and any scare stories about antibiotics-resistant bacteria are "so many radical treehuggers' fantasies" of course.
"Huh ... it's already happened you say? I thought we had another five years at least. Hmm ... denounce the linkage a speculation based on evolution theory, increase the lobbyist budget, and see if we can't get a deal with a nice understanding conservative presidential candidate."
Why oh why do we need to actually see an antibiotics-resistant bacteria infect somebody before we'll acknowledge the blindingly obvious about to happen?
Doing so will infringe more on others' rights to operate a cellphone than can be justified by allowing any individual the right to jam. That's built into the technology.
This sort of assessment is built into the structure of the laws, and now it has emerged in the form of an administrative measure (backed up by laws that grant the FCC authority to manage wireless spectrum issues),.
You as an individual may or may not agree, but this is just the way the laws are set up ... and now it's backed up by fines.
Arguments about prisons and law-enforcement officers don't cut it, because the same reasoning that found that the interests of would-be jammers are outweighed by those of other members to the public is almost certain to come down on the side of the interest of those with a legitimate interest in jamming cellphone communication.
In other words: law enforcement officers and organisations like prisons are allowed to do what ordinary members of the public aren't.
It can't very well be otherwise, can it? So we'd better get to get used to it.
Unfortunately "The Public" has been conditioned to ignore such information.
As in: "everybody knows that the most affluent companies are successfully using tax loopholes to avoid paying large amounts of tax", but "The public" has been trained to respond with gems like: "It's 'legal' so it's Ok.", "You'll always lose out aagainst 'The Market'" and "Better the money stays with industry than 'Da Gubbamint', and "We don't want Big Government" and "It's da pooh - lie - tishuns what dunnit".
And other gems of coherent well-informed thinking.
The only thing "people in power" need to hide is repeated ("The Public has a short memory") authenticated videos ("The Public doesn't read") of themselves conspiring in the clearest, bluntest terms imaginable (or The Public won't catch on), to intentionally ("to The Public mere self-serving greed is Ok), illegally and maliciously deprive "The Public" of their rights.
Now that's a pretty low bar to pass, don't you think?
We'[ve had half a century of investigative journalism to tell us about ethical standards in commerce, the way industry can purchase influence, the way in which (i.m.h.o. especially Conservatives) have paved the way for the fullest expression of industry interests in politics and uncounted economic, legal, sociological, and political studies to underpin this and its effects.
What The Public need (in order to catch on) is politics in the form of a reality show. Like errm ... a Trump interview?
Care to substantiate any part of that disparaging comment?
Last time I looked both the first and second amendments were in rude good health. Plus all other essential freedoms.
Please don't confuse "freedom" with "I want things done my way", or "I'm angry about ... whatever" with "someone's encroaching on my freedom". Citizens will always have duties, will always face laws and regulations, will always need experts to formulate policy details for them and then administrate that policy, and will always have to pay tax to pay for all of that.
Even mr. Trump has no plans to change any of that, and won't change any of that if he ever came to think about it. Chaos like that would be bad for business, you see.
Plus it would be an extremely unstable state of being, because some gang boss would step in where the government withdraws.
I can tell you're not a true radical Conservative.
If I understand (radical) Conservative thought right, the single most detrimental organisation we know is "The Government", and one of the worst things they can possibly do is to interfere with "The Market". In whattever form or shape.
So here's (my impression of) the Conservatove take on things: the FCC is one of the tentacles of The Government, and it's trying to interfere with Private Enterprise (i.e. the Cable industry). Now that's Wrong ... and should be stopped at once.
We know there are always some who find excuses about this-or-that short-term benefit that might arise from Government Interference. Well, this is the way in which Big Government proponents work their favourite pasttime: trying to insert The Government (or its subsidiaries) into ever more aspects of our society by letting The Government overstep its current level of authority and hence acquire new levels of authority. Now this can only lead to new levels of bureaucracy and more Government expenditure.
In this view there is only one sane policy: resist the temptation to let The Government meddle yet again, step aside, and let The Market solve the problem.
The additional benefit of this is: you can zip through the daily news like nobody's business and tell at a glance who is Wrong and who is Right. All it takes a little backbone to ignore the continuous pleas and indignant squawks from activists, do-gooders, and (leftist) consumer organisations.
Instant peace of mind will be your reward.
Speculation on the possibility of deminishing returns in future cannot and should not drive this policy decision decision.
Anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly applaud this decision on any but financial grounds (has AMD obtained a a good price for its licenses ?) has left the Path of True Capitalism. Be told.
The next question is: Ok, so we're causing climate change; so what do we do about it?
And yes, some of the ideas out there are pretty radical (i.e. crazy). That's of course not to say that impopular (lifestyle) changes absolutely cannot be imposed on the population at large. They can (even if the same "conservative" politics seem to violently resist that notion).
The best course of action is not so self-evident since it touches upon a fundamental issue of our society. If some sub-group wishes to engage in a conduct that's endangering the rest of us, do we have the right to compel them to stop?
And what do we do if and when we find that some among us are using such compulsory measures to further their own agenda?
So, before we resort to any crude compulsory measures, we'd better make triple certain that (1) they are absolutely necessary (i.e. there is no more cost-effective way to achieve something equivalent using e.g. persuasion, education, innovation, stimulation, subsidies, taxation, or regulation) and (2) that imposing them is really unavoidable and therefore justified and (3) that we have a viable way of dealing with groups (or nations) that deliberately refrain from taking measures in order to gain material advantage..
Seen in this light I think we'll be seeing more low-key measures that simply internalise external costs (e.g. through taxation) than draconic and disruptive ones.
Let's not forget there's a bright side to all this too. As a society we're pretty good at adapting and innovating. It's likely that we can find areas in which we're better able to adapt than others.
Take the manufacturing industry for example, let's say: steel making. Who is likely to be more adaptive to stricter environmental standards: the Chinese, European, or US industries? Who's therefore likely to gain competitive advantages from stricter regulation (backed by e.g. international agreements and import tariffs)? I'm not pessimistic.
And yes, it might become more difficult for them to hoodwink their (EU) state tax office when they have to disclose what they earn and how much tax they pay in which other EU state.
In the US you can't avoid the IRS either by clever apportionment of your business between Vermont, Wisconsin and Hawaii. You're free however to pack up in one state if you think you're better off in another state for tax reasons.
In that way, state taxes simply become a factor in location choice, along with all the others. I fail to see the problem with that.
And how is that article relevant? You're relieved our planet didn't turn into a second Venus perhaps? Good for you.
Youre relieved to see we've got fossils from hot and cold periods? Well, I'm not. I'm not interested in whether a couple of dinosaurs got wet feet ages ago. But I *am* interested in the impact of a changing climate on our society.
Like draughts where we live because changing weather patterns make it rain elsewhere, huge tracts of land becoming too dry for ordinary agriculture, wars over water resources, developing countries being destabilised more and spewing forth waves of refugees, cities flooding because sea levels rise a few feet, increased energy levels in our atmosphere leading to more extreme weather (like bigger storms and hurricanes).
I'd rather do without such developments, thanks. Nevermind what happened to a bunch of dinos long ago.
This sort of abuse is what causes certain freedoms on the Internet to be curtailed or lost altogether.
Mr. Cuban's gripes have nothing to do with the FDA. From the article that has his interview It's the SEC that cramps his style.
As to SEC rules being "vague", try formulating a set of clear rules and then watch everyone abusing the loopholes. Perhaps the largest part of the previous economic crisis (and the current lacklustre economy) is a direct result of runaway developments in the financial sector. Notably the stock market with its myriad derivatives, leverages, and trade of "risk". Those were all 100% legal when the mortgage crisis broke.
As to the 100 shades of grey that mt. Cuban refers to: how about (voluntarily) sticking to the 10 shades closest to pure white, and leaving it at that? Don't tell me you can't make a startup successful without resorting to financial antics that you have reason to suspect the SEC might frown on.
So I get the impression his indignation really isn't about genuine concern for poor struggling startup who would otherwise lack sufficient capital to succeed.
Generally speaking, you don't get to be a billionaire without being thoroughly self-serving. Valuable to society, yes, but still self-serving. So let's be careful to what extent we accommodate such people's wishes, eh?
"Us is terrorist squad, see?.An them is Terrorists! They wouldn't 'ave called Us in if they weren't terrorists, right? So there!"
Because he's loud and simplistic?
Nope. The bot was exposed the the American Online Public. And gave an accurate digest of what it encountered there.
The point isn't whether an autonomous vehicle can be made totally safe, the only thing that matters is whether it's safer than a human behind the wheel. And that's a much easier bar to pass.
Uncomfortable as it might be, autonomous cars causing a few deaths per year isn't a problem. Not as long as it's insurable (which it will only be if it doesn't happen too often, both compared to the current situation and in absolute numbers).
And besides ... reliability of service is not a design objective in a phone OS. It's designed to serve as a platform to gain market share at the lowest possible cost.
File systems, networking stacks, and process swapping on the other hand are designed with reliability in mind. And Novell servers were. And mainframe OS'es are. And avionics are. How often do any of those crash? Compared to the failure rates you'd get if those tasks were carried out by hand?.
The "American people" have agreed on a set of rules on how supreme court justices are nominated and appointed. Party-political opportunists would now abandon those rules, simply because they feel like it.
It's a nice illustration of their egocentric and aggressive mindset and willingness to bend (or simply flout) any inconvenient rules.
In all fairness, for who would ever believe they themselves would pause to "give the American people a voice on important matters" if they were in a position to nominate? Never! They just wouldn't. But they're fine with trying to impose this idea on others.
The fitbit has been on the market for how long now? Two years?
Before the fitbit there was simply no convenient, off-the-shelf and affordable way to collect people's body operating characteristics.That emerged with fitbit.
Then it will have taken awhile for knowledge of this technology to spread as far as those employers. They will have taken some time to hit on the idea, and set up a programme to start keeping tabs on their workers in this way. How long will that have taken? Half a year from the launch of fitbit?
Then it will have taken whatever governmental department we're talking about here some time to take notice in the first place (I'm guessing they only noticed because someone complained), assign it a priority, set up a team, officially figure out what was actually going on, and formulate a Governmental Position on the subject.
So if this governmental department issued a ruling now, it can't have taken them more than about 1.5 - 2 years to go from complaint to ruling. Not all that slow, as governments go, right?
Redouble the efforts, install a taskforce, pass a bill to subsidise on-line companies that have to cope with large amounts of propaganda from recognised terrorist groups!
And keep an eye and an ear out for their next complaint. ...