>7 years of residency and fellowship training in which I made $50K for 80 hour weeks + overnight in hospital calls and every third weekend on call.
I know doctors and pharmacists in residency. Their stories agree with what you say: they are way overworked. I am trying to find out why the 80 hour work week etc. is so prevelent? Is it because there are not enough doctors and the residents are used as slave labor? Is it because the doctors need to be prepared/trained for emergencies (like Katrina) which may require working 20+ hours without sleep? Or is it because the previous generation did it this way and they force the newcomers to follow suit (think of hazing and draft military)?
What would take to change the practice? Why nobody sued the hospitals that they overwork the doctors, thereby endangering the patients? Would you want a loved one to be treated by a doctor who was on duty for 12+ hours and/or has to work 80 hours that week? Why nobody speaks up?
In one instance a resident's contract clearly said 40 hours a week. That is what the hospital HR was aware of. The actual work included 70+ hours including every 3 weekends (2x12 hours shifts) every fourth weekend on call, etc. The position was advertised to accrue 10 PTO-s a year, according to HR the position was not eligeble for PTO...
Strange world...
> I would love to spend an hour seeing every new patient and half an hour on every followup. I am limited on how much the HMOs will pay me to see those patients, however.
I wish I there was a plan when I could pay the doctor directly as long as I am healthy. Currently the HMO gets the profit if the client is not a patient. The doctor gets paid if there is a problem. Talk about conflicting interests.
I am on a high deductable plan. Any preventive care is 100% free for me. It makes sense to see my doctor for a preventive checkup quite often, but does she get paid comparably for that as for seeing sick people?
You are right! Ignorance is worse than stupidity. The former is much more of a choice of the individual than the latter, which is more of the result of genes, lack of education etc.
I still do not get why is it an insult to call someone stupid when they are ignorant. Maybe the person making this call is ignorant as well. Honestly, I do not care!:->
Check the quality offered by satellite radio. Depending on the noise in the car you may decide for or against the whole concept.
I do not wish to support exclusionary/bundling technology/business models. I hate cable TV for channel bundling, wireless phone service providers restricting your equipment choice, why would we need more of this kind of idiocy?
I personally will rather look for a connector for my music player. A built in player which works with a memory card may also get consideration.
I almost 100% agree. The nonintelligent investors deserve to be cleaned out. (Same goes for pyramid game victims etc.)
The only problem is that the group of spammers get richer without a constructive contribution to the market evaluation. Their power increases (monetarily) and they can levy that against everybody, not just the stupid. (By the way, I just got on some return address forging list so I get about 20 returned email spam a day. Those idiot admins; worse than spammers. If this goes on for another week, I sign up for a spamcop account and hope all those unable to configure an MTA will be blacklisted.)
So I support action against these spammers, but no restitution to those scammed this way.
I am aware of (some of) the problems regarding solar cells. I have researched the issue a couple month ago (and decided against it for the moment). Similar issues arise with the electric car concept: he battery technology (manufacture and operational efficiency, etc) still needs improvement to make that environmentally the right choice.
I did not mean to argue that the technology presented was worth it today, rather that it has the potential. I pointed out the fallacy of the argument used to devalue it. We will eventually have to come up with some new and better ways and research like this may be one step. Having the first reaction to any new research that it is not a financially sound choice today is misguided, IMHO.
Your argument fails to take into account that if you were to pay the REAL price for the energy we use, then the equation would be the other way around. The real price includes the extraction of any pollutants created in the process, etc. The reason that being green is not financially beneficial is simple: we live up the non-renewable (unless you count million years...) resources and create pollution for free or for under market price. If I had a say in how much pollution should cost (market pressure!!) depending on the effects on me and my environment than you bet it would be more expansive to pollute.
The problem is that the people in power decided to support and maintain a model with the pollution in place, while the profits they gain they use to insulate themselves from the results. Even sadder that the electing public is letting them do this.
Furthermore, the TVM concept is based on the assumption of continuued expansion, economic growth. However, this model is not clear that will be sustainable (especially regarding its energy needs). I personally think the growth is possible, but like some sci-fi writers I am of the opinion that colonization of other planets is unavoidable for this to be the case. The recent Moon colony project announcement is a step in the right direction, but otherwise the decision makers generally despise scientific spending like Hubble, space station, NASA expenses , education etc.
Do not get me wrong. I will not be able to afford this either (for a while at least).
Today we constantly borrow from the future generations by leaving problems they will have to solve , while depleting the resources. (A joke: "And what is the problem? What did the future generation do for us lately?")
With the real price of pollution in place much less could be done today. So much less that it could result in stagnation. So I accept that we borrow from the future, but we should make an effort to work on solving the problem. The reported story is exactly such an effort.
> inventor's right to say, "I'll show you how to do X if you promise to do Y."
Except I have no option of responding: "Keep it to yourself, I will invent it myself instead. (Because it is obvious or I have also worked on it already etc.)" I am forced to do Y even if I do not benefit from X, or give up work that I have done already that may naturally lead to X.
I do not claim that I know how to foster and protect ideas. I know however that in my work I have to come up with NEW ideas over and over, and I have no option to have ONE idea and pull a lifetime of benefits out of it.
> I know I know. They want hype and venture capital[...]
My first thought was to buy shares in the company that will likely produce a drug. I even looked up the following paper:
Shawn Winer, Igor Astsaturov, Roger Gaedigk, Denise Hammond-McKibben, Marc Pilon, Aihua Song, Violetta Kubiak, Wolfram Karges, Enrico Arpaia, Colin McKerlie, Peter Zucker, Bhagirath Singh, and H.-Michael Dosch ICA69null Nonobese Diabetic Mice Develop Diabetes, but Resist Disease Acceleration by Cyclophosphamide J. Immunol., Jan 2002; 168: 475 - 482. *......prevents autoimmune diabetes in NOD mice. Diabetes 43 : 1494 . 14 Karges...speed congenic stock of NOD.Ig M null mice. J. Exp. Med. 184 : 2049 . 29...nutritional diabetes prevention in NOD mice: a pilot study for the cows milk-based......
(As you see this is an older related publication.) I was hoping to find some reference to any company that the authors may have connection to. I have not succeeded in this effort yet. Maybe I could email the authors...
I do not mind the premature reporting; but I wished they could point me to the stock ticker as well!
"...but how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?"
And how long before someone (foreign or domestic adversary) will disrupt the presidents speach making him look like an idiot while forced to say goodbye to his podium?
The interesing question at this point: how can we detect the use of this weapon? Is the beam visable with some special glasses?
"You can blame U.S. road-sign regulations for some of the HID glare. U.S. signs aren't universally lighted and don't all reflect light the same. Thus, headlights have to throw some light upward and outward, to make sure you can read overhead and roadside signs, according to federal regulations.
In Europe, home of most of the world's 2 million HID-lighted vehicles, glare seldom is mentioned. European road signs routinely and consistently are lighted, so headlights needn't beam up and, in fact, are required not to. That keeps the light out of other drivers' eyes."
"There are two different beam pattern and headlamp construction standards in use in the world: The UNECE ("United Nations Economic Commission for Europe") standard, which is allowed or required in virtually all industrialized countries except the United States, and the SAE standard that is mandatory only in the US. The differences between the two standards are primarily in the amount of glare permitted towards other drivers on low beam (SAE permits much more glare), the minimum amount of light required to be thrown straight down the road (SAE requires more), and the specific locations within the beam at which minimum and maximum light levels are specified. ECE low beams are characterized by a distinct horizontal "cutoff" line at the top of the beam. Below the line is bright, and above is dark. On the side of the beam facing away from oncoming traffic (right in right-traffic countries, left in left-traffic countries), this cutoff sweeps or steps upward to direct light to road signs and pedestrians. SAE low beams may or may not have a cutoff, and if a cutoff is present, it may be of several different forms. Proponents of each system decry the other as inadequate and unsafe: U.S. proponents of the SAE system claim that the ECE low beam cutoff gives short seeing distances and inadequate illumination for overhead road signs, while international proponents of the ECE system claim that the SAE system produces too much glare."
The cars in the USA may have well used asymmetric headlights since the 1960. However, the exact specs of what is mandated are different from those used in Europe. My personal experience matches what is described above: to much glare to oncoming traffic in the USA.
I do not drive an SUV in fact annoyed by their lights like you. However not the height is the problem. The light can be adjusted to point at the road (gasp!). I have encountered several quite high 18 wheelers of which lights did not bother me at all.
Another useful feature is: assymetric lights as is mandated in Europe. This means more light projected on the right of the road where stalled vehicles, people, deer may stand. (Deer from the left leaves you more time than from the right.) However, I saw assymetric lights in the US which were brighter on the left side!
A mirror or a prism in the back window may keep these idiots driving too close. I know someone who installed foglights in the back and turned it on when being tailgated at night. I do not condone that behaviour, the passive prism defence seems more appropriate.
If you ever wondered why some drivers insist on driving below the speed limit on multilane highways in the leftmost lane (or just driving slower than the cars around) I tell you a story that will enlighten you.
I sat in the passenger seat of a car once while we drove on a 5 lane highway in the leftmost lane with speed +-2 of the limit. I started to feel uncomfortable when the second car passed from the right (we could have headed for a left exit I thought earlier). This kept repeating, and moreover the other drivers looked at us when passing from the right, they could make eye contact only with me of course.
I was taught that if you are passed from the right it is as being "shamed", like a big note stuck on your car announcing that you are a jerk. So, finally I could not take this anymore, and asked the driver why we not move over to the right. The driver said: " I belong to this lane." I knew that I do not belong in that car...
The Washington post comment (linked from the topic summary) says that the president lied about Rumsfeld bieng replaced:
"It is now conclusively clear that President Bush lied last week, several days before the election, when he vowed definitively to reporters that Donald Rumsfeld would remain as Defense Secretary for the next two years. At the time he made that statement, he was deep into the process of replacing Rumsfeld, if not already finished, and the President knew that the statement he made about Rumsfeld was false at the time he made it. That is the definition of "lying.""
I do not agree with that definition of lying. It is also required that the person asking for the information has the right ot ask the question. For example, if you ask me how often I have sex and I answer that every day and it turns out that the correct answer is 5 times a week, than that is not a lie, simply you had no right to get the information. It may be argued that I should have just declined to answer, however often that reveals crucial information on its own, so deception is needed to protect my privacy.
The president and some other government officials should be allowed to not tell the truth on certain state matters, when telling the truth would actually cause harm to the majority. As an example consider a journalist asking about the exact time of the response attack to Pearl Harbor. This information would not have been wise to disclose. (Again, telling an untruth may be needed if the question is: "Is the attack tomorrow?")
As another example consider a question to Ben Bernanke about the next fed interest rate action. He is not obliged to tell the truth because it could cause economic harm (the action is timed for a purpose after all and prior knowledge may alter the effects).
Now in this case I think it is the Presidents right to select who he works with, so anyone expecting a truthful answer was mistaken. They should have the same expectation about the truthfulness of the answer if they say asked Bush about his REAL opinion on how the war in Iraq goes or whether he thinks the Republicans will lose the midterm elections. (The opinions are his and he can keep them secret.)
Along these lines I think that Clinton has not lied about having sex with that woman. I do not consider the people asking him that question had the right for that information.
""Open-source doesn't mean free," he told BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme."
Does not mean free as in beer.
"...you have a support contract that goes with it - it's an essential part of operating that software."
Why *that* software? I fail to see why a contract is needed for an OSS solution when it is not needed for a proprietary solution. This may be the case if OSS is inferior; that is asserted *implicitly*, not good. I personally do not think that statement is true or not in general at least.
"Over time, that can actually cost more than having Windows on an enterprise machine."
Plus support contract with MS? Forced upgrades factored in? (If I wanted to counter troll I would ask downtime also counted?)
"We are a funding organisation that ships £90m around the world - the last thing you want to do is open up your systems to anybody to have a look at to deal with bugs,"
This security through obscurity is teared to parts by slashdot posters every time... I wish them that their MS solution would never be hacked.
"So you do need a support model in place. But one of the things that we find is that Microsoft is viewed as the big, bad organisation - but they've actually got some good corporate social responsibility."
Maybe MS offers better terms in this regard in their licences now. They used to basically take no responsibility for anything their software does. Maybe when you buy a support contract today and download patches in a timely manner you get some money back if you get hacked or lose data? Someone in the know could fill in here.
"He stressed that it was important for charities to maximise the benefit of the donations they receive, and as a result, using Microsoft appeared a better option."
Logically the above amounts to SISO (shit in shit out), in other words a mathematician would say that from 'false' we can prove anything.
"When you think of charities, we think they are liberal organisations with woolley-jumpered amateurs - but really, we've got a duty of care to our supporters," he said.
This appears to be a sting at liberals; accusing them for lack of sense of duty, while distancing themselves from that group. I let the liberals answer this one.
Anyway, go read it for yourself. Or not. You will not lose much.
I read a few comments on the talk pages. It was interesting to see how the problem was approached and dealt with. My conclusion is that Wikipedia needs releases like Linux distros.
The user could indicate in a profile whether she wants stable/testing or unstable pages, maybe even sections/volumes whatever could be separately specified.
The stable version could only be edited by assigned editors and mostly for typos and broken references and such. If an error is found it could be indicated with a note of different color but the original text would not be deleted. (Removal may be necessary in case of a copyright violation.)
The testing version of the pages can be freely edited, but the contributions appear only after a moderation/review.
The unstable version would be what we have today.
For an article to make it to stable it needs to stay in testing long enough without major changes AND reviewed by several authors.
With a system like that the article in question would never made it to stable, probably not even testing.
Why not use digital signatures? I cannot wait until Thunderbird's spam solution will allow me filtering based on signatures. Then my tactic will be:
1. Apply a whitelist for prior contacts (if I send email somewhere, they should automatically get on my whitelist) 2. Check signature (existence and validity) if ok, then accept email as legitimate. (Note that the signature should cover the headers as well; this way the generation of the signature is processor time costly, so spammers will not even be able to afford it in large volumes.) 3. Discard rest of email as spam or apply more filtering.
is not the solution. The election system needs to be overhauled. My favourite idea is to use the skating system: voters rank the candidates, then 50%+1 first places mean victory; if no such candidate emerged, then consider the 1-2 rankings if that reaches 50%+1 etc.
A great advantage of the system is that if you rank a less favoured candidate first, it does not mean automatically that your vote is thrown away, since your second choice may well effect the result.
The method has mathematically proven nice properties.
Slashdot Mirror
>7 years of residency and fellowship training in which I made $50K for 80 hour weeks + overnight in hospital calls and every third weekend on call.
I know doctors and pharmacists in residency. Their stories agree with what you say: they are way overworked. I am trying to find out why the 80 hour work week etc. is so prevelent? Is it because there are not enough doctors and the residents are used as slave labor? Is it because the doctors need to be prepared/trained for emergencies (like Katrina) which may require working 20+ hours without sleep? Or is it because the previous generation did it this way and they force the newcomers to follow suit (think of hazing and draft military)?
What would take to change the practice? Why nobody sued the hospitals that they overwork the doctors, thereby endangering the patients? Would you want a loved one to be treated by a doctor who was on duty for 12+ hours and/or has to work 80 hours that week? Why nobody speaks up?
In one instance a resident's contract clearly said 40 hours a week. That is what the hospital HR was aware of. The actual work included 70+ hours including every 3 weekends (2x12 hours shifts) every fourth weekend on call, etc. The position was advertised to accrue 10 PTO-s a year, according to HR the position was not eligeble for PTO...
Strange world...
> I would love to spend an hour seeing every new patient and half an hour on every followup. I am limited on how much the HMOs will pay me to see those patients, however.
I wish I there was a plan when I could pay the doctor directly as long as I am healthy. Currently the HMO gets the profit if the client is not a patient. The doctor gets paid if there is a problem. Talk about conflicting interests.
I am on a high deductable plan. Any preventive care is 100% free for me. It makes sense to see my doctor for a preventive checkup quite often, but does she get paid comparably for that as for seeing sick people?
You are right! Ignorance is worse than stupidity. The former is much more of a choice of the individual than the latter, which is more of the result of genes, lack of education etc.
:->
I still do not get why is it an insult to call someone stupid when they are ignorant. Maybe the person making this call is ignorant as well. Honestly, I do not care!
Check the quality offered by satellite radio. Depending on the noise in the car you may decide for or against the whole concept.
I do not wish to support exclusionary/bundling technology/business models. I hate cable TV for channel bundling, wireless phone service providers restricting your equipment choice, why would we need more of this kind of idiocy?
I personally will rather look for a connector for my music player. A built in player which works with a memory card may also get consideration.
I almost 100% agree. The nonintelligent investors deserve to be cleaned out. (Same goes for pyramid game victims etc.)
The only problem is that the group of spammers get richer without a constructive contribution to the market evaluation. Their power increases (monetarily) and they can levy that against everybody, not just the stupid. (By the way, I just got on some return address forging list so I get about 20 returned email spam a day. Those idiot admins; worse than spammers. If this goes on for another week, I sign up for a spamcop account and hope all those unable to configure an MTA will be blacklisted.)
So I support action against these spammers, but no restitution to those scammed this way.
I am aware of (some of) the problems regarding solar cells. I have researched the issue a couple month ago (and decided against it for the moment). Similar issues arise with the electric car concept: he battery technology (manufacture and operational efficiency, etc) still needs improvement to make that environmentally the right choice.
I did not mean to argue that the technology presented was worth it today, rather that it has the potential. I pointed out the fallacy of the argument used to devalue it. We will eventually have to come up with some new and better ways and research like this may be one step. Having the first reaction to any new research that it is not a financially sound choice today is misguided, IMHO.
Your argument fails to take into account that if you were to pay the REAL price for the energy we use, then the equation would be the other way around. The real price includes the extraction of any pollutants created in the process, etc. The reason that being green is not financially beneficial is simple: we live up the non-renewable (unless you count million years...) resources and create pollution for free or for under market price. If I had a say in how much pollution should cost (market pressure!!) depending on the effects on me and my environment than you bet it would be more expansive to pollute.
The problem is that the people in power decided to support and maintain a model with the pollution in place, while the profits they gain they use to insulate themselves from the results. Even sadder that the electing public is letting them do this.
Furthermore, the TVM concept is based on the assumption of continuued expansion, economic growth. However, this model is not clear that will be sustainable (especially regarding its energy needs). I personally think the growth is possible, but like some sci-fi writers I am of the opinion that colonization of other planets is unavoidable for this to be the case. The recent Moon colony project announcement is a step in the right direction, but otherwise the decision makers generally despise scientific spending like Hubble, space station, NASA expenses , education etc.
Do not get me wrong. I will not be able to afford this either (for a while at least).
Today we constantly borrow from the future generations by leaving problems they will have to solve , while depleting the resources. (A joke: "And what is the problem? What did the future generation do for us lately?")
With the real price of pollution in place much less could be done today. So much less that it could result in stagnation. So I accept that we borrow from the future, but we should make an effort to work on solving the problem. The reported story is exactly such an effort.
> inventor's right to say, "I'll show you how to do X if you promise to do Y."
Except I have no option of responding: "Keep it to yourself, I will invent it myself instead. (Because it is obvious or I have also worked on it already etc.)" I am forced to do Y even if I do not benefit from X, or give up work that I have done already that may naturally lead to X.
I do not claim that I know how to foster and protect ideas. I know however that in my work I have to come up with NEW ideas over and over, and I have no option to have ONE idea and pull a lifetime of benefits out of it.
I left out from the above comment:P IIS0092867406014656
The latest (2006) article at
http://www.cell.com/content/article/abstract?uid=
mentions The Jackson Laboratory, but that is not appear to be traded.
> I know I know. They want hype and venture capital[...]
My first thought was to buy shares in the company that will likely produce a drug. I even looked up the following paper:
Shawn Winer, Igor Astsaturov, Roger Gaedigk, Denise Hammond-McKibben, Marc Pilon, Aihua Song, Violetta Kubiak, Wolfram Karges, Enrico Arpaia, Colin McKerlie, Peter Zucker, Bhagirath Singh, and H.-Michael Dosch
ICA69null Nonobese Diabetic Mice Develop Diabetes, but Resist Disease Acceleration by Cyclophosphamide
J. Immunol., Jan 2002; 168: 475 - 482.
*......prevents autoimmune diabetes in NOD mice. Diabetes 43 : 1494 . 14 Karges...speed congenic stock of NOD.Ig M null mice. J. Exp. Med. 184 : 2049 . 29...nutritional diabetes prevention in NOD mice: a pilot study for the cows milk-based......
(As you see this is an older related publication.) I was hoping to find some reference to any company that the authors may have connection to. I have not succeeded in this effort yet. Maybe I could email the authors...
I do not mind the premature reporting; but I wished they could point me to the stock ticker as well!
"...but how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?"
And how long before someone (foreign or domestic adversary) will disrupt the presidents speach making him look like an idiot while forced to say goodbye to his podium?
The interesing question at this point: how can we detect the use of this weapon? Is the beam visable with some special glasses?
Google and wikipedia searches bring up:
"You can blame U.S. road-sign regulations for some of the HID glare. U.S. signs aren't universally lighted and don't all reflect light the same. Thus, headlights have to throw some light upward and outward, to make sure you can read overhead and roadside signs, according to federal regulations.
In Europe, home of most of the world's 2 million HID-lighted vehicles, glare seldom is mentioned. European road signs routinely and consistently are lighted, so headlights needn't beam up and, in fact, are required not to. That keeps the light out of other drivers' eyes."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight :
"There are two different beam pattern and headlamp construction standards in use in the world: The UNECE ("United Nations Economic Commission for Europe") standard, which is allowed or required in virtually all industrialized countries except the United States, and the SAE standard that is mandatory only in the US. The differences between the two standards are primarily in the amount of glare permitted towards other drivers on low beam (SAE permits much more glare), the minimum amount of light required to be thrown straight down the road (SAE requires more), and the specific locations within the beam at which minimum and maximum light levels are specified. ECE low beams are characterized by a distinct horizontal "cutoff" line at the top of the beam. Below the line is bright, and above is dark. On the side of the beam facing away from oncoming traffic (right in right-traffic countries, left in left-traffic countries), this cutoff sweeps or steps upward to direct light to road signs and pedestrians. SAE low beams may or may not have a cutoff, and if a cutoff is present, it may be of several different forms. Proponents of each system decry the other as inadequate and unsafe: U.S. proponents of the SAE system claim that the ECE low beam cutoff gives short seeing distances and inadequate illumination for overhead road signs, while international proponents of the ECE system claim that the SAE system produces too much glare."
The cars in the USA may have well used asymmetric headlights since the 1960. However, the exact specs of what is mandated are different from those used in Europe. My personal experience matches what is described above: to much glare to oncoming traffic in the USA.
I do not drive an SUV in fact annoyed by their lights like you. However not the height is the problem. The light can be adjusted to point at the road (gasp!). I have encountered several quite high 18 wheelers of which lights did not bother me at all.
Another useful feature is: assymetric lights as is mandated in Europe. This means more light projected on the right of the road where stalled vehicles, people, deer may stand. (Deer from the left leaves you more time than from the right.) However, I saw assymetric lights in the US which were brighter on the left side!
A mirror or a prism in the back window may keep these idiots driving too close. I know someone who installed foglights in the back and turned it on when being tailgated at night. I do not condone that behaviour, the passive prism defence seems more appropriate.
If you ever wondered why some drivers insist on driving below the speed limit on multilane highways in the leftmost lane (or just driving slower than the cars around) I tell you a story that will enlighten you.
I sat in the passenger seat of a car once while we drove on a 5 lane highway in the leftmost lane with speed +-2 of the limit. I started to feel uncomfortable when the second car passed from the right (we could have headed for a left exit I thought earlier). This kept repeating, and moreover the other drivers looked at us when passing from the right, they could make eye contact only with me of course.
I was taught that if you are passed from the right it is as being "shamed", like a big note stuck on your car announcing that you are a jerk. So, finally I could not take this anymore, and asked the driver why we not move over to the right. The driver said: " I belong to this lane." I knew that I do not belong in that car...
The Washington post comment (linked from the topic summary) says that the president lied about Rumsfeld bieng replaced:
"It is now conclusively clear that President Bush lied last week, several days before the election, when he vowed definitively to reporters that Donald Rumsfeld would remain as Defense Secretary for the next two years. At the time he made that statement, he was deep into the process of replacing Rumsfeld, if not already finished, and the President knew that the statement he made about Rumsfeld was false at the time he made it. That is the definition of "lying.""
I do not agree with that definition of lying. It is also required that the person asking for the information has the right ot ask the question. For example, if you ask me how often I have sex and I answer that every day and it turns out that the correct answer is 5 times a week, than that is not a lie, simply you had no right to get the information. It may be argued that I should have just declined to answer, however often that reveals crucial information on its own, so deception is needed to protect my privacy.
The president and some other government officials should be allowed to not tell the truth on certain state matters, when telling the truth would actually cause harm to the majority. As an example consider a journalist asking about the exact time of the response attack to Pearl Harbor. This information would not have been wise to disclose. (Again, telling an untruth may be needed if the question is: "Is the attack tomorrow?")
As another example consider a question to Ben Bernanke about the next fed interest rate action. He is not obliged to tell the truth because it could cause economic harm (the action is timed for a purpose after all and prior knowledge may alter the effects).
Now in this case I think it is the Presidents right to select who he works with, so anyone expecting a truthful answer was mistaken. They should have the same expectation about the truthfulness of the answer if they say asked Bush about his REAL opinion on how the war in Iraq goes or whether he thinks the Republicans will lose the midterm elections. (The opinions are his and he can keep them secret.)
Along these lines I think that Clinton has not lied about having sex with that woman. I do not consider the people asking him that question had the right for that information.
Quotes from the article:
""Open-source doesn't mean free," he told BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme."
Does not mean free as in beer.
"...you have a support contract that goes with it - it's an essential part of operating that software."
Why *that* software? I fail to see why a contract is needed for an OSS solution when it is not needed for a proprietary solution. This may be the case if OSS is inferior; that is asserted *implicitly*, not good. I personally do not think that statement is true or not in general at least.
"Over time, that can actually cost more than having Windows on an enterprise machine."
Plus support contract with MS? Forced upgrades factored in? (If I wanted to counter troll I would ask downtime also counted?)
"We are a funding organisation that ships £90m around the world - the last thing you want to do is open up your systems to anybody to have a look at to deal with bugs,"
This security through obscurity is teared to parts by slashdot posters every time... I wish them that their MS solution would never be hacked.
"So you do need a support model in place. But one of the things that we find is that Microsoft is viewed as the big, bad organisation - but they've actually got some good corporate social responsibility."
Maybe MS offers better terms in this regard in their licences now. They used to basically take no responsibility for anything their software does. Maybe when you buy a support contract today and download patches in a timely manner you get some money back if you get hacked or lose data? Someone in the know could fill in here.
"He stressed that it was important for charities to maximise the benefit of the donations they receive, and as a result, using Microsoft appeared a better option."
Logically the above amounts to SISO (shit in shit out), in other words a mathematician would say that from 'false' we can prove anything.
"When you think of charities, we think they are liberal organisations with woolley-jumpered amateurs - but really, we've got a duty of care to our supporters," he said.
This appears to be a sting at liberals; accusing them for lack of sense of duty, while distancing themselves from that group. I let the liberals answer this one.
Anyway, go read it for yourself. Or not. You will not lose much.
I read a few comments on the talk pages. It was interesting to see how the problem was approached and dealt with. My conclusion is that Wikipedia needs releases like Linux distros.
The user could indicate in a profile whether she wants stable/testing or unstable pages, maybe even sections/volumes whatever could be separately specified.
The stable version could only be edited by assigned editors and mostly for typos and broken references and such. If an error is found it could be indicated with a note of different color but the original text would not be deleted. (Removal may be necessary in case of a copyright violation.)
The testing version of the pages can be freely edited, but the contributions appear only after a moderation/review.
The unstable version would be what we have today.
For an article to make it to stable it needs to stay in testing long enough without major changes AND reviewed by several authors.
With a system like that the article in question would never made it to stable, probably not even testing.
Matyas
An email with HTML and images can be safely classified as spam. I would not expect an image in an email unless it is from a whitelisted contact.
Why not use digital signatures? I cannot wait until Thunderbird's spam solution will allow me filtering based on signatures. Then my tactic will be:
1. Apply a whitelist for prior contacts (if I send email somewhere, they should automatically get on my whitelist)
2. Check signature (existence and validity) if ok, then accept email as legitimate. (Note that the signature should cover the headers as well; this way the generation of the signature is processor time costly, so spammers will not even be able to afford it in large volumes.)
3. Discard rest of email as spam or apply more filtering.
I already digitally sign all my emails.
I find most of your points insightful. However:
> 3. Force people to vote.
is not the solution. The election system needs to be overhauled. My favourite idea is to use the skating system: voters rank the candidates, then 50%+1 first places mean victory; if no such candidate emerged, then consider the 1-2 rankings if that reaches 50%+1 etc.
A great advantage of the system is that if you rank a less favoured candidate first, it does not mean automatically that your vote is thrown away, since your second choice may well effect the result.
The method has mathematically proven nice properties.
Actually, ID checking at the gate is not uncommon. It has happened to me on several international flight segments.
Good observation. http://diamondnexuslabs.com/jewelry/information/ch art_comparison.htm
also indicates that the hardness does not equal that of diamonds, in fact falls behind Moissonite as well.
See: http://diamondnexuslabs.com/
They have been selling clear man made diamonds for a year at least.
You may also check out: http://diamondnexuslabs.com/
Ooops, needs flash 8...