I imagine if such legislation did exist it would be similar to 'negligence' no specific definition but if something goes wrong there is a legal tool to examine it.
From from reading the woman's rebuttal, it sounds like at least some of their concern comes from the worry that people other then the patient would opt for suicide or people would take advantage of a suggestible, easily pressured, or outright not in their right state of mind person and have them sign the papers.
So while I think they are overblowing the risk, I can see where they can worry that such a system could be abused against a rather vulnerable population. The closest example I could think of would be something like sex with children, protecting a vulnerable group from actions of more cognizant people when their own mental facilities are impaired or undeveloped.
Since I have a really slow upgrade cycle, I am mostly just holding out hope that Apple releases a more maintainable MBP again sometime over the next few years. I found my 2006 MBP to be surprisingly maintainable, with parts easy to get and swap out, but nothing was glued in place. Every once in a while I poke around to see if there are any others that I like but so far not much luck.
Dialing it back would probably be a good idea, but this type of rhetoric is pretty normal. Look at any news story involving rape, murder, torture, etc, and the comments section is filled with people who wish pain and death upon those responsible.
In this case you have a group of well intentioned people who's activism is resulting in pain and suffering. While the activists involved try to see themselves as disconnected from the consequences and keep it impersonal, to someone where it is personal, that separation is rather false.
Saunders's response was rather confusing, esp the closing "Me, I don't want to live in a world where one group of people decides when another group should die."
I guess it is not oppression as long as the choice you want is the one being mandated.
Yeah, postdoc stuff really seems to either be mandatory or irrelevant (bordering on a negative), with very little in between. Either way, if one is looking for money, they are the wrong way to go. Postdocs are generally for people really passionate about a subject, not people who just want a well paying job.
(to add) historically we have already seen this with IQ tests. Intelligence is a very complicated thing to try to measure, so IQ tests generally measured a very narrow band of traits that just happened to match up with what certain groups already associated with themselves. Magically they tended to show that white middle/upper class males born in the US did surprisingly well.
It has been discussed in terms of a potential point of money laundering, same as gold and other such methods. Last I checked, 'powers that be' are not exactly shaking in their boots because gold and silver exist either.
Outside conspiracy theories and an inflated sense of self importance, I have seen nothing to indicate that banks and governments are all that worried about BTC outside a few very narrow issues that are just new versions of old problems.
Well, at least one possibility is that they would not really 'counterfeit' if there was a flaw that allowed for creating new bitcoins (or even there being some kind of pre-generated cache) at a much lower computational complexity. Or some other flaw that would allow a small number of machines to invalidate parts of the blockchain and make other people's coins get wiped, or even somehow transfered away from them.
Yeah, they seem to have this strange combination of an entitlement attitude and victimhood, blaming the rest of civilization for them not being in a better place and how magically if things were different they would be on top.
Eh, when you have that much political power (or the military behind you), the criteria for genetic fitness has an odd way of adjusting to whoever is already in charge.
That tends to be the tradeoff, when monarchies work well they work really well, and when they work badly they work really badly. Democracy tend to pull things more to the center, so things never work all that well, but they do not get nearly as bad either.
As is often the case with rose tinted glasses, I guess some people are looking back to the best cases and not really thinking about what also goes wrong and why we moved away from those structures in the first place.
I think the point is not that it should be illegal to save an image from a website, but that preventing companies from lifting people's work and reselling it is something that requires a legal response rather then a technological one.
People are likely concerned for the same reason they worry about protocols or algorithms put out by the NSA... the twinge worry that the creator slipped something into the math that others have not found yet.
Civil War seems more likely. All of this posturing seems to be more intended to impress their own people then outsiders and can be read as a government nervous about keeping its all powerful image to an increasingly wealthy population.
Sad thing is, much of the behavior one sees out of federal contracts is due to taxpayer groups demanding anti-corruption measures. A great deal of the bureaucracy comes directly from people complaining about waste and demanding a complex audible process.
I would actually put forward that the problem is not the government, our government is pathetically weak in many ways. The problem are all the private groups flexing their muscles and making the government dance. Most of the people I have worked with on these kinds of projects are good people who just want to get stuff done, but they are weighted down by a nearly impossible set of requirements, many of which are mutually exclusive, dropped on them by outside groups who mainly are interested in showing off their power to their own people and have no investment in the project itself being successful.... and often have an active interest in the project failing since they can always use that as fuel for more personal power.
It is also possible that someone high on the chain was simply enthusiastic about it for no apparent reason. Several projects I have worked on used inappropriate databases because someone with enough technical knowledge thought it would be a good idea and their persistant insanity was enough to get it chosen.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine if such legislation did exist it would be similar to 'negligence' no specific definition but if something goes wrong there is a legal tool to examine it.
Though it sounded like in this case there was no specific format or procedure, just one person's personal opinion.
From from reading the woman's rebuttal, it sounds like at least some of their concern comes from the worry that people other then the patient would opt for suicide or people would take advantage of a suggestible, easily pressured, or outright not in their right state of mind person and have them sign the papers.
So while I think they are overblowing the risk, I can see where they can worry that such a system could be abused against a rather vulnerable population. The closest example I could think of would be something like sex with children, protecting a vulnerable group from actions of more cognizant people when their own mental facilities are impaired or undeveloped.
Since I have a really slow upgrade cycle, I am mostly just holding out hope that Apple releases a more maintainable MBP again sometime over the next few years. I found my 2006 MBP to be surprisingly maintainable, with parts easy to get and swap out, but nothing was glued in place. Every once in a while I poke around to see if there are any others that I like but so far not much luck.
Left and Right.
Esp when I do not really see any win there in the first place. I am actually kinda surprised she didn't goodwin.
Dialing it back would probably be a good idea, but this type of rhetoric is pretty normal. Look at any news story involving rape, murder, torture, etc, and the comments section is filled with people who wish pain and death upon those responsible.
In this case you have a group of well intentioned people who's activism is resulting in pain and suffering. While the activists involved try to see themselves as disconnected from the consequences and keep it impersonal, to someone where it is personal, that separation is rather false.
Saunders's response was rather confusing, esp the closing "Me, I don't want to live in a world where one group of people decides when another group should die."
I guess it is not oppression as long as the choice you want is the one being mandated.
Yeah, postdoc stuff really seems to either be mandatory or irrelevant (bordering on a negative), with very little in between. Either way, if one is looking for money, they are the wrong way to go. Postdocs are generally for people really passionate about a subject, not people who just want a well paying job.
I don't know, I see a lot of conservative garbage come out of their reporting too.....
Who needs to bash 'experts' when we have 'BBC investigation'. Parts of the BBC do some great reporting, but most of it is tabloid level irresponsible.
At least one generalization is probably true... a lot of people are hypocritical jerks. As are horses.
(to add) historically we have already seen this with IQ tests. Intelligence is a very complicated thing to try to measure, so IQ tests generally measured a very narrow band of traits that just happened to match up with what certain groups already associated with themselves. Magically they tended to show that white middle/upper class males born in the US did surprisingly well.
It has been discussed in terms of a potential point of money laundering, same as gold and other such methods. Last I checked, 'powers that be' are not exactly shaking in their boots because gold and silver exist either.
Outside conspiracy theories and an inflated sense of self importance, I have seen nothing to indicate that banks and governments are all that worried about BTC outside a few very narrow issues that are just new versions of old problems.
Well, at least one possibility is that they would not really 'counterfeit' if there was a flaw that allowed for creating new bitcoins (or even there being some kind of pre-generated cache) at a much lower computational complexity. Or some other flaw that would allow a small number of machines to invalidate parts of the blockchain and make other people's coins get wiped, or even somehow transfered away from them.
Yeah, they seem to have this strange combination of an entitlement attitude and victimhood, blaming the rest of civilization for them not being in a better place and how magically if things were different they would be on top.
Eh, when you have that much political power (or the military behind you), the criteria for genetic fitness has an odd way of adjusting to whoever is already in charge.
That tends to be the tradeoff, when monarchies work well they work really well, and when they work badly they work really badly. Democracy tend to pull things more to the center, so things never work all that well, but they do not get nearly as bad either.
As is often the case with rose tinted glasses, I guess some people are looking back to the best cases and not really thinking about what also goes wrong and why we moved away from those structures in the first place.
I think the point is not that it should be illegal to save an image from a website, but that preventing companies from lifting people's work and reselling it is something that requires a legal response rather then a technological one.
People are likely concerned for the same reason they worry about protocols or algorithms put out by the NSA... the twinge worry that the creator slipped something into the math that others have not found yet.
The powers that be do not really care.
Given how often Chinese companies copy US designs verbatim, it is actually a bit of a toss up there.
Civil War seems more likely. All of this posturing seems to be more intended to impress their own people then outsiders and can be read as a government nervous about keeping its all powerful image to an increasingly wealthy population.
Sad thing is, much of the behavior one sees out of federal contracts is due to taxpayer groups demanding anti-corruption measures. A great deal of the bureaucracy comes directly from people complaining about waste and demanding a complex audible process.
I would actually put forward that the problem is not the government, our government is pathetically weak in many ways. The problem are all the private groups flexing their muscles and making the government dance. Most of the people I have worked with on these kinds of projects are good people who just want to get stuff done, but they are weighted down by a nearly impossible set of requirements, many of which are mutually exclusive, dropped on them by outside groups who mainly are interested in showing off their power to their own people and have no investment in the project itself being successful.... and often have an active interest in the project failing since they can always use that as fuel for more personal power.
It is also possible that someone high on the chain was simply enthusiastic about it for no apparent reason. Several projects I have worked on used inappropriate databases because someone with enough technical knowledge thought it would be a good idea and their persistant insanity was enough to get it chosen.