But the ability to plug in a mouse and keyboard, an external display, and a wired network, and still having at least one USB port for an external hard drive or a flash drive or to charge your phone or whatever IS universally better than not being able to do that.
This is why nearly all laptops from all other companies have 2-4 USB ports, a display out, a network jack, and a headphone jack.
Apple may have gone too far in that direction
Apple's always had its head up its ass. From the day it released the original imac and single handedly created a market for usb floppy drives and adb to usb adapters. PCs may have kept PS/2 and floppy drives around longer than anyone needed them, but at not needing a port and having it is far less annoying than needing it an not having it.
I can forgive it somewhat on the macbook air line; that's all about cutting off everything to make it small and light and that's fine.... but taking away the ethernet port on the pro was idiotic. Sure I can buy an over priced thunderbolt adapter and carry it around everywhere... but I shouldn't have to. A pro laptop should be able to connect to a wired network out of the box. If that makes the unit 1mm thicker so be it... fill the space with battery and/or improve ventilation so it stays cool.
Are you trolling? Do you know what "net neutrality" actually is? Did you read even the first sentence of the article you linked to?
"The law is designed to ensure internet providers treat all data equally"
"The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access."
It has nothing to do with copyright protection, nothing to do with blocking sites or censorship. It has to do with the practice of charging content providers on top of what they charge customers, and/or throttling some content providers to give other providers (usually themselves) a competitive advantage over the 3rd party service.
As in:
"gee customer... youtube sure is slow (because we throttle it without telling you) perhaps you'd like to try comcast-tube its much faster!"
Or
"gee youtube... if you want your data to reach our customers on the internet connections our customers are already paying us for... then you have to pay us too, whatever we want, or it will be miserable for them to reach your site and they'll stop using youtube. PS... have you seen our new comcast-tube? Its neat-o!"
Friend, if you let people get close enough to your hardware to muck with your thunderbolt connector, you didn't have any security anyway.
Nothing is ever 100% secure. Ever. The question is ALWAYS one of degree.
You wrongly place no recognition on the degree and went straight to absolutes.
If I leave my car in a parking lot and walk into a store. Someone can steal it. Period. They can fly up with a helicopter, rappel down, throw some straps around it, and fly away with it.
So therefore I shouldn't bother locking the doors, and should just leave the keys in the ignition?
Because as long as I didn't have something in place to stop that helicopter scenario I didn't have any security anyway?
Their are worlds of difference between plugging my laptop into a projector and it silently pwning the system or installing trojans on it while I make a presentation and someone taking a torch and saw to my laptop. Don't pretend that there aren't.
Physical access means you have already 100% given up on security; you either trust everyone who has such access 100%
Not even close. Again... I leave my car unattended in parking lots all the time. I don't remotely trust everyone who might walk by. Between the closed windows, door locks, electronic immobilizer, and so on -- I know the car can still be stolen, even stolen quite easily... but hopefully not so easily that anyone will actually go to the trouble.
Should I just leave the door open and the key in the ignition? Because that's exactly the same thing, right?
Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them? Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.
Why are you arguing with him about whether views worth having are worth defending? Clearly you don't need to respond. Either his view on that subject holds up or it doesn't. Right?
They are well-supported by established evidence. All views should be treated with a commensurate level of skepticism based on the evidence available to support them.
Presenting evidence to support a view is defending that view. So we shouldn't defend point of view; because the evidence (that nobody would now be gathering and presenting) should speak for itself?
First, it's effectively PCIe - that should already start brewing ideas
Yes. Very cool malicious / malware ideas.
Someone steals your powered on but locked laptop, and just dumps the memory and disk contents by plugging in a cable.
You go to company-X to or a conference to make a presentation, plug into their (modified) projector, and it quietly steals all your data, email, etc... a little fun industrial espionage.
Or maybe it just quietly installs some trojan software so they can look at your laptop later...
Why they chose to present it like that, instead of scientific notation, I'll never know but there it is.
This is a discrete mathematics problem. There are exactly that many positions. Not one more, not one less, with no measurement error nor variance. And the question they set out to answer was what precisely was this exact number. To not report the result in full would be absurd.
This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.
An author's themes probing the questions and answers the culture he was raised in grappled with?
You hear this sort of stuff all the time if you pay any attention to Chinese state media... planned economies are best, the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit, Western ideas have failed, and so on.
None of those are remotely settled questions; and all of them are frequently explored in SF.
If anything, these books demonstrate the poverty of a literary scene where everybody has to constantly watch what they say.
Are you high right now? Or just close minded? Or perhaps both?
What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?
For what its worth, a goodly number of Star Trek episodes revolve around what we think of the form of government used by aliens. And in some cases interfering to forcibly alter it.
It replaces sytsemd [I assume you mean init.d] and more besides
The "and more besides" is the vague poorly defined part.
and does a better job.
In many cases yes.
People are crying over it because of some misplaced loyalty to a shitty, broken, half assed system that might have passed muster in 1990 but should have been long replaced.
Their loyalty is to modularity of the existing system, not the existing system itself. If systemd was more modular, less tightly integrated and interdependent there would be no real objection to it.
If some whiners got over themselves they'll realise that systemd is vastly superior in every respective.
Except that once it's entrenched it can't be replaced with something even better in the future. It can't be improved one piece at a time, because its all or nothing and tightly integrated. A better event logging system can't arise independently because the rest of systemd won't work with it.
Its a golden cage... even if we agreed that it is nicer than where we live today (many do, many do not but that's beside the point): once your inside your stuck with it.
let's think about this for a moment... something that reflects photons... hmm...
I cannot think of a single thing.
What would happen if you fired a laser gun at a mirror?
Some energy would be reflected. Some would be absorbed.
Throw enough energy at it, it still burns up. Elementary physics.
And that's assuming you shoot a laser at a mirror. An orbiting laser weapon platform is NOT a mirror. Its not even slightly plausible that you could make the entire surface -- from the weapon itself to the communications antennae to the maneuvering thrusters all sufficiently reflective that you'd be immune from a ground based laser attack.
Worse the energy getting absorbed would heat, distort, discolor etc the relfective finish making it increasingly less effective.
Not to mention the reflective surface would degrade over time from micro-debris impacts.
Meanwhile ground based opponents wouldn't even be limited to one laser -- they could concentrate their entire arsenal at it.
Imagine a satellite ( or something like the ISS ) based weapon that will fire an invisible high-kilowatt ( or even megawatt ) beam on any target it can see from orbit. Maybe combine a few of these satellites onto the same target for even more power output.
If any nation had one and started using it in the ways you suggest, how long before opposed nations would knock it down.
After all, what is its defense against a ground based laser shooting back at it?
what exactly is systemd and why do we keep hearing so much about it?
Part of the problem is that its poorly defined. It's touted as a replacement for the init system. (The system that manages other services. So for a windows user it's core functions as the services host process -- its where you can start and stop services, determine which startup at system startup. Stop them. See which are running. Restart crashed services, etc. It does startup in parallel so it's faster than the traditional init system.
But doesn't just replace init, it relplaces cron (the task scheduling system -- "scheduled backups and such" not "cpu thread scheduling"; it replaces the event logging system, it replaces the login system...
The unix philospophy is for components to be small and do one thing well and to to let users build a system out of the different pieces they want. systemd is big and tightly integrated and more of an all-or-nothing and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
And the main valid criticisms of are (IMHO)
1) Binary logging -- the advantages of the systemd logging system are apparent, but there are disadvantages too; users should have
2) It potentially creates a layer between kernel and the rest of the system that becomes entrenched and irreplaceable. As applications going forward will develop dependencies on the rich services of systemd it will become impossible to replace systemd with anything else, except maybe a fork of systemd. (This rubs a lot of people the wrong way.)
3) the rich service layer and tight integration stifles innovation; for example assuming systemd has traction someone can't make a "better cron" now, because that functionality is part of systemd. They can't make a better init-only system because applications will be relying on all the other services of systemd.
4) it gets between the rest of the system and the kernel, and in many cases you have to work through systemd and can't just go to the kernel. This has its good points, but also its problems and further entrenches systemd.
Perhaps GNU/Linux systems with systemd should properly be called GNU/systemd/Linux systems to emphasize the point.
I don't personally hate systemd; I recognize a lot of thing it does are good for large parts of the linux user base. But I do agree with the 'haters'; that its not modular enough and that leads to several valid complaints.
I doesn't help that the egos involved on all sides are large and uncompromising.
Bad example -- they agree not to spill it as a condition of employment, and are bound to it during, and after employment.
So if you violate an employement contract its a criminal offense? That you can be arrested for, and go to jail for? Noooope... its a civil contract dispute... employer can sue for damages, that's about it; even if the employer is the federal government.
There are ways of dealing with this scenario. The simplest being, don't keep the information on the laptop. After entering the country, use VPN or some other secure means of downloading the data.
Rule number ONE of information security is that if you don't want it leaked online... DONT PUT IT ONLINE.
So your solution is not good enough.
You ask that I trade the physical security of an encrypted, air-gapped unit, physically in my hands with a solution that entails all kinds of possible network threats. MITM, SSL vulnerability, zero-day attacks, certificate compromises... and suggest this will improve my security??
No.
Not to mention that it assumes you're moving relatively small amounts of information between countries with good internet access... what if your destination just has shitty internet?
Plus if you legitimize their right to inspect all data at the border, then your just a hop and skip away from giving them the right to inspect your vpn traffic as it crosses the border; and they would be within their rights to demand the encryption keys from you or block your vpn connection. Some governments are already moving in this direction.
So your argument that "don't take it across the boder this way"... "take it across the border this other way" sort of falls completely on its face. Once you say "they can inspect and require you to decrypt data crossing the border" then your VPN is next.
but for most business related cases I would think this would be an acceptable workaround.
For most legitimate business related cases border security wouldn't really be a risk, even if you gave them the password, and let them fish around in your laptop. They wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to capitalize on it.
But its the principal of the thing; they really have no business being in there. And there is a chance they could learn or reveal something that is damaging.
Frankly, it seems to me the best solution right now; is to ship yourself the data by traceable courier. Small chance it is lost or confiscated at the border. But they don't get anything valuable if that happens, and you can't be arrested on the spot.
I'd always heard that the name for people from Quebec was "Quebecois."
That's a valid term as well and the more common one to my ears at least.
"Quebecker" sounds like some kind of anti-French reactionary thing, kind of like how some feminists insist on non-standard spellings of gender-related words
Its not so extreme as to be anti-french.
Quebecois is a francophone term. Its pronounced roughly kay-bek-wah. Most anglophones don't pronounce Quebec ("kay-bek") they pronounce it roughly "kwuh-beck". And "Quebecois" doesn't really anglicize well... so Quebecker is pretty common and not meant to be offensive nor anti-french.
That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
A person who backs the bill, who perhaps could and should have said something a LOT MORE INTELLIGENT about it.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
So then what is the REAL dispute? That would lead a president to veto it? Or is this whole debate the syphility ramblings of a 24 hour media cycle that can't seem to find any real news to report on in a world of 6 billion people with nearly uncountable real issues to investigate? (And despite my sarcasm... I count that possibility as entirely plausible.)
Sorry, you don't get to redefine science as "Something a scientist told me."
I never did. So... there's that.
There is no shortage of people willing to make statements in the authoritative tone, and the stupid and undisciplined accept that as a way to avoid that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. I'm not among them, are you?
Again... nobody is redefining science. What are you on about?
If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.
One can (and should) post the methodology and results without revealing confidential patient health information, sufficient that another group could reproduce the study.
You do not need to know the names of the participants, and have access to their medical records to reproduce the study. Find your own patients and reproduce the published methodology to lend weight or cast doubt on the original study.
That's how medical research should be done.
If you want a faith based approach to law making...
If I propose we serve beef burgers, and a vegetarian selection at a picnic and someone says, hey that sounds like maybe your suggesting we serve vegetarian PEOPLE as food?!!!
Would I say... "Not to worry, vegetarians may choose to opt-out of eating or being eaten."
Or... would I say? Are you nuts? I obviously didn't mean it that way. Fine, whatever... "I propose we serve beef hot dogs and a green salad"? We good?.. Lets move on.
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?
Slashdot Mirror
More ports is not universally better.
Nobody is making THAT claim.
But the ability to plug in a mouse and keyboard, an external display, and a wired network, and still having at least one USB port for an external hard drive or a flash drive or to charge your phone or whatever IS universally better than not being able to do that.
This is why nearly all laptops from all other companies have 2-4 USB ports, a display out, a network jack, and a headphone jack.
Apple may have gone too far in that direction
Apple's always had its head up its ass. From the day it released the original imac and single handedly created a market for usb floppy drives and adb to usb adapters. PCs may have kept PS/2 and floppy drives around longer than anyone needed them, but at not needing a port and having it is far less annoying than needing it an not having it.
I can forgive it somewhat on the macbook air line; that's all about cutting off everything to make it small and light and that's fine. ... but taking away the ethernet port on the pro was idiotic. Sure I can buy an over priced thunderbolt adapter and carry it around everywhere... but I shouldn't have to. A pro laptop should be able to connect to a wired network out of the box. If that makes the unit 1mm thicker so be it... fill the space with battery and/or improve ventilation so it stays cool.
Are you trolling? Do you know what "net neutrality" actually is? Did you read even the first sentence of the article you linked to?
"The law is designed to ensure internet providers treat all data equally"
"The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access."
It has nothing to do with copyright protection, nothing to do with blocking sites or censorship. It has to do with the practice of charging content providers on top of what they charge customers, and/or throttling some content providers to give other providers (usually themselves) a competitive advantage over the 3rd party service.
As in:
"gee customer... youtube sure is slow (because we throttle it without telling you) perhaps you'd like to try comcast-tube its much faster!"
Or
"gee youtube... if you want your data to reach our customers on the internet connections our customers are already paying us for... then you have to pay us too, whatever we want, or it will be miserable for them to reach your site and they'll stop using youtube. PS... have you seen our new comcast-tube? Its neat-o!"
Friend, if you let people get close enough to your hardware to muck with your thunderbolt connector, you didn't have any security anyway.
Nothing is ever 100% secure. Ever. The question is ALWAYS one of degree.
You wrongly place no recognition on the degree and went straight to absolutes.
If I leave my car in a parking lot and walk into a store. Someone can steal it. Period. They can fly up with a helicopter, rappel down, throw some straps around it, and fly away with it.
So therefore I shouldn't bother locking the doors, and should just leave the keys in the ignition?
Because as long as I didn't have something in place to stop that helicopter scenario I didn't have any security anyway?
Their are worlds of difference between plugging my laptop into a projector and it silently pwning the system or installing trojans on it while I make a presentation and someone taking a torch and saw to my laptop. Don't pretend that there aren't.
Physical access means you have already 100% given up on security; you either trust everyone who has such access 100%
Not even close. Again... I leave my car unattended in parking lots all the time. I don't remotely trust everyone who might walk by. Between the closed windows, door locks, electronic immobilizer, and so on -- I know the car can still be stolen, even stolen quite easily... but hopefully not so easily that anyone will actually go to the trouble.
Should I just leave the door open and the key in the ignition? Because that's exactly the same thing, right?
Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them? Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.
Why are you arguing with him about whether views worth having are worth defending? Clearly you don't need to respond. Either his view on that subject holds up or it doesn't. Right?
They are well-supported by established evidence. All views should be treated with a commensurate level of skepticism based on the evidence available to support them.
Presenting evidence to support a view is defending that view. So we shouldn't defend point of view; because the evidence (that nobody would now be gathering and presenting) should speak for itself?
First, it's effectively PCIe - that should already start brewing ideas
Yes. Very cool malicious / malware ideas.
Someone steals your powered on but locked laptop, and just dumps the memory and disk contents by plugging in a cable.
You go to company-X to or a conference to make a presentation, plug into their (modified) projector, and it quietly steals all your data, email, etc... a little fun industrial espionage.
Or maybe it just quietly installs some trojan software so they can look at your laptop later...
Facebook will be down for weeks.
Fingers crossed. Is there anything I can do to help make it happen?
So, 2x10^0=2x1=1.
You might want to check your math.
I predict a face palm in your near future. :)
I have exactly 2 feet.
of 2.00000000 x 10^0
kind of both mean the same thing
"Kind of" is correct.
They are not exactly the same thing.
Why they chose to present it like that, instead of scientific notation, I'll never know but there it is.
This is a discrete mathematics problem. There are exactly that many positions. Not one more, not one less, with no measurement error nor variance. And the question they set out to answer was what precisely was this exact number. To not report the result in full would be absurd.
the pilots would never be overcome by the smoke, they have an independent oxygen supply
And it can't malfunction? I'm not saying its likely that's what happened, but we can't really rule it out of hand.
Interesting eh?
Yes, the whole thing was a very strange and interesting and tragic event.
This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.
An author's themes probing the questions and answers the culture he was raised in grappled with?
You hear this sort of stuff all the time if you pay any attention to Chinese state media ... planned economies are best, the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit, Western ideas have failed, and so on.
None of those are remotely settled questions; and all of them are frequently explored in SF.
If anything, these books demonstrate the poverty of a literary scene where everybody has to constantly watch what they say.
Are you high right now? Or just close minded? Or perhaps both?
What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?
For what its worth, a goodly number of Star Trek episodes revolve around what we think of the form of government used by aliens. And in some cases interfering to forcibly alter it.
Except there are procedures for clearing a cabin of smoke, even with an ongoing fire.
That's like saying no one could ever be trapped in a burning building because it has sprinklers, fire escapes, and an evacuation plan,
Even firefighters get trapped and killed -- and they're professionally trained to work around out of control fires, and to bring them under control.
Poorly defined?
Yes.
It replaces sytsemd [I assume you mean init.d] and more besides
The "and more besides" is the vague poorly defined part.
and does a better job.
In many cases yes.
People are crying over it because of some misplaced loyalty to a shitty, broken, half assed system that might have passed muster in 1990 but should have been long replaced.
Their loyalty is to modularity of the existing system, not the existing system itself. If systemd was more modular, less tightly integrated and interdependent there would be no real objection to it.
If some whiners got over themselves they'll realise that systemd is vastly superior in every respective.
Except that once it's entrenched it can't be replaced with something even better in the future. It can't be improved one piece at a time, because its all or nothing and tightly integrated. A better event logging system can't arise independently because the rest of systemd won't work with it.
Its a golden cage... even if we agreed that it is nicer than where we live today (many do, many do not but that's beside the point): once your inside your stuck with it.
let's think about this for a moment... something that reflects photons... hmm...
I cannot think of a single thing.
What would happen if you fired a laser gun at a mirror?
Some energy would be reflected. Some would be absorbed.
Throw enough energy at it, it still burns up. Elementary physics.
And that's assuming you shoot a laser at a mirror. An orbiting laser weapon platform is NOT a mirror. Its not even slightly plausible that you could make the entire surface -- from the weapon itself to the communications antennae to the maneuvering thrusters all sufficiently reflective that you'd be immune from a ground based laser attack.
Worse the energy getting absorbed would heat, distort, discolor etc the relfective finish making it increasingly less effective.
Not to mention the reflective surface would degrade over time from micro-debris impacts.
Meanwhile ground based opponents wouldn't even be limited to one laser -- they could concentrate their entire arsenal at it.
Care to try again?
Imagine a satellite ( or something like the ISS ) based weapon that will fire an invisible high-kilowatt ( or even megawatt ) beam on any target it can see from orbit. Maybe combine a few of these satellites onto the same target for even more power output.
If any nation had one and started using it in the ways you suggest, how long before opposed nations would knock it down.
After all, what is its defense against a ground based laser shooting back at it?
Seconded, I switched to qBittorrent as well; even before utorrent got truly awful:
c++ so no dependency on Java; but does require python if you want to use its built in search.
Opensource / GPLv2+
So hopefully much less likely to end up the mess that utorrent became.
what exactly is systemd and why do we keep hearing so much about it?
Part of the problem is that its poorly defined. It's touted as a replacement for the init system. (The system that manages other services. So for a windows user it's core functions as the services host process -- its where you can start and stop services, determine which startup at system startup. Stop them. See which are running. Restart crashed services, etc. It does startup in parallel so it's faster than the traditional init system.
But doesn't just replace init, it relplaces cron (the task scheduling system -- "scheduled backups and such" not "cpu thread scheduling"; it replaces the event logging system, it replaces the login system...
The unix philospophy is for components to be small and do one thing well and to to let users build a system out of the different pieces they want. systemd is big and tightly integrated and more of an all-or-nothing and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
And the main valid criticisms of are (IMHO)
1) Binary logging -- the advantages of the systemd logging system are apparent, but there are disadvantages too; users should have
2) It potentially creates a layer between kernel and the rest of the system that becomes entrenched and irreplaceable. As applications going forward will develop dependencies on the rich services of systemd it will become impossible to replace systemd with anything else, except maybe a fork of systemd. (This rubs a lot of people the wrong way.)
3) the rich service layer and tight integration stifles innovation; for example assuming systemd has traction someone can't make a "better cron" now, because that functionality is part of systemd. They can't make a better init-only system because applications will be relying on all the other services of systemd.
4) it gets between the rest of the system and the kernel, and in many cases you have to work through systemd and can't just go to the kernel. This has its good points, but also its problems and further entrenches systemd.
Perhaps GNU/Linux systems with systemd should properly be called GNU/systemd/Linux systems to emphasize the point.
I don't personally hate systemd; I recognize a lot of thing it does are good for large parts of the linux user base. But I do agree with the 'haters'; that its not modular enough and that leads to several valid complaints.
I doesn't help that the egos involved on all sides are large and uncompromising.
Bad example -- they agree not to spill it as a condition of employment, and are bound to it during, and after employment.
So if you violate an employement contract its a criminal offense? That you can be arrested for, and go to jail for? Noooope... its a civil contract dispute... employer can sue for damages, that's about it; even if the employer is the federal government.
There are ways of dealing with this scenario. The simplest being, don't keep the information on the laptop. After entering the country, use VPN or some other secure means of downloading the data.
Rule number ONE of information security is that if you don't want it leaked online... DONT PUT IT ONLINE.
So your solution is not good enough.
You ask that I trade the physical security of an encrypted, air-gapped unit, physically in my hands with a solution that entails all kinds of possible network threats. MITM, SSL vulnerability, zero-day attacks, certificate compromises... and suggest this will improve my security??
No.
Not to mention that it assumes you're moving relatively small amounts of information between countries with good internet access... what if your destination just has shitty internet?
Plus if you legitimize their right to inspect all data at the border, then your just a hop and skip away from giving them the right to inspect your vpn traffic as it crosses the border; and they would be within their rights to demand the encryption keys from you or block your vpn connection. Some governments are already moving in this direction.
So your argument that "don't take it across the boder this way"... "take it across the border this other way" sort of falls completely on its face. Once you say "they can inspect and require you to decrypt data crossing the border" then your VPN is next.
but for most business related cases I would think this would be an acceptable workaround.
For most legitimate business related cases border security wouldn't really be a risk, even if you gave them the password, and let them fish around in your laptop. They wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to capitalize on it.
But its the principal of the thing; they really have no business being in there. And there is a chance they could learn or reveal something that is damaging.
Frankly, it seems to me the best solution right now; is to ship yourself the data by traceable courier. Small chance it is lost or confiscated at the border. But they don't get anything valuable if that happens, and you can't be arrested on the spot.
I'd always heard that the name for people from Quebec was "Quebecois."
That's a valid term as well and the more common one to my ears at least.
"Quebecker" sounds like some kind of anti-French reactionary thing, kind of like how some feminists insist on non-standard spellings of gender-related words
Its not so extreme as to be anti-french.
Quebecois is a francophone term. Its pronounced roughly kay-bek-wah. Most anglophones don't pronounce Quebec ("kay-bek") they pronounce it roughly "kwuh-beck". And "Quebecois" doesn't really anglicize well... so Quebecker is pretty common and not meant to be offensive nor anti-french.
That isn't in the bill itself.
I realize that.
That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
A person who backs the bill, who perhaps could and should have said something a LOT MORE INTELLIGENT about it.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
So then what is the REAL dispute? That would lead a president to veto it? Or is this whole debate the syphility ramblings of a 24 hour media cycle that can't seem to find any real news to report on in a world of 6 billion people with nearly uncountable real issues to investigate? (And despite my sarcasm... I count that possibility as entirely plausible.)
Sorry, you don't get to redefine science as "Something a scientist told me."
I never did. So ... there's that.
There is no shortage of people willing to make statements in the authoritative tone, and the stupid and undisciplined accept that as a way to avoid that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. I'm not among them, are you?
Again... nobody is redefining science. What are you on about?
If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.
One can (and should) post the methodology and results without revealing confidential patient health information, sufficient that another group could reproduce the study.
You do not need to know the names of the participants, and have access to their medical records to reproduce the study. Find your own patients and reproduce the published methodology to lend weight or cast doubt on the original study.
That's how medical research should be done.
If you want a faith based approach to law making...
Time for your meds.
If I propose we serve beef burgers, and a vegetarian selection at a picnic and someone says, hey that sounds like maybe your suggesting we serve vegetarian PEOPLE as food?!!!
Would I say... "Not to worry, vegetarians may choose to opt-out of eating or being eaten."
Or... would I say? Are you nuts? I obviously didn't mean it that way. Fine, whatever... "I propose we serve beef hot dogs and a green salad"? We good?.. Lets move on.
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?