Diagnosis of a condition is a fundamental -- AND CRITICAL -- step in medicine. If I have a toe infection because of a brain tumor or because of HIV/AIDS or because my shoes are too small: this is relevent information.
Preexisting conditions will raise the cost of coverage. This is assessed primarily by an increase of treatment [costs].
Ultimately money is saved. Unnecessary treatments are eliminated, problems are headed off when they are little problems, before they become big problems. The manhours wasted by people who cannot diagnose a problem correctly are saved. Understanding increases.
Most of all medicine will be streamlined. No longer will there be a semantic discrepancies across the broadspectrum of the human form. "Healthcare" and "medicine" truly become as One.
All in all insurance is not a party to this. Make it a crime to suggest otherwise, by all means.
The DoJ asserts it has probable cause and it does. Google must provide evidence that most of the searches are made by law obiding citzens who's queries are private information shared between google and the searcher, that should be "secure" as article 4 provides this as a right, and that google does not favorably propagate illegal activity, making particulars possible but not feasible -- all sites are indexed regardless of what they contain, users search unawares of the potential resulting set.
Ultimately the number of words an American knows is woefully limited. The DoJ need only plugin a couple million queries into google to get the landscape. The only _use_ for google insides would be for search engine poisoning. That severely threatens googles profitability especially if the calculated techniques are examined and taken to, making searches return unfruitful and causing users to surf by site link, URL, human edited ad engines, backwards searching, double engine or ip shotgunning taking the google page out of the picture and the ads and revenue links with. Search engine poisoning can be a form of censorship, vandalism/spam or commercial tactic that effectively neutralizes would be market spoilers.
The easiest way to throw this in the face of the DoJ would be to have an expert examine the material and have him/her testify that there is no way to make evidence of googles possesions, as a counter to the Doj's Professor. Or better yet would be to allow a government hired expert to examine the google and then charge him the cost of providing this google. They made a potential costly error in calling google trade secrets, the court would likely allow the information to be disclosed but not removed from the premises in this case. Had they called it a burdensome operation that is fueled by cash not queries the DoJ would have lost interest. To the point that "The Government Has Not Shown a Substantial Need" I think they have the need to fight the war on terror and they show it everyday. To the point "The Government's Offer to Collaborate Is Inadequate and Unrealistic" I think they're as serious as Dick Cheney. "The Data Is Not Useful for Any Study" I bet they've got someone who says it is. To the point "Google Should Not Bear the Burden of Responding to Potentially Inadequate Process Based on ECPA" you almost get the sense they're almost trying to do something historical here. Tree part essay that sums up w/ timber but it does cover a lot of area. If it was going to the supreme court I would stick to a single objection instead of dancing around. The reality is that the DoJ is looking for ways to rank bs results, as its the only secret google has and the only useful information that could be gleaned from google that can't be had by going to google.com or someweb site especially since there is no demographical information associated w/ searches. It would be unlawful to take the data because there is no correlation to criminal activity and queries and if there was there would be no way to determine what or who or when or how. I would bolster the similarity to dragnet.
the tooth is that microsoft server 2000 has a lower total cost of ownership than suse linx and studies show that it requires fewer critical updates. ill white you a paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Diagnosis of a condition is a fundamental -- AND CRITICAL -- step in medicine. If I have a toe infection because of a brain tumor or because of HIV/AIDS or because my shoes are too small: this is relevent information.
Preexisting conditions will raise the cost of coverage. This is assessed primarily by an increase of treatment [costs].
Ultimately money is saved. Unnecessary treatments are eliminated, problems are headed off when they are little problems, before they become big problems. The manhours wasted by people who cannot diagnose a problem correctly are saved. Understanding increases.
Most of all medicine will be streamlined. No longer will there be a semantic discrepancies across the broadspectrum of the human form. "Healthcare" and "medicine" truly become as One.
All in all insurance is not a party to this. Make it a crime to suggest otherwise, by all means.
"Only now is sony losing it's fooding in the pro video market"
over what?
The DoJ asserts it has probable cause and it does. Google must provide evidence that most of the searches are made by law obiding citzens who's queries are private information shared between google and the searcher, that should be "secure" as article 4 provides this as a right, and that google does not favorably propagate illegal activity, making particulars possible but not feasible -- all sites are indexed regardless of what they contain, users search unawares of the potential resulting set.
Ultimately the number of words an American knows is woefully limited. The DoJ need only plugin a couple million queries into google to get the landscape. The only _use_ for google insides would be for search engine poisoning. That severely threatens googles profitability especially if the calculated techniques are examined and taken to, making searches return unfruitful and causing users to surf by site link, URL, human edited ad engines, backwards searching, double engine or ip shotgunning taking the google page out of the picture and the ads and revenue links with. Search engine poisoning can be a form of censorship, vandalism/spam or commercial tactic that effectively neutralizes would be market spoilers.
The easiest way to throw this in the face of the DoJ would be to have an expert examine the material and have him/her testify that there is no way to make evidence of googles possesions, as a counter to the Doj's Professor. Or better yet would be to allow a government hired expert to examine the google and then charge him the cost of providing this google. They made a potential costly error in calling google trade secrets, the court would likely allow the information to be disclosed but not removed from the premises in this case. Had they called it a burdensome operation that is fueled by cash not queries the DoJ would have lost interest. To the point that "The Government Has Not Shown a Substantial Need" I think they have the need to fight the war on terror and they show it everyday. To the point "The Government's Offer to Collaborate Is Inadequate and Unrealistic" I think they're as serious as Dick Cheney. "The Data Is Not Useful for Any Study" I bet they've got someone who says it is. To the point "Google Should Not Bear the Burden of Responding to Potentially Inadequate Process Based on ECPA" you almost get the sense they're almost trying to do something historical here. Tree part essay that sums up w/ timber but it does cover a lot of area. If it was going to the supreme court I would stick to a single objection instead of dancing around. The reality is that the DoJ is looking for ways to rank bs results, as its the only secret google has and the only useful information that could be gleaned from google that can't be had by going to google.com or someweb site especially since there is no demographical information associated w/ searches. It would be unlawful to take the data because there is no correlation to criminal activity and queries and if there was there would be no way to determine what or who or when or how. I would bolster the similarity to dragnet.
couldn't the entire unit be placed in the evaporator end of a heat pump?
I kind of thought we had that one pegged. I'm lost. Come back to me later.
You scare me.
the tooth is that microsoft server 2000 has a lower total cost of ownership than suse linx and studies show that it requires fewer critical updates. ill white you a paper.