But we'll never rule His sentience. Wherein God knows better than we do, and does as He pleases, there's not going to be a lot of room for measurement.
What does that even mean? That sounds like you are saying the God you believe in has no measurable influence on the world we live in. If that's the case, how is your god more than imaginary? If god is more than imaginary and has some influence on our world, then said influence MUST be measurable (as defined by the word 'influence'). If we can measure something, then we can generally predict it (According to the determinists).
Your less-than-subtle attempt to insult women and draw a parallel of unpredictability fails on so many levels I don't know where to start.
I also take exception to your claim that your god knows better than we do. That sounds a lot like Thomas Aquinas's plea to the definition of god... That "logic" was even dropped by the Church last century.
The point is that the ability to adapt without outside assistance precludes the need for the original creation event. If an organism can adapt and roll with the changes, who needs God to help? The Creationists seem to forget that point when attempting to hybridize the two points of view. Either it happened with your God, or it didn't. If there is a possibility it didn't, then the God hypothesis is overly complex.
Why not model it on the Judge/Jury arrangement? a core of trained individuals with the ability to remain cool while responding to a 911 call leading a posse of lesser-trained recruited citizens who couldn't give a care about the "fraternal brotherhood" or the "thin blue line" or whatever... makes cover-ups a pain and generally defuses situations like this. If the situation truly calls for a paramilitary force, call in the nat guard... That's keep M-16s out of my face at the World Series and generally calms the public's distrust for those in uniform.
That said, my brother is a cop and not all of them are this way. He doesn't think citizens should be allowed to "interfere" with police actions while they happen (and I somewhat agree), but I have yet to hear a sound explanation for the police's distrust for video surveillance. Anyone else heard something that makes sense and still lets the cops be the good guys?
I like how you didn't address the need for evidence, just changed the topic to the Randi Challenge. Moraelin has you on this one BAG, the concept you are trying to describe requires a verified EFFECT to be measured before any speculation can be made as to CAUSE.
We need to see the psychic that can read a mood through wall or read the mood of trained actors who can manage their subtle body language to remove the know effect of "reading" things like posture and eye movement. Once know causes have been removed, and effects can be demonstrated, then you can posit this "aura" or whatever...
Leonard Susskind was the guy and the problem wasn't originally an "information" problem, but instead an entropy problem. The information questions came in after they sorted out the holographic principals of information representation along the surface area of the event horizon.
Sean M Carroll has a good book about what that means for time if you are interested...
Dude, Meetup.com Find something you ARE into and goto the meetups. Atheist? Tons of atheist meetups on there. Star Trek fan? They have monthly viewing parties in my area. Do you like to cook/eat? They have a million dinner clubs... Seriously there is something for everyone.
I've never fully understood this point-of-view. I am a capitalist and generally a moderate with regard to politics, so I don't stand on the platform of one or the other established parties. That said, both sides seem to be "anti-intellectual" in their policy making. They directly remove educational/research funding in order to inflate the pork budgets of projects in their region. That's a problem of serious proportions. How do you justify ANYTHING within this POV that leads to equal gain for all parties on a global scale (cancer research, space exploration, subatomic physics...)? These are no one's "pork" but at the same time, they are everyone's.
Engineers are contributing to the farce that is the "human rated" badge. Take a look at Richard Feynman's assessment of the process used to calculate the risk. Tell me if that looks like a problem created by engineers or by bureaucrats.
"Human Rated" has no engineering meaning. It's a badge for bureaucrats to pin on a project they don't understand so they can call it "safe". Their use of broken statistics and ignorant assessments means that things are far more difficult than required and generally not much safer. All I'm suggesting is that there are far better ways than using NASA-jargon to label risk, such as a strictly engineering decision (I think they'd make the best possible decision), not a bureaucratic rating.
...proof these companies can actually launch human-rated spacecraft?...
What the heck is "human-rated spacecraft" other than a bureaucratic term for "rigorously tested until all innovation has been expelled". The statistical improvements in avoiding failure have been small, very small in fact, over a simple engineering consensus. It turns out that engineers realize they are working with human lives and avoid all but the most necessary risks. Everything beyond that is mandated by some paper pusher that read an ISO9000 book and thought that NASA didn't have enough meetings. They then lead NASA into the mess it's in now, going from political gem in Washington to pariah. Funding is nearly impossible and even successful projects are seen as limited and irrelevant (Hubble, Spirit/Opportunity anyone?).
I can't imagine why anyone would NOT look to corporate innovation to lead this program. We just need to give a profit motive and allow competition to do the rest.
on behalf of those who love liberty and refuse to acknowledge a line in the dirt as a marker for who should be considered human and who not, i have to say that you are at least uninformed and at worst a ignorant worthless coward. You may chose to organize the murder of a mentally handicapped person and file that under "the right thing" but the rest of us, we don't. if you chose to be a ego-maniacal asshat and get your picture taken instead of doing what the rest of the sheriffs in your great state are doing (law enforcement), then you can expect a PR problem.
If it weren't for better people than "Sheriff Joe" and his band of racists, our nation would be a terrible, backwards, dying hulk... it's too bad that it seems the NeoCons and "Patriots" are winning. maybe we have hope, but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Now American Airlines will be able to do something with all those crappy planes.... They can be like the mega-tankers of the sky, what with all those snakes on them...
Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't the "human-rated" flights of the space shuttle have similar failure ratios to the "non-human rated"... I know that a lot more satellites have gone up than people, and I think Richard Feynman called NASA on this fallacy back during his research after Challenger.
NASA mitigates risk with about the same degree of effect in both human and non-human flights. The added engineering and checks are simply due to the antiquated and flawed design of the shuttle (I'm a fan of the shuttle, but it's a bad idea). If they used something like their satellite launch rockets to lift men, they could gain efficiency by not having to work in multiple directions at once... Seems logical to me.
the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family.
Um, "freedom-loving" must mean something different to you. I personally like the freedom to sleep with whoever i want, to watch whatever movies I want, and to buy liquor on Sundays (aka the "Lord's Day"). I'm sure that both administrations are corrupt, but the idea that Palin was somehow outside of that vile ignorant corruption is absurd.
As for freedom, you may have to look to another party.
As a "Secular Progressive" (ie atheist who recognizes Christianity as a threat to daily freedoms), I have to say that I am pleased that every representation of Bill OReilly I see looks exactly like this, f***ing nuts.
Those people are to warriors what Sacha Baron Cohen is to art.
DRM is the process by which the content of the disk is encoded in such a way that only endorsed devices can decode the content. The bits stored on the disk are not technically different than on "normal" dvd's, only their arrangement. The data reading performed by the "Little Arm" is happening at the same rate, all DRM does is change the way the data that has been read from disk is handled on the inside.
That said, I, in no way, support the use of DRM as a way to control the use of copyrighted materials. All DRM ends up doing is forcing the user to jump through increasingly-complex hoops and leading them to frustration.
I could have sworn that something like that happened in 1919 when a guy named Arthur Eddington kinda helped confirm the theory for Einstein. Proximity allowed us to see the lensing, which we can't easily see from a distance, but it's there on all objects of sufficient mass, not just galaxies.
a 10 m diameter meteor would be catastrophic. you, likely, can't carry enough shielding to avoid failure when absorbing that sort of energy. I think the scope of prevention is limited to a "more reasonable" size of something like a baseball or soccer ball. (I put reasonable in quotes because I'm not certain of the materials available, the exact energies involved, and the capability of combining that sort of shielding into a flyable aircraft.)
That said, maybe there is a way to make the aircraft more survivable in all sorts of crashes... maybe passenger pods and a break-away airframe could be considered, where SOME of the passengers (those not directly struck by the meteor) could have a chance. This would overlap with other concerns
like a weapon strike or bomb on board. Making the structure of the plane an "all or nothing" affair seems wrong.
I do. As a policy though, accessing PHI for non-business use is a termination offense. If I looked up my aunt who has a record in our system, I wouldn't have a job tomorrow. The HIPPA rules are pretty lax once you get inside the company, but the policies the company puts in place ensure no one crosses the lines.
It can be scary to think about everyday folks having access to your records, however, the profit motive is not really present to make it attractive to steal this info... Info thieves tend to focus more toward heavy transaction areas, such as retail. You may only find 15 patients charts in a day at a Dr office, but you'll see 1000+ people per day in The GAP.
leaving a smart card in a reader when you walk away is basically the worst thing you can do with a smart card. You take the card with you and it is only inserted when you are at the terminal.
How are you suggesting getting that unencrypted data without a security breach taking place beforehand (like someone leaves their card)?
I recognize terminals are on the network and therefore exposed to additional threats. If you had cited those threats as your reason for disagreeing with EMR, I may have agreed with you. Instead you used the idea that poorly implemented security is the only way to operate a medical network environment. I cannot agree with that. There IS a right way to do things. The problems you saw were the result of someone doing things the WRONG way. I'm not claiming that you didn't see those things. What I am suggesting is that a properly planned, implemented, and maintained environment would not have those problems.
Two factor authentication can employ smart cards which, when removed, stop a terminal from working. Smart cards aren't the only thing that can provide that service either, but they are likely the most ubiquitous.
PKI actually CAN restrict someone from accessing any data that is not accessed using the proper credentials. PKI provides the means of securely storing the keys for encrypting that data and decrypting it transparently to the approved user on the approved terminal. If by some fluke someone got your record on a disk, they would not be able to decrypt it in any reasonable amount of time.
The idea of paper records being more secure because they reside in a building rather than in a computer only makes sense when you talk about network-based attacks. Then I can agree with you, as for the terminal-jacking you are describing, it's not likely a difficult threat to overcome.
Ok, I am a sys admin and can solve these problems by pointing you to two fairly simple concepts:
1. Two-factor authentication solves the problem of non-employees logging in as employees. You now have to chop of your Dr's finger to get in with his password...
2. PKI provides a secure means for encrypting files, auditing access and limiting breaches to the already increased security. Now if you lift your nurse's smart card, it's only good until she notices it is gone and notifies the helpdesk.
I work on moderate sized systems and these answers seem to scream out of implementation in this type of environment. If you think EMR are somehow less secure than paper, please explain, cause last time I checked, paper can be stolen too.
Slashdot Mirror
But we'll never rule His sentience. Wherein God knows better than we do, and does as He pleases, there's not going to be a lot of room for measurement.
What does that even mean? That sounds like you are saying the God you believe in has no measurable influence on the world we live in. If that's the case, how is your god more than imaginary? If god is more than imaginary and has some influence on our world, then said influence MUST be measurable (as defined by the word 'influence'). If we can measure something, then we can generally predict it (According to the determinists).
Your less-than-subtle attempt to insult women and draw a parallel of unpredictability fails on so many levels I don't know where to start.
I also take exception to your claim that your god knows better than we do. That sounds a lot like Thomas Aquinas's plea to the definition of god... That "logic" was even dropped by the Church last century.
The point is that the ability to adapt without outside assistance precludes the need for the original creation event. If an organism can adapt and roll with the changes, who needs God to help? The Creationists seem to forget that point when attempting to hybridize the two points of view. Either it happened with your God, or it didn't. If there is a possibility it didn't, then the God hypothesis is overly complex.
"No computer (yet) is going to be as wily, as clever, as unpredictable, as a human opponent."
Ever played F.E.A.R.? AI doesn't just have aim on it's side, those bastards use legit tactics and coordinate against you.
Why not model it on the Judge/Jury arrangement? a core of trained individuals with the ability to remain cool while responding to a 911 call leading a posse of lesser-trained recruited citizens who couldn't give a care about the "fraternal brotherhood" or the "thin blue line" or whatever... makes cover-ups a pain and generally defuses situations like this. If the situation truly calls for a paramilitary force, call in the nat guard... That's keep M-16s out of my face at the World Series and generally calms the public's distrust for those in uniform.
That said, my brother is a cop and not all of them are this way. He doesn't think citizens should be allowed to "interfere" with police actions while they happen (and I somewhat agree), but I have yet to hear a sound explanation for the police's distrust for video surveillance. Anyone else heard something that makes sense and still lets the cops be the good guys?
I like how you didn't address the need for evidence, just changed the topic to the Randi Challenge. Moraelin has you on this one BAG, the concept you are trying to describe requires a verified EFFECT to be measured before any speculation can be made as to CAUSE.
We need to see the psychic that can read a mood through wall or read the mood of trained actors who can manage their subtle body language to remove the know effect of "reading" things like posture and eye movement. Once know causes have been removed, and effects can be demonstrated, then you can posit this "aura" or whatever...
I believe in symmetry, so the last digit MUST be 3.
And THAT's how you do theoretical physics folks... (at least the easy first bit)
Leonard Susskind was the guy and the problem wasn't originally an "information" problem, but instead an entropy problem. The information questions came in after they sorted out the holographic principals of information representation along the surface area of the event horizon.
Sean M Carroll has a good book about what that means for time if you are interested...
Dude, Meetup.com
Find something you ARE into and goto the meetups. Atheist? Tons of atheist meetups on there. Star Trek fan? They have monthly viewing parties in my area. Do you like to cook/eat? They have a million dinner clubs... Seriously there is something for everyone.
I've never fully understood this point-of-view. I am a capitalist and generally a moderate with regard to politics, so I don't stand on the platform of one or the other established parties. That said, both sides seem to be "anti-intellectual" in their policy making. They directly remove educational/research funding in order to inflate the pork budgets of projects in their region. That's a problem of serious proportions. How do you justify ANYTHING within this POV that leads to equal gain for all parties on a global scale (cancer research, space exploration, subatomic physics...)? These are no one's "pork" but at the same time, they are everyone's.
Engineers are contributing to the farce that is the "human rated" badge. Take a look at Richard Feynman's assessment of the process used to calculate the risk. Tell me if that looks like a problem created by engineers or by bureaucrats.
"Human Rated" has no engineering meaning. It's a badge for bureaucrats to pin on a project they don't understand so they can call it "safe". Their use of broken statistics and ignorant assessments means that things are far more difficult than required and generally not much safer. All I'm suggesting is that there are far better ways than using NASA-jargon to label risk, such as a strictly engineering decision (I think they'd make the best possible decision), not a bureaucratic rating.
...proof these companies can actually launch human-rated spacecraft? ...
What the heck is "human-rated spacecraft" other than a bureaucratic term for "rigorously tested until all innovation has been expelled". The statistical improvements in avoiding failure have been small, very small in fact, over a simple engineering consensus. It turns out that engineers realize they are working with human lives and avoid all but the most necessary risks. Everything beyond that is mandated by some paper pusher that read an ISO9000 book and thought that NASA didn't have enough meetings. They then lead NASA into the mess it's in now, going from political gem in Washington to pariah. Funding is nearly impossible and even successful projects are seen as limited and irrelevant (Hubble, Spirit/Opportunity anyone?).
I can't imagine why anyone would NOT look to corporate innovation to lead this program. We just need to give a profit motive and allow competition to do the rest.
on behalf of those who love liberty and refuse to acknowledge a line in the dirt as a marker for who should be considered human and who not, i have to say that you are at least uninformed and at worst a ignorant worthless coward. You may chose to organize the murder of a mentally handicapped person and file that under "the right thing" but the rest of us, we don't. if you chose to be a ego-maniacal asshat and get your picture taken instead of doing what the rest of the sheriffs in your great state are doing (law enforcement), then you can expect a PR problem.
If it weren't for better people than "Sheriff Joe" and his band of racists, our nation would be a terrible, backwards, dying hulk... it's too bad that it seems the NeoCons and "Patriots" are winning. maybe we have hope, but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Now American Airlines will be able to do something with all those crappy planes.... They can be like the mega-tankers of the sky, what with all those snakes on them...
Because it is the right thing to do. (objectively, morally "right", not "right" as-in "correct")
Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't the "human-rated" flights of the space shuttle have similar failure ratios to the "non-human rated"... I know that a lot more satellites have gone up than people, and I think Richard Feynman called NASA on this fallacy back during his research after Challenger.
NASA mitigates risk with about the same degree of effect in both human and non-human flights. The added engineering and checks are simply due to the antiquated and flawed design of the shuttle (I'm a fan of the shuttle, but it's a bad idea). If they used something like their satellite launch rockets to lift men, they could gain efficiency by not having to work in multiple directions at once... Seems logical to me.
the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family.
Um, "freedom-loving" must mean something different to you. I personally like the freedom to sleep with whoever i want, to watch whatever movies I want, and to buy liquor on Sundays (aka the "Lord's Day"). I'm sure that both administrations are corrupt, but the idea that Palin was somehow outside of that vile ignorant corruption is absurd.
As for freedom, you may have to look to another party.
As a "Secular Progressive" (ie atheist who recognizes Christianity as a threat to daily freedoms), I have to say that I am pleased that every representation of Bill OReilly I see looks exactly like this, f***ing nuts.
Those people are to warriors what Sacha Baron Cohen is to art.
If that's indicative of how math is taught nowadays, we're all hosed.
It is. We are.
Ok, so let's review how DRM works.
DRM is the process by which the content of the disk is encoded in such a way that only endorsed devices can decode the content. The bits stored on the disk are not technically different than on "normal" dvd's, only their arrangement. The data reading performed by the "Little Arm" is happening at the same rate, all DRM does is change the way the data that has been read from disk is handled on the inside.
That said, I, in no way, support the use of DRM as a way to control the use of copyrighted materials. All DRM ends up doing is forcing the user to jump through increasingly-complex hoops and leading them to frustration.
um, wasn't it first discovered using the sun?
I could have sworn that something like that happened in 1919 when a guy named Arthur Eddington kinda helped confirm the theory for Einstein. Proximity allowed us to see the lensing, which we can't easily see from a distance, but it's there on all objects of sufficient mass, not just galaxies.
a 10 m diameter meteor would be catastrophic. you, likely, can't carry enough shielding to avoid failure when absorbing that sort of energy. I think the scope of prevention is limited to a "more reasonable" size of something like a baseball or soccer ball. (I put reasonable in quotes because I'm not certain of the materials available, the exact energies involved, and the capability of combining that sort of shielding into a flyable aircraft.) That said, maybe there is a way to make the aircraft more survivable in all sorts of crashes... maybe passenger pods and a break-away airframe could be considered, where SOME of the passengers (those not directly struck by the meteor) could have a chance. This would overlap with other concerns like a weapon strike or bomb on board. Making the structure of the plane an "all or nothing" affair seems wrong.
I do. As a policy though, accessing PHI for non-business use is a termination offense. If I looked up my aunt who has a record in our system, I wouldn't have a job tomorrow. The HIPPA rules are pretty lax once you get inside the company, but the policies the company puts in place ensure no one crosses the lines.
It can be scary to think about everyday folks having access to your records, however, the profit motive is not really present to make it attractive to steal this info... Info thieves tend to focus more toward heavy transaction areas, such as retail. You may only find 15 patients charts in a day at a Dr office, but you'll see 1000+ people per day in The GAP.
leaving a smart card in a reader when you walk away is basically the worst thing you can do with a smart card. You take the card with you and it is only inserted when you are at the terminal.
How are you suggesting getting that unencrypted data without a security breach taking place beforehand (like someone leaves their card)?
I recognize terminals are on the network and therefore exposed to additional threats. If you had cited those threats as your reason for disagreeing with EMR, I may have agreed with you. Instead you used the idea that poorly implemented security is the only way to operate a medical network environment. I cannot agree with that. There IS a right way to do things. The problems you saw were the result of someone doing things the WRONG way. I'm not claiming that you didn't see those things. What I am suggesting is that a properly planned, implemented, and maintained environment would not have those problems.
Two factor authentication can employ smart cards which, when removed, stop a terminal from working. Smart cards aren't the only thing that can provide that service either, but they are likely the most ubiquitous.
PKI actually CAN restrict someone from accessing any data that is not accessed using the proper credentials. PKI provides the means of securely storing the keys for encrypting that data and decrypting it transparently to the approved user on the approved terminal. If by some fluke someone got your record on a disk, they would not be able to decrypt it in any reasonable amount of time.
The idea of paper records being more secure because they reside in a building rather than in a computer only makes sense when you talk about network-based attacks. Then I can agree with you, as for the terminal-jacking you are describing, it's not likely a difficult threat to overcome.
Ok, I am a sys admin and can solve these problems by pointing you to two fairly simple concepts:
1. Two-factor authentication solves the problem of non-employees logging in as employees. You now have to chop of your Dr's finger to get in with his password...
2. PKI provides a secure means for encrypting files, auditing access and limiting breaches to the already increased security. Now if you lift your nurse's smart card, it's only good until she notices it is gone and notifies the helpdesk.
I work on moderate sized systems and these answers seem to scream out of implementation in this type of environment. If you think EMR are somehow less secure than paper, please explain, cause last time I checked, paper can be stolen too.