Well, he did access a computer that he bought for his wife and that he had often used, possibly while exceeding valid authorization, but he used the password that his wife had written down in a book next to the computer, so from the provider's viewpoint, he was authorized.
Having a password where it is easy to get at might make it easy for someone else to pretend to be authorized, but it doesn't make them actually authorized, just like having the key to your front door "hidden" under an obviously fake rock in your garden near the door that makes it easy for any stranger to unlock your door and enter your house doesn't mean they are legally permitted to do so.
As to the gay marriage issue, in all due respect to your atheist religion, I think pinning everything on God is cheap logic. As we saw with the Prop 8 trial, there's a fairly solid line of logic behind the bans as well. The reasoning goes like this:
A) We need children, or we're going to die out. Further we'd like these children to be raised in two-parent homes wherever possible.
B) To encourage this behavior, we're going to incentivize marriage at the government-subsidy level, the employee benefit level, and others.
C) Because gay couples cannot directly produce children raised in two-parent households, they're not entitled to the incentives.
Marriage does nothing to incentivize producing or raising children, so this whole argument is completely bunk. About the only thing that the civil institution of marriage (at least, as it is structured in most jurisdictions in the US) does that has anything to do with producing or raising children is creates either a rebuttable or absolute legal presumption of paternity for any children which a married woman happens to have during the marriage.
Civil marriage is more about incentivizing stable mutually-supporting economic partnerships among adult citizens as the basis of a stable, ordered society than it is about anything to do with producing children. Obviously, one of the benefits of these partnerships (but not a central one) is that this produces a desirable context for raising children.
Bible quotes are quite often not illuminating as to the effect of civil law.
But I am starting to wonder if either I was mislead somewhere about what marriage was, or if marriage is quickly being redefined into something completely meaningless.
Marriage has fairly continuously been redefined as economic conditions and social mores have changed throughout history. Neither the fact that the legal status is inconsistent with your personal expectation nor the fact that it is not exactly the same thing as it was in, say, Medieval Europe makes it "meaningless".
Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?
Um, what? Its not like Genachowski is asking for anything that goes to him personally. Its not asking for "additional compensation" to require that a company takes steps to do what the law requires you to assure that they do when approving a request before you will vote to approve the request.
The head of the FCC has just said, "We know this merger could be bad for consumers in several ways. Here are the ways: 'A, B, C'. However, I'd like to let the merger go through, if Comcast just promises not to do those bad things."
Its not "just promises".
It "accepts being legally prohibited from doing them."
Genius. Trust a business to put the interests of the people ahead of their profit.
Its not about "trust". Its about imposing requirements.
en if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Their legal mandate is not to cover every bad thing Comcast can do, it is to establish conditions under which the acquisition would not be unacceptable given the things the FCC is legally charged with protecting, at which point Comcast can choose to accept the conditions or not go forward with the acquisition.
The FCC is not, say, one of the central planning organizations of the USSR with unlimited and arbitrary power over commerce (or even the limited domain of communications systems.) It has specific powers which it can exercise in support of specific policy objectives dictated by Congress.
If they're going that far, then why not just have LLVM recompile Dalvik bytecode to x86, ARM, etc.?
I would expect that at least one of the options on the table for Chrome/Android convergence -- which Google has been open is the long-range plan -- is either a Dalvik/PNaCl bridge (so that Dalvik bytecode would be converted to PNaCl wire format for transfer and executed via NativeClient) or using Dalvik bytecode as an alternative wire format to PNaCl using the same basic infrastructure.
Oh wait, because that would be too much like Android.
While Android and Chrome OS have different initial target markets and short-term priorities, Google has never made it a secret that they see the two as, in the long term, converging. So, no, I doubt that "that would be too much like Android" is a reason to reject an approach in Chrome OS.
There are a few things that grandparent might be referring to. One is the E/I requirement: three hours per subchannel per week of regularly scheduled educational programming intended for children. Television programming for children 12 and under must be carefully edited so as not to look remotely like an infomercial; the series Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh! in particular have been responsible for fines against broadcast stations.
Sure, while that has to do with content, it is nothing like the viewpoint balance requirements of the Fairness Doctrine.
Another is "Reasonable Access" and "Equal Opportunity" for candidates to buy ad time.
That does have to do with viewpoint non-discrimination, but only in advertising sales in a narrow area (not in the broadcasters own content), and neither of those policies initiated by the FCC within its discretionary authority -- both "Reasonable Access" and the "Equal Opportunity" requirements are express Congressional mandates in the Telecommunication Act.
The idea that the FCC is covertly applying the same kind of rules that were involved in the Fairness Doctrine under the label "Diversity" is, plainly and simply, false.
Windows CE (now called Windows Embedded Compact, for some confusing reason)
Probably because it avoids the natural abbreviation of Windows CE to WinCE, which is undesirable (from Microsoft's perspective), given what the word "wince" means in the English language.
The NT Kernel might be, even after all this time slapping whatever each release thinks is a useful feature into it, but who cares about that. I think I can guarantee Office will not run on ARM, so its pretty much dead already.
I think all they really care about is whether IE, the.NET framework/Silverlight, and things like Office Live will work on it. ARM devices, if they are keyboard & mouse/touchpad devices, are going to be more likely to be ultralight netbooks or nettops rather than desktop-replacement laptops or standard desktops.
And even without any compatibility headaches, most Windows applications weren't written with a touch interface in mind, so having a goal of Windows on a tablet is just asking for trouble.
ARM is not the same thing as touch. Google has been rather upfront in that while the first consumer netbook for Chrome OS following the Cr-48 pilot device will, like the Cr-48, be Intel devices, they really want to get hardware partners for ARM-based Chrome OS netbooks, as well, and eventually they want to deliver (via the Portable Native Client technology now in development on top of the existing x86/ARM Native Client that allows platform-specific native code to run in the Chrome browser) "native" Chrome OS apps in LLVM bitcode that can transparently be run as sandboxed native apps on both x86 and ARM (initially, and potentially more architectures over time) systems without any need to maintain separate source code or even separate architecture-specific builds.
Why port it to ARM and talk about it if there's no clear strategy or reason for doing so?
My guess is the strategy and reason for doing so is to encourage device makers thinking about, e.g., ARM netbooks to hold off on committing resources to things like Chrome OS (which Google has made it quite clear they want to be on ARM devices as well as the initial x86 devices) and Ubuntu.
My guess is that Chrome OS is the big trigger, from timing and the fact that Chrome OS is being actively and heavily promoted by a well-funded company that is clearly focussed on competing with Microsoft on a wide range of markets, and for whom weakening Microsoft's OS dominance in the keyboard+mouse/touchpad market is a key lever to weakening (in the case of, e.g., office suites) or preventing (as in the case of, e.g., cloud application hosting) Microsoft's market power in a wide range of other markets in which the two compete.
It's odd that Intel are trying to get people off ARM and onto Atom (low power x86) while Microsoft are thinking of moving people from Intel to ARM.
Microsoft isn't trying to move people from Intel to ARM, Microsoft has realized that stopping people from moving to ARM isn't something they have the power to do, and is trying to minimize the likelihood that those who does decide to use ARM support competing operating systems in the process.
With the Chrome OS hardware/software in a kind of semi-public test phase with fairly imminent general release, even though the initial hardware (both the Cr-48 and the announced initial planned consumer units) is x86, there is some pressure on MS, since Chromium OS -- including Native Client -- as I understand is already working on ARM and Google has stated that they intend to work with hardware manufacturers to get branded Chrome OS delivered on ARM devices.
Announcing plans for Windows on ARM is potentially a way to try to dilute manufacturer support for Chrome OS on ARM to avoid or at least mitigate Google getting a foothold in the OS market at the inexpensive end of the keyboard & pointing device market that Windows still dominates.
Especially once Portable Native Client is working (delivering code over the web in LLVM bit code form that is verified on the client and compiled to native code for x86, ARM, and potentially future supported platforms) rather than NaCl only using platform-specific compiled code, Chrome OS may be one of the strongest challenges MS has seen in that market since its dominance was established.
No.. the users are the ones who can't figure out how to use the system, that's why there's an admin.. if users knew what the fuck they were doing, we wouldn't NEED sysadmins in the first place.
If the system was designed properly for the userbase, so that users could use the system, you'd still need sysadmins to administer the system, which is notionally what sysadmins are for (hence the name.)
You wouldn't need sysadmins to take breaks from administering the system to handhold users through basic usage tasks, but then, that's not really the point of a system adminstrator in the first place.
if it fails in a way that you never thought possible, how would you write an error message that describes the failure?
Well, if you (or, rather, the application code) know that it fails (IOW, if it hasn't failed at a level so far down that it just dumped core/GPFed/etc. without even signalling your code) then you probably know something about the context where the error occurred (what was in progress), what code module of yours received the error, and what the exception or other indication of failure you received from outside of your code to let you know that something was wrong.
The problem is as you say in the last paragraph, "If a patient insists on antibiotics, and in the physician's medical judgement they are inappropriate", then all he would have to do is give the patient a bottle of NaHCO3 in a dihydrogen oxide solution, say he's giving them NaHCO3 in a dihydrogen oxide solution and to take a teaspoon every 12 hours and call if it gets worse.
That might be legally sufficient, but if the intent and effect is deceptive, its still ethically fraudulent and there is no informed consent in any meaningful sense.
The ability of expert professionals to deceive laypeople is not an excuse for the exercise of such an ability, in fact, its the source of the ethical obligation to honestly inform clients in terms they understand.
I think Polar Express demonstrated the same problem with the motion capture - everyone is drastically different in their motion and mannerism, and if you use one person to portray a dozen different people, then they will all look unnaturally similar.
I don't think that's a fundamental problem, I think that's a problem with choosing the wrong actor. There are actors that are very good at creating distinct characters through motion and mannerism, and there are actors that have a more limited palette of motion and mannerism. Either -- depending on how well they portray the feeling of a particular story -- can be great actors at playing one role in a piece, but only the former are likely to be successful playing multiple roles (unless they are supposed to have eerily-similar mannerisms) in the same piece -- whether its live action (as in a live "one man" show, or on film using camera tricks) or done via motion capture.
(The same thing that is true of motion and mannerism is true of voice acting; there are actors that can define distinct characters through voice alone, and actors that can't, and either can be good for one voice role in a piece.)
This isn't "ethically questionable" as TFA posits, it's a GOOD thing
No. Its neither ethically questionable nor good, its outright ethically wrong and violates informed consent.
People insist on antibiotics, but antibiotics are no better than placebos on viral infections
Antibiotics are much better than placebos at preventing secondary bacterial infections that follow behind viral infections, a modestly common problem with many common viral infections, and a very common and dangerous problem for some common, otherwise minor, viral infections in particularly sensitive patients (respiratory infections in asthmatics, are on obvious example.)
They are also better than placebos, on average, at dealing with infections that are most likely viral, but for which a test that would clearly determine whether the infection is viral or not either takes too long compared to the expected untreated recovery time to be worthwhile or is too expensive to be worthwhile. Which is a fairly common situation.
If a patient insists on antibiotics, and in the physician's medical judgement they are inappropriate, lying about what is being prescribed and giving a placebo is not ethical, its -- morally if not legally -- a fraud.
Yes, the Doctrine was repealed in 1987. However, the FCC still enforces the same principle under the "Diversity" moniker, with the same methodology (programming must contain content X, Y and Z in the proportions the FCC requires or your broadcast license is revoked).
Really? Evidence (not speculation or unsupported allegations) of this is to be found, where exactly?
The Fairness Doctrine is alive and well, under the auspices of their Chief Diversity Officer (yes, that's the title of the position and it has real authority), Mark Lloyd.
AFAICT Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd's resposibilities with regard to "diversity" have to do with ensuring "that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities" (as per the FCC page about him) -- that is diversity of ownership, equality of access among groups, and diversity of viewpoints across the whole market -- not that individual broadcasters represent a specified ratio of particular viewpoints as was the case under the Fairness Doctrine. This seems consistent with the general use of "Diversity" as a goal within the FCC, such as the orientation of the Diversity Federal Advisory Committee.
The only references I can find on to "Diversity" or the "Chief Diversity Officer" at the FCC having anything to do with anything even remotely related to the single-broadcaster requirements imposed under the Fairness Doctrine are political advocacy sites making claims of that nature with no concrete support.
For instance, what about CDNs like Akamai and Level3? Clearly these networks pay ISPs more to prioritize the packets they are carrying rather than just connecting through conventional peering. Is this packet discrimination?
My understanding is that what CDNs do is not paid prioritization, they just have servers distributed (in network topology more than strict geography) so as to provide redundancy and close access to users. To the extent that it is paid prioritization, it would probably run afoul of the non-discrimination provisions of the recent Report and Order, which discusses paid prioritization at length and addresses why it would generally be prohibited by the no-unreasonable-discrimination rule.
I have a lot of problems with how the FCC regulates the air waves.
The Fairness Doctrine is being leveraged to ensure that there are only two viable political parties.
The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and repealed by the FCC in 1987. Its not being leveraged to do anything. So you've got problems, but they don't seem to be with the FCC.
The two-party duopoly is a product of the electoral system, and has been pretty much a consistent feature of the US since the adoption of the Constitution, which long predates the Fairness Doctrine -- and has unsurprisingly outlived the Fairness Doctrine.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he did access a computer that he bought for his wife and that he had often used, possibly while exceeding valid authorization, but he used the password that his wife had written down in a book next to the computer, so from the provider's viewpoint, he was authorized.
Having a password where it is easy to get at might make it easy for someone else to pretend to be authorized, but it doesn't make them actually authorized, just like having the key to your front door "hidden" under an obviously fake rock in your garden near the door that makes it easy for any stranger to unlock your door and enter your house doesn't mean they are legally permitted to do so.
As to the gay marriage issue, in all due respect to your atheist religion, I think pinning everything on God is cheap logic. As we saw with the Prop 8 trial, there's a fairly solid line of logic behind the bans as well. The reasoning goes like this:
A) We need children, or we're going to die out. Further we'd like these children to be raised in two-parent homes wherever possible.
B) To encourage this behavior, we're going to incentivize marriage at the government-subsidy level, the employee benefit level, and others.
C) Because gay couples cannot directly produce children raised in two-parent households, they're not entitled to the incentives.
Marriage does nothing to incentivize producing or raising children, so this whole argument is completely bunk. About the only thing that the civil institution of marriage (at least, as it is structured in most jurisdictions in the US) does that has anything to do with producing or raising children is creates either a rebuttable or absolute legal presumption of paternity for any children which a married woman happens to have during the marriage.
Civil marriage is more about incentivizing stable mutually-supporting economic partnerships among adult citizens as the basis of a stable, ordered society than it is about anything to do with producing children. Obviously, one of the benefits of these partnerships (but not a central one) is that this produces a desirable context for raising children.
This is also my take on it. "two become one".
Bible quotes are quite often not illuminating as to the effect of civil law.
But I am starting to wonder if either I was mislead somewhere about what marriage was, or if marriage is quickly being redefined into something completely meaningless.
Marriage has fairly continuously been redefined as economic conditions and social mores have changed throughout history. Neither the fact that the legal status is inconsistent with your personal expectation nor the fact that it is not exactly the same thing as it was in, say, Medieval Europe makes it "meaningless".
Despite all of this, the newly-elected Congress has extended the 45 cent-per-gallon ethanol blending tax credit that was due to expire
The term of the newly elected Congress begins January 3, 2011. The newly-elected Congress hasn't taken office, much less passed any laws yet.
Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?
Um, what? Its not like Genachowski is asking for anything that goes to him personally. Its not asking for "additional compensation" to require that a company takes steps to do what the law requires you to assure that they do when approving a request before you will vote to approve the request.
I'd be happy if there were laws against the joining of Content and Distribution.
The write to your representatives in Congress. The FCC regulates under the laws they have, not the laws you wish they had.
Its not "just promises".
It "accepts being legally prohibited from doing them."
Genius. Trust a business to put the interests of the people ahead of their profit.
Its not about "trust". Its about imposing requirements.
en if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Their legal mandate is not to cover every bad thing Comcast can do, it is to establish conditions under which the acquisition would not be unacceptable given the things the FCC is legally charged with protecting, at which point Comcast can choose to accept the conditions or not go forward with the acquisition.
The FCC is not, say, one of the central planning organizations of the USSR with unlimited and arbitrary power over commerce (or even the limited domain of communications systems.) It has specific powers which it can exercise in support of specific policy objectives dictated by Congress.
If they're going that far, then why not just have LLVM recompile Dalvik bytecode to x86, ARM, etc.?
I would expect that at least one of the options on the table for Chrome/Android convergence -- which Google has been open is the long-range plan -- is either a Dalvik/PNaCl bridge (so that Dalvik bytecode would be converted to PNaCl wire format for transfer and executed via NativeClient) or using Dalvik bytecode as an alternative wire format to PNaCl using the same basic infrastructure.
Oh wait, because that would be too much like Android.
While Android and Chrome OS have different initial target markets and short-term priorities, Google has never made it a secret that they see the two as, in the long term, converging. So, no, I doubt that "that would be too much like Android" is a reason to reject an approach in Chrome OS.
There are a few things that grandparent might be referring to. One is the E/I requirement: three hours per subchannel per week of regularly scheduled educational programming intended for children. Television programming for children 12 and under must be carefully edited so as not to look remotely like an infomercial; the series Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh! in particular have been responsible for fines against broadcast stations.
Sure, while that has to do with content, it is nothing like the viewpoint balance requirements of the Fairness Doctrine.
Another is "Reasonable Access" and "Equal Opportunity" for candidates to buy ad time.
That does have to do with viewpoint non-discrimination, but only in advertising sales in a narrow area (not in the broadcasters own content), and neither of those policies initiated by the FCC within its discretionary authority -- both "Reasonable Access" and the "Equal Opportunity" requirements are express Congressional mandates in the Telecommunication Act.
The idea that the FCC is covertly applying the same kind of rules that were involved in the Fairness Doctrine under the label "Diversity" is, plainly and simply, false.
Windows CE (now called Windows Embedded Compact, for some confusing reason)
Probably because it avoids the natural abbreviation of Windows CE to WinCE, which is undesirable (from Microsoft's perspective), given what the word "wince" means in the English language.
The NT Kernel might be, even after all this time slapping whatever each release thinks is a useful feature into it, but who cares about that. I think I can guarantee Office will not run on ARM, so its pretty much dead already.
I think all they really care about is whether IE, the .NET framework/Silverlight, and things like Office Live will work on it. ARM devices, if they are keyboard & mouse/touchpad devices, are going to be more likely to be ultralight netbooks or nettops rather than desktop-replacement laptops or standard desktops.
And even without any compatibility headaches, most Windows applications weren't written with a touch interface in mind, so having a goal of Windows on a tablet is just asking for trouble.
ARM is not the same thing as touch. Google has been rather upfront in that while the first consumer netbook for Chrome OS following the Cr-48 pilot device will, like the Cr-48, be Intel devices, they really want to get hardware partners for ARM-based Chrome OS netbooks, as well, and eventually they want to deliver (via the Portable Native Client technology now in development on top of the existing x86/ARM Native Client that allows platform-specific native code to run in the Chrome browser) "native" Chrome OS apps in LLVM bitcode that can transparently be run as sandboxed native apps on both x86 and ARM (initially, and potentially more architectures over time) systems without any need to maintain separate source code or even separate architecture-specific builds.
Why port it to ARM and talk about it if there's no clear strategy or reason for doing so?
My guess is the strategy and reason for doing so is to encourage device makers thinking about, e.g., ARM netbooks to hold off on committing resources to things like Chrome OS (which Google has made it quite clear they want to be on ARM devices as well as the initial x86 devices) and Ubuntu.
My guess is that Chrome OS is the big trigger, from timing and the fact that Chrome OS is being actively and heavily promoted by a well-funded company that is clearly focussed on competing with Microsoft on a wide range of markets, and for whom weakening Microsoft's OS dominance in the keyboard+mouse/touchpad market is a key lever to weakening (in the case of, e.g., office suites) or preventing (as in the case of, e.g., cloud application hosting) Microsoft's market power in a wide range of other markets in which the two compete.
It's odd that Intel are trying to get people off ARM and onto Atom (low power x86) while Microsoft are thinking of moving people from Intel to ARM.
Microsoft isn't trying to move people from Intel to ARM, Microsoft has realized that stopping people from moving to ARM isn't something they have the power to do, and is trying to minimize the likelihood that those who does decide to use ARM support competing operating systems in the process.
With the Chrome OS hardware/software in a kind of semi-public test phase with fairly imminent general release, even though the initial hardware (both the Cr-48 and the announced initial planned consumer units) is x86, there is some pressure on MS, since Chromium OS -- including Native Client -- as I understand is already working on ARM and Google has stated that they intend to work with hardware manufacturers to get branded Chrome OS delivered on ARM devices.
Announcing plans for Windows on ARM is potentially a way to try to dilute manufacturer support for Chrome OS on ARM to avoid or at least mitigate Google getting a foothold in the OS market at the inexpensive end of the keyboard & pointing device market that Windows still dominates.
Especially once Portable Native Client is working (delivering code over the web in LLVM bit code form that is verified on the client and compiled to native code for x86, ARM, and potentially future supported platforms) rather than NaCl only using platform-specific compiled code, Chrome OS may be one of the strongest challenges MS has seen in that market since its dominance was established.
No.. the users are the ones who can't figure out how to use the system, that's why there's an admin.. if users knew what the fuck they were doing, we wouldn't NEED sysadmins in the first place.
If the system was designed properly for the userbase, so that users could use the system, you'd still need sysadmins to administer the system, which is notionally what sysadmins are for (hence the name.)
You wouldn't need sysadmins to take breaks from administering the system to handhold users through basic usage tasks, but then, that's not really the point of a system adminstrator in the first place.
if it fails in a way that you never thought possible, how would you write an error message that describes the failure?
Well, if you (or, rather, the application code) know that it fails (IOW, if it hasn't failed at a level so far down that it just dumped core/GPFed/etc. without even signalling your code) then you probably know something about the context where the error occurred (what was in progress), what code module of yours received the error, and what the exception or other indication of failure you received from outside of your code to let you know that something was wrong.
The problem is as you say in the last paragraph, "If a patient insists on antibiotics, and in the physician's medical judgement they are inappropriate", then all he would have to do is give the patient a bottle of NaHCO3 in a dihydrogen oxide solution, say he's giving them NaHCO3 in a dihydrogen oxide solution and to take a teaspoon every 12 hours and call if it gets worse.
That might be legally sufficient, but if the intent and effect is deceptive, its still ethically fraudulent and there is no informed consent in any meaningful sense.
The ability of expert professionals to deceive laypeople is not an excuse for the exercise of such an ability, in fact, its the source of the ethical obligation to honestly inform clients in terms they understand.
Well, its like the gold flakes part.
Luxury foods like caviar are still foods, and actually relate to the intended function of pizza, unlike diamonds on a TV.
I think Polar Express demonstrated the same problem with the motion capture - everyone is drastically different in their motion and mannerism, and if you use one person to portray a dozen different people, then they will all look unnaturally similar.
I don't think that's a fundamental problem, I think that's a problem with choosing the wrong actor. There are actors that are very good at creating distinct characters through motion and mannerism, and there are actors that have a more limited palette of motion and mannerism. Either -- depending on how well they portray the feeling of a particular story -- can be great actors at playing one role in a piece, but only the former are likely to be successful playing multiple roles (unless they are supposed to have eerily-similar mannerisms) in the same piece -- whether its live action (as in a live "one man" show, or on film using camera tricks) or done via motion capture.
(The same thing that is true of motion and mannerism is true of voice acting; there are actors that can define distinct characters through voice alone, and actors that can't, and either can be good for one voice role in a piece.)
This isn't "ethically questionable" as TFA posits, it's a GOOD thing
No. Its neither ethically questionable nor good, its outright ethically wrong and violates informed consent.
People insist on antibiotics, but antibiotics are no better than placebos on viral infections
Antibiotics are much better than placebos at preventing secondary bacterial infections that follow behind viral infections, a modestly common problem with many common viral infections, and a very common and dangerous problem for some common, otherwise minor, viral infections in particularly sensitive patients (respiratory infections in asthmatics, are on obvious example.)
They are also better than placebos, on average, at dealing with infections that are most likely viral, but for which a test that would clearly determine whether the infection is viral or not either takes too long compared to the expected untreated recovery time to be worthwhile or is too expensive to be worthwhile. Which is a fairly common situation.
If a patient insists on antibiotics, and in the physician's medical judgement they are inappropriate, lying about what is being prescribed and giving a placebo is not ethical, its -- morally if not legally -- a fraud.
Stop using the word "web" to refer to proprietary push technologies.
GP never uses the word "web" to refer to proprietary push technologies, so it would be hard to stop doing that.
Yes, the Doctrine was repealed in 1987. However, the FCC still enforces the same principle under the "Diversity" moniker, with the same methodology (programming must contain content X, Y and Z in the proportions the FCC requires or your broadcast license is revoked).
Really? Evidence (not speculation or unsupported allegations) of this is to be found, where exactly?
The Fairness Doctrine is alive and well, under the auspices of their Chief Diversity Officer (yes, that's the title of the position and it has real authority), Mark Lloyd.
AFAICT Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd's resposibilities with regard to "diversity" have to do with ensuring "that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities" (as per the FCC page about him) -- that is diversity of ownership, equality of access among groups, and diversity of viewpoints across the whole market -- not that individual broadcasters represent a specified ratio of particular viewpoints as was the case under the Fairness Doctrine. This seems consistent with the general use of "Diversity" as a goal within the FCC, such as the orientation of the Diversity Federal Advisory Committee.
The only references I can find on to "Diversity" or the "Chief Diversity Officer" at the FCC having anything to do with anything even remotely related to the single-broadcaster requirements imposed under the Fairness Doctrine are political advocacy sites making claims of that nature with no concrete support.
In what specific manner is the Dec. 21 Report and Order a "newspeak-named lie of a policy"?
For instance, what about CDNs like Akamai and Level3? Clearly these networks pay ISPs more to prioritize the packets they are carrying rather than just connecting through conventional peering. Is this packet discrimination?
My understanding is that what CDNs do is not paid prioritization, they just have servers distributed (in network topology more than strict geography) so as to provide redundancy and close access to users. To the extent that it is paid prioritization, it would probably run afoul of the non-discrimination provisions of the recent Report and Order, which discusses paid prioritization at length and addresses why it would generally be prohibited by the no-unreasonable-discrimination rule.
I have a lot of problems with how the FCC regulates the air waves.
The Fairness Doctrine is being leveraged to ensure that there are only two viable political parties.
The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and repealed by the FCC in 1987. Its not being leveraged to do anything. So you've got problems, but they don't seem to be with the FCC.
The two-party duopoly is a product of the electoral system, and has been pretty much a consistent feature of the US since the adoption of the Constitution, which long predates the Fairness Doctrine -- and has unsurprisingly outlived the Fairness Doctrine.