1. Almost any person who identifies as "Gorean" is into fairly severe heterosexual, male-dominant BDSM. (Otherwise they're misusing the term wildly, and it's not a common error to do so.) 2. Most men who identify as Gorean support society-wide male subjugation of females. Either that, or they are generally poseurs. (Otherwise they wouldn't bother using that term, and indeed would still be misusing it.) 3. Many people who engage in Gorean role-play don't identify as "Gorean" in real life, nor are they otherwise subject to the generalities in Point #2.
Basically, "Gorean" means a combination of:
A. What the BDSM community calls TPE (Total Power Exchange). B. Strong opinions on how ANY woman should related to ANY man. (Or to any "true" man.)
Fuss about real-life Part B is a lot easier to justify than fuss about Part A, or of course than about a merely role-played version of Gor
All that said -- I neither know nor care to investigate the particulars of the case, such as: Was the guy just spouting noxious political views in a small group setting, or was he doing so more widely, or did his colleagues feel he was acting on those views toward them?
It might also be worth mentioning that a full set of Gorean views would include: -- A strong set of professional ethics, different for different professions. -- A "fuck you" attitude toward anybody who doesn't like how you conduct yourself in your private life.
"In that case it'd really suck for the hospital if they didn't have the record on file or access to another hospital that did."
Which is the current default. I don't see a huge outcry about this.
"Maybe the patient is severely allergic you're about to give him."
Also the current default. Which is why they make medalert bracelets. If you have a severe medical problem, you already have the info on you. At least if you give a damn. Problem solved.
EHR's are a solution to a problem that patients don't have. It would be great for employers, insurance companies, the government, software companies, etc. But not really for the patient (or the doctors).
Please get out of the 1980s, and start heading for the 2020s. Personalized medicine is coming. Everything in the record will actually be relevant to treatment.
"Medical care is full of information waivers, much like EULAs, only with your health at stake."
This is sloppily worded, but let's be clear that medical privacy is not the same thing as "your health". If someone sees my private medical records, it doesn't make me sicker. If anything, more eyeballs would tend to make me less sick, as medical errors would be more likely to be caught.
What I meant is that if you want to reject the EULA, you can't use the software. If you want to reject the waiver, you can't get healthcare.
Oh I see. You mean make it illegal to receive the records not create them. That means you have to hit extracts from, derived works from the records regardless of source. I have some serious questions about the constitutionality of laws like that. Remember you have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a law was broken.
Try and write one up that gets around all the ways the data can me modified and then sold.
Now you're on the right track!
I'm sure I haven't thought of everything that's necessary. But I'm game for as many rings of defense as it takes. You mustn't transfer the info illicitly. You mustn't sell it. You musn't buy it. You musn't use it for the purposes people would want to buy it for. And you surely mustn't do hacking to get it.
Hence the need for strong laws to add to the DISincentives for hacking.
There's only so strong you can make the laws. You can make the penalty death and forfeiture of all property to the state, but if the incentives FOR it are strong enough, and the chance of getting away with it perceived to be good enough, it'll happen anyway.
No argument. But my point is that the incentives FOR using people's medical records against them aren't really that high, especially if the what the records show is merely elevated probabilities of some unfortunate outcome(s).
And those records will illicitly be used -- how? Spam? We all get plenty of medical spam anyway. Non-spam? Legitimate businesses can be seriously penalized. Discrimination? Too much of a "paper" trail for discrimination to use that vector.
"Your honor, I did not not hire him because of his genetic defects, it's simply because he wasn't a perfect fit for the job. We found somebody who types faster."
Problem solved.
Anti-discrimination legislation is, in general, partially successful. Your extreme position adds more humor than insight.
Exactly why we need anti-discrimination legislation in ADDITION to privacy protections
Anti-discrimination laws aren't working, right now. What makes you think they'll start working if we make discrimination much easier and much (really, very much) more profitable?
P.S.: I speak from the PoV of Spain; maybe in the states anti-discrimination laws really work and saying you're two month pregnant during a job interview wouldn't alter the result in the least.
Fair enough. But I was talking about discrimination for smaller factors, such as mere statistical risks of ill health.
You're right that anti-discrimination for gross disabilities is only partially successful. In the US it's the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Might not be spam. ALL marketing based on medical information should be illegal, with only the narrowest of carve-outs for your actual healthcare providers.
I always thought Lamarckian Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamark/ was poo poo. Maybe we need to look at it again given recent discoveries like this one and finding that disease can change DNA and get passed on.
I was going to mention Lysenko, but that would be going too far.
You mistyped your link, by the way, by leaving out the C in LamarCk.
But the nice round numbers lead to marketing false alarms, so I think it's noteworthy when hype gives way to reality.
This also happens to be an area that lends itself to round numbers right now, since 10 terabytes is about the level where Oracle has totally run out of gas, and 100 terabytes used to be the hard limit on Netezza configurations.
The post surprisingly does not mention Aster Data Systems which is the datawarehouse behind MySpace. When web sites start to store and analyze every single user click then you quickly get into massive amount of data. It's no surprise that the Petabyte barrier is reached especially with the density of storage increasing at constant cost.
I met with Aster Data last Thursday, and will be writing about them soon. Aster's MySpace installation is a big database. But it's not petabyte-scale yet.
To be absolutely clear, installation has ZERO to do with technical capabilities
I just wanted to separate that quote out from the rest, so that I could marvel at the pureness of its stupidity.
Incidentally, I happen to share your evident opinion of the relative merits of Postgres and MySQL. Even so, your understanding of reasonable software product evaluation criteria seems to be exceeded only by the civility of your discourse.
th respecting understand this simple fact.At the end of the day, with so many excellent relational databases available at zero or little cost, choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL.
True though that may be, there are quite a lot of people running databases not because they want to develop a new application, in which case, yes, indeed, "choosing worst options speaks poorly of them," but rather because they want to run Application X, where someone else (whom we might speak poorly of!) wrote Application X to only be compatible with the "worse options."
I'd dearly love WordPress to run on Postgres. But it doesn't. And so I'm a MySQL user at multiple sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the former was ever accurate.
I think "BDSM" was originally coined on alt.sex.bondage in the late 1980s as a clever play on the three pre-existing acronyms B&D, D&S, and S&M.
Am I wrong?
Simple, sufficiently accurate generalities start:
1. Almost any person who identifies as "Gorean" is into fairly severe heterosexual, male-dominant BDSM. (Otherwise they're misusing the term wildly, and it's not a common error to do so.)
2. Most men who identify as Gorean support society-wide male subjugation of females. Either that, or they are generally poseurs. (Otherwise they wouldn't bother using that term, and indeed would still be misusing it.)
3. Many people who engage in Gorean role-play don't identify as "Gorean" in real life, nor are they otherwise subject to the generalities in Point #2.
Basically, "Gorean" means a combination of:
A. What the BDSM community calls TPE (Total Power Exchange).
B. Strong opinions on how ANY woman should related to ANY man. (Or to any "true" man.)
Fuss about real-life Part B is a lot easier to justify than fuss about Part A, or of course than about a merely role-played version of Gor
All that said -- I neither know nor care to investigate the particulars of the case, such as: Was the guy just spouting noxious political views in a small group setting, or was he doing so more widely, or did his colleagues feel he was acting on those views toward them?
It might also be worth mentioning that a full set of Gorean views would include:
-- A strong set of professional ethics, different for different professions.
-- A "fuck you" attitude toward anybody who doesn't like how you conduct yourself in your private life.
It's not an either/or. Cats behave towards us in some ways like they do toward their mothers, in other ways otherwise.
My cat treats me largely as his butler -- opening doors, fetching beverages, and so on. Perhaps he's been reading some P. G. Wodehouse.
"In that case it'd really suck for the hospital if they didn't have the record on file or access to another hospital that did."
Which is the current default. I don't see a huge outcry about this.
"Maybe the patient is severely allergic you're about to give him."
Also the current default. Which is why they make medalert bracelets. If you have a severe medical problem, you already have the info on you. At least if you give a damn. Problem solved.
EHR's are a solution to a problem that patients don't have. It would be great for employers, insurance companies, the government, software companies, etc. But not really for the patient (or the doctors).
Please get out of the 1980s, and start heading for the 2020s. Personalized medicine is coming. Everything in the record will actually be relevant to treatment.
> What if his in an emergency and happens not to walk with that card in the pocket?
Gee, I don't know. What do they do now?
What they do now is get inferior treatment to that which they would/will get with good EHRs, sometimes dying as a result.
"Medical care is full of information waivers, much like EULAs, only with your health at stake."
This is sloppily worded, but let's be clear that medical privacy is not the same thing as "your health". If someone sees my private medical records, it doesn't make me sicker. If anything, more eyeballs would tend to make me less sick, as medical errors would be more likely to be caught.
What I meant is that if you want to reject the EULA, you can't use the software. If you want to reject the waiver, you can't get healthcare.
Spam being illegal certainly has curbed its proliferation - NOT !
All kidding aside, I think you're wrong about that.
http://edge.networkworld.com/community/node/36965
Oh I see. You mean make it illegal to receive the records not create them. That means you have to hit extracts from, derived works from the records regardless of source. I have some serious questions about the constitutionality of laws like that. Remember you have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a law was broken.
Try and write one up that gets around all the ways the data can me modified and then sold.
Now you're on the right track!
I'm sure I haven't thought of everything that's necessary. But I'm game for as many rings of defense as it takes. You mustn't transfer the info illicitly. You mustn't sell it. You musn't buy it. You musn't use it for the purposes people would want to buy it for. And you surely mustn't do hacking to get it.
And HR managers will risk jail over the hacking to play out your scenario?
There's only so strong you can make the laws. You can make the penalty death and forfeiture of all property to the state, but if the incentives FOR it are strong enough, and the chance of getting away with it perceived to be good enough, it'll happen anyway.
No argument. But my point is that the incentives FOR using people's medical records against them aren't really that high, especially if the what the records show is merely elevated probabilities of some unfortunate outcome(s).
And those records will illicitly be used -- how? Spam? We all get plenty of medical spam anyway. Non-spam? Legitimate businesses can be seriously penalized. Discrimination? Too much of a "paper" trail for discrimination to use that vector.
anti-discrimination legislation
Anti-discrimination legislation will never work.
"Your honor, I did not not hire him because of his genetic defects, it's simply because he wasn't a perfect fit for the job. We found somebody who types faster."
Problem solved.
Anti-discrimination legislation is, in general, partially successful. Your extreme position adds more humor than insight.
Exactly why we need anti-discrimination legislation in ADDITION to privacy protections
Anti-discrimination laws aren't working, right now. What makes you think they'll start working if we make discrimination much easier and much (really, very much) more profitable?
P.S.: I speak from the PoV of Spain; maybe in the states anti-discrimination laws really work and saying you're two month pregnant during a job interview wouldn't alter the result in the least.
Fair enough. But I was talking about discrimination for smaller factors, such as mere statistical risks of ill health.
You're right that anti-discrimination for gross disabilities is only partially successful. In the US it's the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Might not be spam. ALL marketing based on medical information should be illegal, with only the narrowest of carve-outs for your actual healthcare providers.
the incentives for hacking are too strong and the distribution has to be too wide.
Hence the need for strong laws to add to the DISincentives for hacking.
LOL.
Exactly one of the things I suggested be made illegal.
I'm glad to see so much emphasis on audit trails.
I called out that point in an early post re government data use, but you guys are right that it applies in the medical case as well.
Exactly why we need anti-discrimination legislation in ADDITION to privacy protections.
I always thought Lamarckian Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamark/ was poo poo. Maybe we need to look at it again given recent discoveries like this one and finding that disease can change DNA and get passed on.
I was going to mention Lysenko, but that would be going too far.
You mistyped your link, by the way, by leaving out the C in LamarCk.
If "glowing hearts" are trademarked, this could get ugly ...
You have a point.
But the nice round numbers lead to marketing false alarms, so I think it's noteworthy when hype gives way to reality.
This also happens to be an area that lends itself to round numbers right now, since 10 terabytes is about the level where Oracle has totally run out of gas, and 100 terabytes used to be the hard limit on Netezza configurations.
CAM
The post surprisingly does not mention Aster Data Systems which is the datawarehouse behind MySpace. When web sites start to store and analyze every single user click then you quickly get into massive amount of data. It's no surprise that the Petabyte barrier is reached especially with the density of storage increasing at constant cost.
I met with Aster Data last Thursday, and will be writing about them soon. Aster's MySpace installation is a big database. But it's not petabyte-scale yet.
CAM
how are you measuring that? Total database size? Raw input data size?
It's true user data. I make a point of that.
Following through to the links re Teradata gives a sense of what kind of back and forth that can engender.
CAM
To be absolutely clear, installation has ZERO to do with technical capabilities
I just wanted to separate that quote out from the rest, so that I could marvel at the pureness of its stupidity.
Incidentally, I happen to share your evident opinion of the relative merits of Postgres and MySQL. Even so, your understanding of reasonable software product evaluation criteria seems to be exceeded only by the civility of your discourse.
CAM
th respecting understand this simple fact.At the end of the day, with so many excellent relational databases available at zero or little cost, choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL.
True though that may be, there are quite a lot of people running databases not because they want to develop a new application, in which case, yes, indeed, "choosing worst options speaks poorly of them," but rather because they want to run Application X, where someone else (whom we might speak poorly of!) wrote Application X to only be compatible with the "worse options."
I'd dearly love WordPress to run on Postgres. But it doesn't. And so I'm a MySQL user at multiple sites.
Curt Monash