Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Your SSN has nothing to do with your medical condition or status, does it? Then how could it be data that is required to analyze the results?
You are 100% right. But the law doesn't say "medical data". It says "data". The consent form I signed considered my SSN and DOB to be data. Your assertion that the law is wrong, but will be done correctly is beyond my faith in lawyers. It'll tie up every rule for 10 years, until the law makes it to the Supreme Court to define the term you assert is defined differently than the medical doctors conducting the experiments that would be covered by it.
If Bush or Cheney had done this, we'd want them prosecuted as well.
I didn't see anyone on the right go after Cheney for doing the same thing. Most "official" correspondence was handled with "personal" email. And when confronted, those official dealings were "lost". Clinton claims to have followed the law, turning over all work emails from a personal acount. Cheney told the American people to fuck off, and the Conservatives loved it.
"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Someone else pointed out that Cheney used mostly personal email for government business, but not solely, so I guess that gets a pass.
Also I saw no rule that requires all official emails use government servers. That's what she is accused of actually breaching. At least according to the summary and posters here. There's very little fact into what she did wrong, and more a focus on blaming her for something, anything, so long as it's plausible.
And now your problem with her is on the level of "she made a single personal local call at no cost, from the government phone, and that's misuse of government equipment." The problem is, that everyone uses government equipment for personal business when it doesn't cause cost. The idea is that small amounts of "personal" use are "authorized" as under those rules.
The law requires it be reproducible. If someone claims it isn't. How do you think that would be settled in a lawsuit? I think the only way would be for the EPA to prove reproducibility of it. If you think that requires actually reproducing it, then that's your opinion, not mine, even if I were to agree with it, I hadn't said it.
Of course, to stop the bouncing like that, International law only allows deportation to a country you have a "right" to be in.
And most places (local, not international law) don't allow someone to flee after getting stopped for an "illegal" act. You can't get stopped by customs for smuggling, and choose to return to your previous country to avoid prosecution.
In order for a computer driver to be a viable replacement for a real driver, it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be as good or better than a human driver.
I disagree. I see people calling for perfection, and I think that if every car was self-driving next year and the death toll in the USA was 20,000 dead people, that there'd be lots of lawsuits as the great macro-level reduction in deaths was objected to on a micro-level.
People are irrational about driving, and any decision that the computer makes that isn't provably perfect, will be challenged later by someone who lies and says they'd have taken the better action.