Of course it is "only metadata" and absolutely not invading privacy if you ask our "beloved" NSA."
Link to Original Source
Google and Facebook offer simple two-factor that works with any cellphone capable of SMS. Facebook also has a keygen built into their smartphone app. I wish everyone did this.
My 2FA from Google stopped working a few months ago, so I had to turn it off. I don't know why, but I no longer got SMS messages when I asked them to authorize something. Annoying.
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Zoe vs. Williams (1982).
I'll add that, although it is not the law of the USA, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 13(2) is explicit: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
All this talk isn't about the military, but about the economy. Anything that can be used to give other countries an edge against the largest country's economy is going to be leveraged to its fullest.
I live in Indonesia.
In this case it's not about the economy, it's about politics. Indonesia will have parliamentary elections in May 2014 and politicians of all stripes are looking for ways to distinguish them from their competitors. Since none have any platforms to speak of, and all are disgustingly corrupt, they use chest-thumping nationalism as one way to garner attention and hopefully votes. This has just given them a great opportunity and all are trying to out chest-thump the other parties. Mostly harmless.
"and spend 20 minutes on Google finding out what they really mean?" that why. You do not have the knowledge to do that, and the fact you think how they mean to you can be sussed out via google is laughable.
However, I don't see why you could take the results to your Dr.
I completely and totally disagree. You have an inalienable right to the results of tests of your body, whether paid for by you or someone else, whether ordered by a doctor or yourself. You have the right to Google the results of those tests, and even act on your limited knowledge if you are so inclined, even if that is foolish. The medical profession has been able to convince many people that the potential for misuse overrides your basic rights, but it doesn't. You must be free to choose among, say, waiting two weeks for a doctor's appointment or getting the test yourself and doing with the results what you will, assuming the technology exists, which is the subject of this article.
This is a topic near and dear to my heart. I am a type I diabetic and feel much more in control of my diabetes and my life since I moved from Canada to Indonesia. My Canadian endocrinologist was an asshole, but I couldn't go to another one -- all the ones recommended to me were refusing to take on new patients without a referral, and my GP referred his patients to the asshole. Tests could only be done on a doctor's order. Now, I can go to any number of clinics, walk in and get the critical blood test (for me, HbA1C) done in a few minutes for a few dollars. I can store my history over time, and show it to anyone I want, including any doctor I happen to be seeing. I self medicate, yes, using Google, for other conditions. I am in control and my life is better. Dean living with type I diabetes for 27 years, without complications. And happy.
The cost-per-test, or marginal cost, is impacted neither by the pharmaceutical company's study used to verify the accuracy of the test nor the FDA approval. These costs are fixed costs, not marginal costs. That is, these costs do not change dependent on the number of test kits produced. So technically, no, they don't push the cost-per-test up quite a bit. The company's desire to turn a profit is what pushes up the cost-per-test.
You are so right. I test my blood sugar a few times a day (Type I diabetic). Each test costs around $1, whether I buy test strips in Canada, Singapore or Indonesia. I'm locked into a meter given to me free by Bayer -- that's how much money there is in this business. I would guess the strips cost one cent to manufacture in bulk, two cents at most. The rest is obscene drug store and manufacturer margin. Canadian public health insurance (OHIP in my case) doesn't cover these, nor insulin. Do I believe these should be included in public health care? Absolutely. I haven't checked whether Obamacare specifically includes them, but assuming it does I think it is a huge step forward. Everyone's life includes some random elements, and including some treatments while excluding others from public insurance, or mandated private insurance, strikes me as arbitrary.
It seems that Tom's post is stuck at 2, and I don't understand why, so let me chime in. He's right. I have managed CSR programs in Indonesia, including one at a firm where they had previously invested around $10,000 to establish a microfinance lender. The lender has grown every year, and now has deposits and loans worth around 250,000. They employ people, but nothing compared to the employment their borrowers create. They are careful about screening applicants, and people pay back -- NPL (Non-performing loans) under 2%. I have had experiences with other projects which have generated much poorer returns, I suspect largely due to poor enforcement of the obligation to make regular payments. This stuff is capitalism at it's absolutest finest.
Banks can't do this stuff because their overheads and cost allocation models tell them it's unprofitable for them. That doesn't mean it doesn't work just fine if you don't have their overhead allocation methods. The only alternative for the rural near-poor (under $2 / day) are loan sharks, who charge 5-15% interest per month, which is a good example of unregulated banking at its lowest.
Monopolies aren't just businesses. It's possible that because he has so much more cash to throw at problems than everyone else, he could even be doing harm by overwhelming other possible solutions.
It's possible but it's not currently happening. The types of things he's doing are, as he specifically states in the article, complementary to what others, largely governments, are doing. The point he doesn't mention in the article, but which I think is critical, is that some of the problems his foundation is tackling are bigger than anything governments can do. Infectious diseases cross borders, so are beyond the scope of any single national government to solve. The work on malaria builds on, and exceeds, anything a government can do. Philanthropy sometimes gets a bad name, even among those in the CSR field (where I work) but there are some things that can only be solved by huge philanthropic investments. Polio and malaria are among them.
It's irrelevant; because the hypothetical proposes a fairly stiff standard of evidence to meet (and would only kick in when both that standard is met and a text-reading driver does something unpleasant enough to get the courts involved)
It's not irrelevant at all. If you are one of the defendants in a suit as a result of a motor vehicle collision, you and the other defendants are all subject to "joint and several" liability. That means that if you are found 1% at fault, and the driver is 99% at fault but dead, you are on the hook for all the damages. This judge knows that, and seems to be an idiot whose version of the law will be not be confirmed by higher courts, but it's a mildly troubling decision.
BTW, this story has some kind of clustersummary. Monkeys and keyboards don't mix.
The other article, linked to in the summary, piles a shitload of hyperbole, unsubstantiated claims and bullshit on top of that, and then gets someone to link to it here. Nothing substantiated about Android, SMS, or anything else. There is no link to Palo Alto Networks, but I googled them. There is nothing about this on their web site that I could find quickly. Nothing.
What we have here is a completely fabricated story posted on Slashdot because someone wanted to post a story, I guess, and the editors didn't even get suspicious about the obviously wrong article and click on the one link there. Slashdot, you are sometimes great, but you would be more consistently great if the editors just spent a few more minutes with the content. Like reading the articles. This was just fucking awful.
Take your work seriously but never take yourself seriously; and do not take what happens either to yourself or your work seriously. -- Booth Tarkington