Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:People are the problem (Score 2) 70

by Rich0 (#48266439) Attached to: "Ambulance Drone" Prototype Unveiled In Holland

Yeah, they REALLY need to improve the liability laws around things like this. AEDs are designed to be applicable by untrained users, and tests have shown that people generally are able to use them correctly by following only the verbal prompts.

I checked an in the state where I live you're only protected from liability if you hold a current certificate stating that you're trained in the specific procedure you performed (typically CPR+AED). These certificates often cost $40 and last only a year, so most people aren't going to have them. That is just ridiculous - you should not be liable if you make any good faith effort to save a life.

CPR guidelines generally recognize that even improperly-administered CPR is far preferable to not administering CPR. If the person is unresponsive then CPR should be administered. Modern AHA guidelines instruct non-professionals to not even check for a pulse now - you are only supposed to look for signs of breathing. Even medical professionals are only supposed to check briefly for a pulse before assuming one is not present, since pulses are easy for even professionals to miss. The rationale is that far more people are harmed by a delay in starting CPR than from performing it unnecessarily. Certificates should be even less necessary for an AED - they're designed to diagnose the condition and they will not issue a shock unless an abnormal heart rhythm that is treatable is detected. In theory you can attach one to a healthy person at any time and it won't do anything.

Comment: Re:People are the problem (Score 3, Informative) 70

by Rich0 (#48266367) Attached to: "Ambulance Drone" Prototype Unveiled In Holland

Mythybusters proved that is only a problem in unusual and unlikely circumstances so any man that does that deserves to be labeled a sex offender. Their kind just goes around looking for reasons to take off our clothes. The AED excuse is not a valid one.

The AED instructions (written in the manual and spoken by the machine upon activation) almost always state to remove clothing. Non-professions would almost certainly be covered by a good samaritan law (heck, you're covered if you accidentally kill them, let alone expose them in public). Professionals who disregard the instructions given by the device might even be liable for malpractice. The instructions given by the device are approved by the FDA, and the device is only certified to be effective if used in accordance with instructions.

Sure, the bra might not cause sparks, but you're supposed to do things by the book. The AED is not programmed to argue with an operator - the instructions are streamlined for emergency use and if there is some reason the model might be less effective with a bra on the instructions will not say so - they're just written as if they will be followed.

It has been a long time since I saw that Mythbusters episode and I was not very familiar with AED operation at the time, but something that occurred to me subsequently is that they probably didn't test the diagnostics capability of the AED. If the presence of a wire near the sensors interferes with the diagnostics in the device it may make an incorrect treatment decision, either failing to shock somebody who should be shocked, or delivering a shock to somebody who should not receive one. Either is potentially a life-threatening error. It would not really be possible to test this without proper equipment/etc, since you need to simulate the heart/chest/skin/etc electrically to do it.

In any case, anybody reputable who would testify in court is going to say that the primary consideration should be to take any measure that will maximize the likelihood of saving the patient's life, and that is going to include removing clothing. Why take a chance over something as silly as modesty? If you show up in a hospital trauma OR the first thing they're going to do is chop every stitch of clothing off of you, and for good reason.

Comment: Re:Inevitable outcome (Score 1) 173

by Rich0 (#48256397) Attached to: FTC Sues AT&T For Throttling 'Unlimited' Data Plan Customers Up To 90%

Settlement agreed upon with the FTC to include your choice of $2.99 worth of AT&T credit on your account

NO way that they'd just give you straight account credit.

They'd give you $2.99 off of the purchase of something new that you don't already have that costs about $300. Maybe you'd get $2.99 off of the purchase of a new iPad, or off of your first month of T1 service.

Comment: Re:Are you sure? (Score 1) 806

by Rich0 (#48255019) Attached to: Debate Over Systemd Exposes the Two Factions Tugging At Modern-day Linux

A vote of distribution developers, I believe at Redhat where systemd was writen the vote was overwhelming. At debian it was barely a majority. Don't know about SUSE. Certainly there was never a vote taken among users.

Gentoo certainly as folks in both camps, but it generally supports both openrc and systemd, and at this point you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that doesn't work with systemd. I don't know which "side" has a majority, but Gentoo tends to be about choice so it isn't really something that anybody really feels the need to force the issue on.

Comment: Re:How about we hackers? (Score 1) 806

by Rich0 (#48254531) Attached to: Debate Over Systemd Exposes the Two Factions Tugging At Modern-day Linux

Is there no middle road between init/inittab and systemd? Why the abrupt change over in a short period of time with a program that hasn't been time tested and comes with a lot of objections? Are there ways to make incremental changes towards the goals that systemd has?

I'd call OpenRC a middle-of-the-road solution. It is probably the best sysvinit-based solution I've ever seen, and nothing would stop anybody from using it on any distro (it is even bash-free).

However, I've been using OpenRC for many years now and I've happily moved on to SystemD. For me the benefits have been worth the pain of dealing with the early-adopter bugs. Plus, I got the sense that the wind was blowing this way a good year or two ago and felt that it was worth getting used to it.

Comment: Re:How about we hackers? (Score 1) 806

by Rich0 (#48254483) Attached to: Debate Over Systemd Exposes the Two Factions Tugging At Modern-day Linux

365 days without a security patch. Does uptime make you more money than protecting your customer data?

Most of my servers are behind firewalls with no incoming connections through the Internet. And, yes, uptime matters when we're doing something more critical than serving funny cat videos.

One of the nice things about systemd is that even on a box that needs network connectivity you can deny it to specific processes.

You can even use a systemd socket to accept incoming connections and pass them to a service that is running in a separate network namespace so that it doesn't have any access to the network otherwise. It can communicate via the socket it was given, but it can't make any other outgoing or incoming connection. So, it actually lets you limit your exposure to attacks quite a bit. Or, maybe it is in a network namespace that has access to some other host on the DMZ, but nothing else, including the internet from which the original connection came in.

Comment: Re:How about we hackers? (Score 1) 806

by Rich0 (#48254423) Attached to: Debate Over Systemd Exposes the Two Factions Tugging At Modern-day Linux

Yup. OpenRC is about as good a traditional sysvinit implementation as I've seen anywhere - it certainly is much better than what many of the anti-systemd crowd are currently using. However, I get this kind of behavior on Gentoo all the time and is just one of the reasons that I migrated to systemd.

With systemd I can stop a service, and it STOPS, unless there is some kind of kernel bug (can't help that other than to not use less-stable kernel features). It won't have any orphans. It won't have PID files left around. Etc. When I start a service it starts, and if it dies unexpectedly I get a failure status.

I'm using systemd to replace my cron jobs now, and for the first time I actually am taking notice of things like return codes. SystemD by default expects them to be zero (gasp!). If something normally exits with something else you can tell it to ignore it, but now when something fails I actually notice.

If daemons support it systemd can behave as a watchdog beyond just seeing if the process exists. You can put some code in the idle loop to ping systemd and on a timeout systemd will restart the process. Of course, it isn't a substitute for a protocol-specific watchdog, but your monitoring service can remotely connect via ssh and restart your process, and be sure it actually restarts instead of playing games like the one you just described. I used to run monit with OpenRC and I had to play all kinds of kill/zap/etc games in scripts to be sure it would actually restart processes.

Comment: Re:congratulations america, theyre still winning. (Score 1) 327

by Rich0 (#48254273) Attached to: LAX To London Flight Delayed Over "Al-Quida" Wi-Fi Name

Heart disease kills 600 million americans a year. thats 150 times the number of people who died in the world trade center but we still sell sandwiches called the baconator and a small or as we rebranded it 'regular' drink is still 22 ounces.

What evidence is there that drinking a 22 ounce drink or eating a "baconator" increases your risk of heart disease compared to drinking a 12 ounce drink or eating a sandwich not called a "baconator" - or heck, not containing bacon at all? I just had a baconator for lunch today and I've lost 50 pounds in the last year, and my 16 oz drink contained no calories.

I won't argue that people eat a lot of unhealthy stuff, but I'm not convinced that bacon is necessarily among the worst of it.

Comment: Re:The difference between boys and girls (Score 1) 599

by Rich0 (#48254133) Attached to: Solving the Mystery of Declining Female CS Enrollment

Women don't particularly love to be abused and they are less willing to put up with it from management than men (who are willing to get called some nasty things by their boss most times)

I don't think that women necessarily object more to abuse, but that our culture tends to give them more freedom to leave their jobs.

Our society tends to regard a working wife as a bit of a luxury. It certainly encourages women to work, but there is also nothing wrong if a woman just stays at home and raises kids, or if a woman is out of work for a while.

Our society tends to regard a working husband as more of a necessity. There is a stigma on a married man who is out of work. Families with a stay at home father and a working mother are very rare.

I think that there is also far less pressure for a young woman to move out of the parent's house/etc than there is for a young man to do the same.

So, a married man in particular is under a lot of pressure to simply not lose a job under any circumstances, while a woman often feels much more free to do so.

I'm speaking broadly, and I'm certainly interested if others feel differently. From my standpoint the women really are the ones with the right attitude here, but the problem is that the US in particular is very cruel to anybody who is out of work. There is very little government support available for anybody who is "picky" about working conditions, and social acceptance may have a big impact on somebody's ability to find support in other ways if they lose their job. Until men are as free to quit their job as women are, I doubt you'll find the same kind of parity in the workplace.

Look at it another way. Suppose you take two groups of runners and put them in races. The one group is competing such that the #1 runner gets a prize. For the second group after each race the last-place runner is shot and replaced with a new runner for the next race. After a number of races, which group do you think is going to end up having the faster average time?

Comment: Re:So people figure out yet... (Score 1) 117

by Rich0 (#48254003) Attached to: Pentagon Builds Units To Transport Ebola Patients

The more restrictive the quarantine rule is, the less likely someone will report symptoms. New cases don't announce themselves with a face-up card and a cube on a map. They arrive with aches and nausea, just like a thousand other ailments.

Then quarantine anybody who is coming from West Africa, or from any country that doesn't also quarantine anybody coming from West Africa. Problem solved.

Or, forcibly quarantine anybody who self-identifies as being at risk and give them a check for $1M for their inconvenience at the same time. Now there isn't incentive to avoid detection. Obviously that amount can be adjusted to whatever amount is effective.

If Ebola gets loose the costs will be astronomical. It doesn't make sense to make saving money a priority when preventing it from breaking out. That means R&D into a vaccine, treatments, as well as caring for people who are potential carriers. They shouldn't be treated as if they're being punished for something, but that doesn't mean that it is wise to just trust everybody to not ride the subway.

Comment: Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 307

by Rich0 (#48249545) Attached to: US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

On the other hand, the biggest hazard facing a cyber warrior is likely to be the morning commute.

There are a lot of computer attacks that must be done from inside a network, either because it isn't connected to anything else or because firewalls are good enough to stop outside attacks. This might require being on the ground somewhere that being shot at is possible.

The solution is to relax the physical requirements, not toss them out completely. The military could allow someone to join who doesn't meet standards, but every year after that, they would have to get closer to the standard, and maybe even eventually meet the same ones as every other soldier.

It would make more sense to have different divisions/etc for different purposes. You can't pilot a fighter jet safely in combat without excellent vision, but that doesn't mean that you can't refuel one without excellent vision, or plan a mission back at the Pentagon, or maybe even ferry one across the ocean. The solution to that isn't to insist that air force members steadily improve their vision either. You just don't let people without good vision become combat fighter pilots.

By all means have squads that are intended for infiltration, and they should have strict requirements, of which fitness is just one. The guys who set up their laptops don't need to meet the same requirements, and they're probably even more important to the mission since I doubt that the infiltrators are going to write their software from scratch while in the middle of an enemy facility. They may very well have to improvise, but if they don't have the right equipment they'll do as well as a special forces soldier with a gun that doesn't work.

Comment: Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 307

by Rich0 (#48242733) Attached to: US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

Sometimes the morning commute is in Kabul.

Sure, and for somebody who is forward-deployed the physical standards make a lot more sense, along with the rest of basic training, weapons proficiency, etc.

Somebody else pointed out that they really should tailor the requirements to the job, and not to the person. If the job required being able to run a mile in n minutes, then make those the requirements, and don't relax them for different genders, age, etc. If the job doesn't require that, then don't require it.

I imagine that you'd want some groups that are purely domestic-based, and you might want other "special operations" cyber warfare groups that are actually designed to be deployable. That shouldn't be done just so that the general can admire his tent full of guys with laptops - it should be done because the mission requires it (maybe the enemy is jamming satellite communications so nobody can talk to the USA and you need guys to mount "cyber attacks" locally. That certainly doesn't describe any situation the US has been in recently, but...

Comment: Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score 1) 307

by Rich0 (#48239197) Attached to: US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

The *best* would have no problem spending 30 minutes a day (or even every other day) for a month or so to meet those minimal requirements. Especially if you actually *wanted* the job - if not, then who cares? All it takes is a very small amount of willpower and commitment, something the Army should be looking for.

So your point is to require arbitrary commitments in order to weed out people who don't waste their time doing pointless work because they're desperate to have the job? I'm not sure that you're going to find a lot of great candidates for your "cyber warrior" division.

The thing is that the typical "cyber warrior" probably isn't some kid who doesn't have any other options (especially if they don't want to recruit people with criminal backgrounds, etc). If you want the best then it is the employer who really needs to be bending over backwards to prove that they have the willpower and commitment to hire the best. If you merely want mediocre to less, then by all means make your candidates jump through hoops, in this case almost literally.

Comment: Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score 1) 307

by Rich0 (#48239175) Attached to: US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

If you are in your early 20's and otherwise pass the basic health requirements, but can't do a dozen push ups in 2 minutes or stand for an hour, you probably should *not* be in the Army.

We're talking about a "cyber warfare" division of the Army. Your statement is like saying that grunts who don't know what an opcode is probably should *not* be in the Army. Both types belong in the new Army, but not in the same roles.

If you don't have any other health issues besides being so out of shape you can't accomplish those, then yes, I think spending the month or so it would take to get in a bit better shape to pass it would be a good sign of someone who might actually take pride and responsibility in their work.

You're more than welcome to think that. You may even take pride and responsibility in your work. Clearly though you're not a very good judge of character, though, so you'd definitely not be on my interview team. :)

If you want to know whether somebody takes pride in their work, then take a look at their work. Now, if the job you're hiring them for is highly physical, then their muscles will be a part of that work. If you're hiring a baker, then you probably should be caring more about whether they spend their spare time making cakes. :)

Comment: Re:Something wrong with those numbers (Score 1) 307

by Rich0 (#48239159) Attached to: US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

> Well, if that alone isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is

Given that young people are arrested for possession of alcohol if they're under 21, for driving with an expired license, or for insisting on filming police at a peaceful protest on a public street, it's not shocking.

Sure, and I wasn't suggesting that the problem was that the right sort of people weren't being born. I doubt the population of newborns today is somehow less virtuous than those who were born 50 years ago. The problem obviously lies in the laws, and by extension the public school system and the parents.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...