In 1987 he wrote the following preserved article about RELAY and here is his obituary.. May this early inventor rest in peace.
what new policies are in place to insure such an egregious violation of constitutional rights never happens again? What people were fired? And what assurance do the people have that this type of data-mining isn't just passed off to another agency?
Let's be clear here: not that much would have changed without certain revelations. It isn't enough to be caught with your hand in the cookie jar to simply say you won't do it again. I want a clear informed law that states some ass will be ground into dust if anyone tries this bullshit.
Anything short of that is just playing possum until it happens again.
SpaceShip One touched space and all elements were recovered and flew to space again.
BO's demonstration is more publicity than practical rocketry. It doesn't look like the aerodynamic elements of BO's current rocket are suitable for recovery after orbital injection, just after a straight up-down space tourism flight with no potential for orbit, just like SpaceShip One (and Two). They can't put an object in space and have it stay in orbit. They can just take dudes up for a short and expensive view and a little time in zero gee.
It's going to be real history when SpaceX recovers the first stage after an orbital injection, in that it will completely change the economics of getting to space and staying there.
That's all very well and good. Now look at the cost of medicine today, compare it to just 30 years ago, and then tell me it hasn't been driven in very large part by technological advances, which hasn't significantly improved outcomes, but has driven medical care out of reach for many, keeping in mind telemedicine is seen as a cost-saving measure due in part to more spending on the technological aspect of medicine at the expense of the infrastructure.
For all your claims it isn't getting better, reality has a counter argument.
Take a look at the reality for yourself then. It is less than clear-cut, except for the fact costs have risen dramatically.
Having seen telemedicine in practice over the past 10 years, I can tell you the clear and defining raison d'etre is a CYA mentality that at least some specialist was involved, and of course money. Lots and lots of money.
Of course any proof that patient outcomes were better is sorely lacking, but hey, who needs scientific rigour when there is money to be had selling a bunch of high-tech equipment to people who can barely afford it, let alone an actual doctor.
I don't see you listing any barriers that can't be overtaken
One of the largest obstacles to automated medicine is simple pattern recognition, where even having a wealth of information on tap is meaningless without boots on the ground that can identify subtle pattern changes that even patients might not notice, which often drives having further tests done. That requires having trained medical staff onsite, and that requires money, which in short supply. That is a huge barrier.
You are clearly against technological progress.
Nope, just seen 'technological progress' used as a sales pitch too often, that had very little to offer in terms of actual improvement, but by-golly succeeded splendidly in making some people rich.
You'd need a popular product to pull off obtaining second-clientage from governments, and you'd need not to reveal that your device had legal intercept.
This is just a poorly-directed company continuing to shoot itself in the foot. It's not made its product desirable for government, or for anyone else.
Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan