Sure, people in hospitals need information, but surely something which is assisting in the physical process of a surgery (etc.) doesn't need to be in the cloud, does it?
As someone who works for a company that writes medical systems software, I can tell you that at the very least the systems need network connectivity so that the different systems can consolidate data in one place for examination. The problem is that any network connected device is potentially vulnerable to random Joe plugging a laptop into the network and hacking away.
To illustrate why that's bad, I've run into situations in which a client site (read: Hospital) outright prohibited using SSL/TLS on their servers. They deemed their internal network secure and refused to budge on allowing secure communications between the clients and the servers. Authentication information should always be encrypted and some administrators just don't get that.
As a whole, I think the medical technology industry needs someone to force tighter security requirements on software developers and medical sites as a whole. This is a good thing in my opinion. If that appropriate someone is the DHS may require a different discussion, but some government body needs to start pushing information security in the medical industry.
The deal will make Lucasfilm owner George Lucas a significant shareholder in Disney, which will pay for the film company with $2 billion cash and around 40 million shares of its stock. Lucas said he will work as a creative consultant on Star Wars Episode 7, the first of a planned new trilogy of live-action Star Wars movies. It is targeted for release in 2015, Disney said.
Link to Original Source
And if you feel like you child isn't getting enough education at school, try bolstering their education outside of normal school hours. Get involved with the education of your kids and find out exactly what it is that they're learning. Only then, can you as a parent determine where their education is lacking.
the cluster must still be in the process of formation.
Well, it's still in the process of formation where we can visibly see it. Given that it's 12.7 billion light years away, I'd like to believe that the galaxies are properly formed at this point. Though, given that not one person knows exactly how long it takes to form a proper galaxy, who's to say that it isn't finished. It's all best guess I suppose. Really cool science though, knowing that light from 12.7 billion years ago is illuminating our planet, however faint it may be.
The good news is that same intern now works for Apple as part of the CoreOS team. With rumors last year that a MacBook Air running on ARM could appear by 2013, could he be part of a team making that happen? If he is, I bet it will use the new ARMv8 architecture announced late last year.
Link to Original Source
If overseas pirating operations are what's causing all the ruckus, I don't see what passing stringent laws within the US borders will do to accomplish this task. It could just be me, but it seems that what the plan is with both of these acts is to try and police what happens on the internet worldwide. The United States has no business regulating the internet internationally. If they want to regulate it within their borders, that's the government's realm. Outside of the US, there's not one damn thing the US should be doing other than cooperating with other global governments to begin their own enforcement policies.
Not that I'm advocating internet regulation here, it just seems that the reasoning behind the acts is flawed, as is most of the data. I, myself, have created several copyrighted works, which found their way stolen and posted here and there. Sure it pissed me off, but as the person who owned the copyrights, it was my job to do the foot work responsible for making sure that either the content was taken down, or I was given appropriate attribution.
Going back to my primary point in posting, the US government, and US-based corporations needs to stop thinking that the US government is responsible for policing the world on any level.
That's just my $0.02.
I've used an older version primarily for OS deployments in a large-ish (500-800PC) network, and rarely had any difficulty. I think that the biggest downside, other than having to use Windows as your base OS, would be the costs for licensing. I think they sell it in blocks of 100 systems, and it isn't exactly cheap. It will, however, do exactly what you want in an automated fashion.
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
It's not the government or the ISP's job to monitor and/or determine the usage of the content available on the internet. Were I to publish a game, for example, it would then be up to me as an individual to research, inspect, and determine if anyone is infringing on the copyright of my game. Just because they're a large entity doesn't mean they should be exempted from the same issues facing the individual content owners.
Why should the ISP's be forced to swallow the costs of such a manhunt, when they receive zero benefit from the search, it costs them money, and it displays them negatively in the public light such that their brand is devalued, however slightly.
Essentially, content owners should be, and are, responsible for making sure that everyone who uses their content is abiding by their specified licenses, etc. If you're complaining about the costs that you incur whilst enforcing your licensing model, and want the government to help out, perhaps you should re-evaluate your licensing model. Of course, that particular dead horse has been beaten so severely, at this point, to be unrecognizable.
"Did you hear that there is a "
"Oh, don't worry about it, they were just testing the emergency broadcast system today. Nothing to worry about."
Just my $0.02 though.