Yes but Star Wars is also a movie in which time was measured in units of distance (your mother in how many parsecs?
So I've been watching the debate here:
And I am not exactly sure whom I should vote for? Any ideas?
Link to Original Source
If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.
I think it's a well-accepted practice that commercial software that is within its useful life gets security patches. Given that CS6 is barely off the press, I would think it reasonable that CS5 still gets at least some support.
This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.
Despite what the "tough on crime" short-sighted idiots would say, this is not only a necessary decision, but a really long-time-coming one. Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side, there have been many unintentional violations of the current law. Furthermore, I wonder how many people who surfed the internet for legal (consentual, adult) pornography, have seen what looked like child porn at one time or another. But under current law, no matter how disgusted you may have been, or how quickly you closed the page, you were guilty by definition. Furthermore, if you reported what you saw, you not only were guilty, but you had confessed as well. This was akin to the UK case where a man found a shotgun that was thrown into his garden from a passing vehicle, and turned it into the police, only to be jailed for weapons possession, since he was "in possession" of it during the course of bringing it to the police station.
This is an important decision for internet safety, and should be applauded, and will hopefully serve as precedent for cases outside of New York as well, since the practice of trawling the browser cache for suspect images is fairly prevalent. And I have to say - I doubt that anyone who intentionally views child pornography would be that obvious, unless they were stupid. And if they were that stupid, there'd be plenty of other "downloaded" evidence all over the place. In short, the draconian law as it stands right now is simply not necessary for prosecution of real purveyors of child porn, and likely served only to trawl for victims.
Why wait for facts? Ban!
Is there an option to mod down for stream-of-stupidity?
I just have one thing to say:
We will all go together when we go.
The only way I can envision this actually happening the way the story is written, is if this particular method was well-known to the law enforcement and they had already worked out all the necessary tools for detecting AND breaking the hidden container.
Otherwise, it sounds like a false flag operation to me.
That's what I think, and I'm one of those people who wants to hit conspiracy nuts most of the time. That's how obvious this sounds.
I'm convinced there are people out there somewhere saying "We're not broke enough - how can we blow another $10 billion without starting a riot?"
"I know, lets try lasers on 747's again - spectacular success last time"
"Good - but when we're asked why we need them..."
"Those new fake missiles in NK could be a threat"
At least it'd (probably) be made in the US. I figure if we're wasting money, let's at least pay some Americans to play with high technology.
The vast majority of type 2 diabetes patients in the US are obese. Perhaps you should've stopped eating when you were only 100lbs overweight.
Your stab at the "pharma" is as ignorant of your own condition as I would expect, both relating to the nature of your condition, as well as the Herculean (and somewhat Sisyphean) research efforts surrounding it.
I cannot even tell you how much of a bad idea this is. I am graduating medical school in two months, and am barely starting to feel "a little" comfortable making a judgment on my own, only a fraction of the time. I will need to accumulate ALL of the experience that 3 years of 80+hour work weeks of residency can give me. And I am a cocky bastard at that. I just realize that the difference between a doctor (especially one trained at a high-volume top-tier teaching hospital) and a civilian is. The gap is so large, as to be close to insurmountable. Actually, probably the most important thing I have learned in my training, is that I know VERY LITTLE from the overall ocean of medical knowledge, and my pond is much larger than average.
Anyway, I'm ranting. Let me give you a shorter explanation. I have PhD. I am 2 months away from having an MD. If I have a rash that concerns me, I go to a dermatologist. I don't research it online, and won't use an app to do it. I know precisely enough between my two degrees to know where the limits of my knowledge are. Most people don't. The number of soccer-moms (and dads) who think they know medicine is enormous... and their tinkering puts them and their families in danger. Nothing can ever give you the knowledge and especially the experience of going through medical training... other than medical training.
At the beginning of my career, I will have spent 4 years in college, 5 years in graduate school, 4 years in medical school, 3 years in residency, and 3 years in fellowship (19 years total, with my guess an average of >80hrs/wk, even including college, but let's say 80, so over 70'000 hours, with 40'000 hours of medicine alone).
I really hope that when my patients come to me, I'll be more useful to them than an iPhone app.
You're not correct. And THAT is where the big difference between Google and Facebook lies. Google sells eyes, but the fact of the matter is that they are anonymous eyes, but sold as eyes belonging to people most likely to purchase the product being marketed. However, until you click on that link, all the company knows is that they've been matched to you by the black box of Google magic.
Facebook, on the other hand, shares information with "partners". They are BY DEFINITION a personal info vendor.
Google sells ads, and tailors them to the vendor. Facebook sells your data to the vendor directly. BIG difference in privacy implications.