Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Clipper Chip Anyone? (Score 4, Informative) 466

by bill_mcgonigle (#48040263) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it....even if they have to force it down our throats.

Holder doesn't fail to understand it - he and his ilk are back for Round 2. They will persist until the liberty is removed, however many rounds that takes. Then they will move on to the next liberty that still stands. If they can't win at the Federal level, they will get it done at the State level (e.g. California's back door requirements for cell phones).

That's how government works; I guess your point is well-supported by the history after all.

Comment: Billionaire Computer Science Major Judith Faulkner (Score 1) 225

by bill_mcgonigle (#48039411) Attached to: Back To Faxes: Doctors Can't Exchange Digital Medical Records

billionaire computer science major Judith Faulkner

What? Who says things like that? Is there even any semantic meaning in context of the issue? </aside>

My understanding, especially from friends still-on-the-inside (of clinical information systems), is that EPIC's main product is a SEP field.

I used to work on what was once hailed as a model clinical information system, but it was killed by beancounter CIO-types, angling for bonuses on unspent budgets, and eventually they were replaced by the clinicians who just wanted something where they felt they could get features and reliability (internal requests for such were almost always turned down by management because of perverse incentives).

Not being qualified to make technical decisions, [as I understand it] the clinicians went for big & popular, as it was felt that at least that stood a good chance of being decent. But more importantly, the internal bureaucrats were always angling for budgets and lawyers while the outside vendor is able to offer relief from all of that for merely a mountain of money. Clinical functionality is somewhere down the list in terms of required features.

Comment: Re:Kill two birds with one stone (Score 1) 143

by bill_mcgonigle (#48038365) Attached to: Aral Sea Basin Almost Completely Dry

Obvious downside: fossil fuel use to get water where it is most useful may exacerbate the problem over time.

We know just fine how to build nuclear-powered ocean vessels. Maybe Congress can give the corporate welfare to the MIC to build iceberg haulers instead of battleships.

Since we're on the subject, does anybody know how to calculate the centripetal and gravity effects of a long-range tunnel bored through the earth's crust? I suspect there must be a maximum achievable tunnel length but also maybe the rotation of the Earth could be used for pumping energy, depending on direction.

It might just be easier, though, to warm to environment and have some of Antartica melt again, and re-humidify the atmosphere. People cannot seem to wrap their heads around the ice sheets, but if you told them there was a hole bigger than the United States filled with 500 feet of fresh water that was locked away from the atmosphere - that they could get. Even fewer can understand that the oceans have risen 120m in the past 20,000 years - geologists aren't welcome in the mainstream (pundits won't even accept those graphs in the IPCC reports).

Comment: Re:The water wars are coming (Score 0) 143

by bill_mcgonigle (#48038273) Attached to: Aral Sea Basin Almost Completely Dry

All the water that used to be in the Aral Sea, had to go somewhere. Today it is in the oceans, raising global sea levels by several millimeters.

I can see not reading the article, it is Slashdot, but to jump to comment before even the second paragraph of the summary ... that just leads to embarrassment.

Comment: Re:This is the wrong attitude (Score 2) 110

by cs2501x (#48026239) Attached to: California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Warrants For Drone Surveillance

The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.

Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

If you're assuming the reason it was rejected is in fact the one publicly stated, then it would seem so. I remain unconvinced, however.

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.