Posts by pomegranate 39 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Sep 2013
Thanks for the back-and forth. The idea of writing down all the info mentioned on a piece of paper seems doable, with some thought and practice runs.
I wonder if blood banks have become measurably safer, or have laid off many workers, as a result of computer integration, or whether it’s just a matter of mandates?
Only a manager who’s tried preparing a random ware backup plan could know.
It does make sense to have a hierarchy of prestige, where a trusted company controls prestigious, academic journals, and the peer review process.
Kind of like the hierarchy of certificate authorities.
It is, however, a single point of failure.
I wonder how reproduction, or better yet, failure to reproduce, feeds into this system.
https://xkcd.com/583/
..Controls your digital existence? Do you live in a liberal democracy, I hope?
I’m just saying, merging control of your online existence and of your physical existence in one body poses a systemic risk, if you don’t.
Nevertheless, this could put a lot of tax money into open source development. Great idea.
The Coroner, Dr.Sutton, accepted that an electronic medical record diagnosed or predicted a pulmonary embolism but didn’t push the notification to the senior clinician.
That’s different from determining that the red-amber-green system is net positive.
Imagine adding a system to a self-driving car which flashes a light and beeps when the driver needs to take control.
How bad does the self-driving system need to be to make the wake-up call system necessary?
How good does the call system need to be to give it your trust?
In my 30+ years in a pediatric intensive care unit, I only saw one person killed by a motorcycle. That being said, they are a lot more dangerous for the rider, especially the first 500 miles.
Those e-skateboards, razor scooters, and unicycles look ridiculously dangerous, but are 5% the cost.
Both the majority and the Thomas-Alito dissent make use of the neologism “declaring code.” I “Bing-ed” that phrase, and it seems to beg the question. I declare a function called “decimal division”, taking a decimal divisor and dividend, and returning a quotient and remainder. I guess you can call that “code.”
Yesterday’s Register article “Healthcare org with over 100 clinics uses OpenAI's GPT-4 to write medical records”, said the doctors’ notes would be written by software (ie. AI), but “validated” by the doctor, who would now have a 30% increase in patient load.
So we have a working model for separating computer programs from responsibility.
What do you think? Do we have consensus yet?
From the article and my reading of Apple security news, I would say it's software in general. I'm prompted to update my Apple software for security reasons pretty regularly. I know people (won't say whom) who seldom or never update, on the theory that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
However, I don't know specifically whether programmers often use closed-source dependencies without regular updates. Which updates, of course, have their own attack surface.
My reading of the above is that every datum should have a reference to the identities and current GDP locations of any related persons, and the current location of any office which has offered a good or service to that identity. Might as well update a pointer to the geographical location of the CPU and RAM chip running the current process.
The interpreters or the enforcers of the constitution, or the potential editors, might claim to “eclipse” it. Not only that, but we have someone who claims immunity from the law, and is called “the commander in chief.” Thus they would be legal by definition, just as others are supposed to be illegal as a class property.
I share your ideal of a clean and clear system of laws.
The Wall Street Journal chose to publish information about the NSA's knowledge of the FSA's acquisition of specific secrets, and of the method they used.
Whether or not the anonymous people who leaked this are telling the truth, the Wall Street Journal editors are responsible for the consequences.
Not only that, but the anonymous leakers who gave this info to the press have chosen to undermine the NSA secrecy. To harm the NSA? To retroactively the security efforts of the Obama administration? To punish Kaspersky?
Whatever the reason, it's insufficient justification. We seem to be engaged in a tail-recursive divide-and-conquer strategy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
