I agree. There's no real need to research further. Spread is prevented, we can ease the suffering of those who have it and use propaganda to convince those who are clean that God has smote the wicked. Problem solved.
Re:My top annoyance with Vista? It ain't in the OS
on
Windows Vista Annoyances
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Seriously - did I get the magic copy of Vista that works just fine or something?
Apparently you did. Not a single application compatibility problem? Lucky you. Lack of decent Anti-Virus/Firewall solutions available. Turn off a single "security" feature and the system nags you non-stop. UAC is retarded. I'm quite capable of using my system without it, but I can't turn it off without the nagging. It's simply not able to be configured at a fine-grained level, and the system complains if you turn it off outright.
It runs smooth,
As does every other modern OS on the planet. This one will only run smoothly if you either a) have a very modern system, which many can't afford yet, or b) change back to the Windows 2000 look and turn off all the bells and whistles (why would you do that?)
starts up OK,
Yeah, the hard drive only grinds needlessly for 5 minutes before allowing me to use it. This on a Core-Duo with SATA drives. What the hell is it doing?
I like the default sleep feature,
...which some random update causes it to remain asleep. Again, no exotic hardware, just a standard ASUS motherboard with a Core-Duo.
the added security
which explains that even with AVG professional I got no less than 5 adware registry entries within 3 months? (no, not browsing pr0n) My Windows XP box has never received even 1 (same AV engine). Oh yes, and making you click "Confirm"/"Deny" is really security? Why the hell did you execute the program, etc. if you didn't intend to? Idiot-proofing != security. You're stuck with Windows Firewall (which sucks) as opposed to being able to install (say) AVG Professional Firewall, which works well. There's no default AV program, and no free solutions were/are available, so there's another $60 to the price tag.
the photo gallery
So you bought a $500 OS and a $60 Anti-Virus program to get a photo gallery? Either you've got money to burn or you just bought the most expensive slide-show program on Earth? Apparently you need Vista's idiot-proofing features...
Maybe the fact that you don't actually use your computer explains why it works for you. As a desktop ornament it's great and has lots of eye-candy. So does Ubuntu, and I can do stuff with it too.
Since a lot of the software for Linux is free and a distro tries to "sell" more units (have more downloads or be more popular) by having loads and loads of software Linux distros usually also come with tons of software installed the the user may never use.
Um no. Try installing Ubuntu and notice that the software is categorized by type. If you want GNOME and nothing else, uncheck all the extra software and install manually from Synaptic. The specific distribution mentioned in the article is popular because it's good, not because it's advertised. It also has Xubuntu and Kubuntu variants for those who prefer a bare-bones c.1970 Unix-y desktop or a Windows clone. As opposed to my HP laptop that had to be completely reinstalled to get rid of all the useless HP crap.
There's a lot of bad blood between these two companies, dating back to the 80's. It's nice to see Microsoft crying "Uncle" for once. IBM has supported (with cash!) every "good" technology I've seen since the 90's.
I have a powerful enough machine that the eye-candy doesn't slow things down. Compiz+GNOME can be configured to look very sharp indeed. It's not OSX, it's definitely not Windows, but I'd have no problem convincing someone that it's a very useable desktop environment. There's alternatives for people who don't like GNOME. As one who likes the look and feel and has had very few problems, I'm most looking forward to improved PSP support in Rhythmbox and MythTV support in Totem. Moving to libswfdec seems to be a good idea. I had GNASH installed, but I switched since seeing the article, and other than a missing symlink, no problems with FLASH support. The Flash-block behavior is ideal for me, who hates "Punch-the-Monkey" popping up all over the place.
The implication in the title is that these "security experts" actually got in with one of the rings. As a matter of fact, they simply downloaded a phishing kit and signed up for a forum. They didn't talk to anyone who wrote one (not that much skill is required in that). They didn't gain access to any dark-nets. They didn't gain access to secure IRC channels. In short, they're just a couple of guys. Their agenda seems clear to me: push the IE anti-phishing UI. They make reference to it (though not by name) twice in TFA:
...the(sic) are abusing a few fundamental flaws such as lack of awareness, lack of standards around browser UI that clearly highlights high assurance websites...
Instead we need to come up with browser UI standards that allow the users to clearly and easily distinguish high assurance domains and websites.
They also talk about the need for a system that works without static identifiers like credit card and social security numbers, though they don't postulate any such system. They claim that writing secure code is secondary to this as-yet unknown system that doesn't use personally identifiable information to identify you. My thoughts: until we figure out how to identify you without using identifiers, maybe we should concentrate on the secure code angle for a while.
So by "not technically accurate", you mean "not used by Americans of the specialty".
In addition to Wikipedia, BMJ article discussing the usage. Being a Nazi about terminology isn't good for your karma, especially when you're only half-right. Besides, this isn't a symposium where we're all specialists (though most of us pretend to be...). Adrenaline is the accepted lay-person's terminology, and you don't need to make a big deal of it.
Generally a simple counter-suit for legal fees would be sufficient. Not to mention that the precedent set by previous failures would allow a judge to make a summary judgment and not waste time with a trial. Unfortunately anyone with $100 and a typewriter can file a lawsuit; it's up to the judge to determine the validity. That's how the system is supposed to work, and there's lots of people who make a living (or a hobby) of filing frivolous lawsuits. I certainly empathize with you; patent trolls are especially scum-sucking since they attempt to claim credit for someone else's ideas without doing any real work.
While they may not have found evidence of any other people involved, it's unlikely that a single person could establish a botnet large enough to overwhelm anything on his own. The only answer I can think of is education - botnets exist because the owners of the zombie PCs simply don't recognize that it's a zombie. There is certainly an overall lack of regulation, too. As a domain owner, I see lots of abusive traffic and have absolutely no legal recourse to punish a perpetrator. Responsible network owners often help, but there's so few networks that are responsible that I usually assume they're not, forcing me to do what little I can at my own site to prevent further abuse.
For the student's part, he was only fined (I couldn't find how much in TFA). Not much deterrent to prevent him from doing it again. No leverage to find out who he was working with. The lack of clear laws in any country makes prosecution of such actions impossible. As a domain owner, I'd like to see civilized countries show some direction toward making prosecution of such activities a reality. Until then, it's "you hack me, I hack you" which is completely counterproductive.
* Follow-up on your SSH logs. If you see a phishing attack, do something about it!
That something could be:
- Report the IP to the owner of the netblock who can be found at ARIN. All netblock owners must have an IP-admin address or an abuse address. Unfortunately, my experience is that most of these go to/dev/null. There are those who actually have responsible NOC staff, and they will act on your complaint if you send them a copy of the relevant logs.
- Block further network access from that particular netblock at your firewall. I've found this to be a very effective method. Believe it or not, you don't end up blocking the entire Internet; the places that launch such attacks are not very common.
- Rate-limit SSH access. This works well, but I've locked myself out of my own server!
I don't want it. Yes, you feed your family. Good for you. You do it by supporting a system that you know to be flawed, and worse, you give us your "wisdom" about how you do it because "80% of the target audience uses this crap". Never mind that the 80% was gained by thoroughly illegal and unethical means. I've got news for you -- cowering in the corner chanting the Microsoft mantra isn't wisdom. I'll admit it -- I stood up for what I believed in and got shot down by the Juggernaut. That's what you fear most in life, that you can't provide for your family anymore because you dared to express an opinion that was contrary to the Mighty Microsoft's evil plan. Nothing in this world is permanent; in the words of Governor Arnie, "I'll be back". And when I and other similar minded people get into a position to remove you from your job and replace it with someone who's competent, I won't shed a single tear for you or your starving kids. You willingly spread the bullshit and lies, so when your turn comes to suffer, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I agree with the professor's statements -- mostly. The fact is that Java is not to blame, a lack of rigor and mathematics is. I love Java, not because of all the wonderful graphical fiddling, but because J2EE is a great server-side environment. I have taken the trouble to understand all of the server-level stuff before abstracting it away into an EJB; I understand what work the server is doing for me, and know how to fine-tune that behavior if necessary. Likewise, students should have to write GUI code in a text editor before learning how to use the IDE to save time. Anyone who expects to do any serious software engineering definitely needs to take a course in Algorithms. Math should not be ignored, as it is quite often the mathematics that is packaged up into a neat application, invisible to the end-user.
It's true, you can teach people how to use an IDE like a software application, and you will get "programmers" that can put together a basic program with no problems. Ask them to start debugging, add complex features, etc., however, and they have no idea how to begin. I've no problem with Prof. Dewar lambasting these people as they are a large problem in IT today. However to simply point the finger at Java (or.NET for that matter) misses the point entirely.
Average score of only 8186 (vs. 8064 by humans). Nothing really amazing here; if the AI could soundly trounce the best humans on a regular basis I might be impressed, but I can consistently score above 10000, and I'm not very good. TFA also notes that humans make better decisions on scoring points, while the AI shows some survival ability. Sounds like they need a better Ms. Pacman program.
Socialized medicine is not it either, however, a return to fee for service medicine is a better option for all people involved.
I love the hand waving here. You claim that figuring out who can afford health care is bad medicine. At the same time you claim that health care is a business, so socialized medicine can't be it. So one of your assumptions must be wrong. Given the fact that you seem too squeamish to condemn a sick person on their inability to pay the bill, perhaps it is the assumption that health care is a business that is incorrect. If we care about our fellow man, then everyone needs to foot the bill to pay for the buildings and the doctor's 6-figure student loan debt and we stop trying to figure out how to maximize profits. Not caring allows people to get rich. Still, a child of poor parents with a rare disease could end up in Ivy League and accomplishing something globally noteworthy. Too bad there's no possible way for his parents to afford the treatment and he dies long before getting there.
What's fundamentally broken is the idea that the patient requiring the most attention pays the most money. That's a guarantee that only the rich will have survivable families. Socialized medicine uses a fee for service model as well, but it's the health plan that pays the fee, using the money pooled from everyone paying their health bill. Granted, the system is prone to abuse as there are people who never pay their health plan premiums that still receive care. The collection agencies will get them eventually, and there are subsidies available to low-income individuals and families. Given that the premiums are so low, collecting the money is rarely a problem in practice. True, it's practically the honor system, but people who live in countries with socialized medicine tend to believe that it's the best way.
Fee for service from the patient is the best model for the doctor, as it allows economic forces to determine price for a treatment. It also requires payment up front. Socialized medicine is the best model for the patient. To anyone who feels that they should only pay when they get sick, I hope they end up with an excruciatingly painful illness or injury that costs lots to treat and is an ongoing expense.
Yes - Yes, we do indeed have better ways. But the goddamned fundies don't seem inclined to let us use the numerous extra embryos from human fertility therapies (nevermind abortions), so we need to find new, even more absurd, ways to get them.
I don't know that I'd say absurd. If we can get stem cells and appease the religious nuts at the same time without spending appreciably more money, then go for it. Most arguments against stem cell research are based on the idea that we're experimenting with "human life". This clearly isn't. Of course some nutbar is still going to equate destroying the embryos with abortion, but I'd say those people will largely be on the fringe.
Well, I meant that decorative corn you get at Thanksgiving. That's what most corn looked like before the octoploid strain was selected for its plumper, more regular kernels.
Yes, but we don't contract mad cow disease from the abnormal protein itself. The Prion theory is still just a theory. But the point is taken -- a genetic defect may well have some kind of communicability through simple digestion. Cloning is unlikely to be a factor in causing a heretofore unseen disease like BSE, and it is just as likely to occur in a population raised through normal biology.
The genetic issues are confined to the animal. You can't screw up your own DNA by eating meat that has faulty DNA. I can think of a few possibilities that could happen down the line: genetic mutations in the cloned animals makes them more prone to disease. But, meat is already screened for human-communicable diseases, so nothing to worry about there, except that cloning may not prove to be a viable solution to making more livestock. Genetic mutations in the cloned animals cause them to grow differently, changing the quality of the meat. OK, that's something to be a bit concerned about, but grade A sirloin is grade A sirloin. I suppose if the taste was so different that it doesn't taste like cow, chicken, etc. any more they may need to start labeling stuff better (and show us pictures of the animals that are so freaky they don't taste like their ancestors any more). Cloned animals may not be able to reproduce. Of course, they don't really care about that since they're cloning instead of procreating.
All in all, there's nothing to worry about, and labeling meat as 'CLONED' will just make it easier for consumers to boycott perfectly safe products. There's just too much mis-information about a lot of biotechnology and I don't think that enabling advocacy groups to spread a bunch of FUD is the best plan. If you feel that badly about it, buy a ranch and grow your own. I assume that you'll also go back to eating maize instead of corn -- octoploid genetic freak vegetables.
Why hate WINE? Sometimes the software you need was developed in Windows. If you can run it, why worry? If you've got some sort of FOSS idealism going on, you might have a bit of a point; but what are the odds that the newly supported platforms would come complete with FOSS code?
I can certainly empathize with a number of his situations; I've been black-listed and treated like shit as well. I've even thrown a couple of tantrums. However, it's all counterproductive. The main thing I've learned is that throwing a hissy fit will never help your career, no matter how right you are. I've had problems with the car salesman MBA, the obsolete Java architect, poorly thought-out organizational structure and the like. These are general problems with IT that won't change overnight. If you write good code, you'll have a lot of roadblocks to deal with, and you have to accept that many of the people in charge simply don't understand what it is that makes you good. Only patience will overcome these obstacles and get you promoted to a place where you can actually influence later decisions.
The guys making decisions are few, and they are all political animals. Even the more liberal ones like Jon Stewart use their airtime to make political points. Television has become prescriptive, a way for the rich and powerful to tell us what to think. It's more noticeable in the U.S., I think, because both major parties have converging interests when it comes to issues like Al Qaeda, Iraq, etc. Big network TV in the U.S. is bordering on propaganda. I can recall one attempt by the Canadian Conservative government to play along, banning images of Canadian military caskets from the media. Thankfully there was a public outcry, and the decision was soon reversed. Unlike the Republican government, the Conservatives have a minority government and must make concessions to the Opposition on a regular basis. This is not a problem in the U.S., and I don't expect that we'll see a more empathetic viewpoint on major network television before Bush is out of office.
...the scenario is I have a solution in a directory on the Home Server that I open in VS and start to edit. ...thus ignoring Microsoft's warning about saving VS project files on a network drive. OK, those errors aren't supposed to happen either, but it isn't part of the intended workflow. VS was intended to work with files on the local drive. Use version control to commit data to the network, or the method that you currently use. That's generally good policy no matter what development environment you use.
But for grandma? Do you really trust PC Magazine to be *capable* of reviewing something the way your grandmother would see it, rather then how a full time PC user would? I'm really tired of hearing this argument. Grandma isn't stupid, she just wants things to be easy to use and not take a lot of time to do. I install software for Grandma on her Windows PC, show her how to start it and how to use it, and she's quite capable of working by herself. Guess what? It's the same on a Linux PC. Have you used Ubuntu lately? Do you know how to use it effectively? I rarely drop into a command prompt, because I can do everything, including most admin tasks, from the GUI. I agree, there's some Linux stuff that takes some CLI hacking and loads of research, but that's not the type of thing Grandma is likely to be doing. Besides, Windows has it's share of difficult tasks to accomplish -- same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. There's no real need to research further. Spread is prevented, we can ease the suffering of those who have it and use propaganda to convince those who are clean that God has smote the wicked. Problem solved.
Apparently you did. Not a single application compatibility problem? Lucky you. Lack of decent Anti-Virus/Firewall solutions available. Turn off a single "security" feature and the system nags you non-stop. UAC is retarded. I'm quite capable of using my system without it, but I can't turn it off without the nagging. It's simply not able to be configured at a fine-grained level, and the system complains if you turn it off outright.
It runs smooth,As does every other modern OS on the planet. This one will only run smoothly if you either a) have a very modern system, which many can't afford yet, or b) change back to the Windows 2000 look and turn off all the bells and whistles (why would you do that?)
starts up OK,Yeah, the hard drive only grinds needlessly for 5 minutes before allowing me to use it. This on a Core-Duo with SATA drives. What the hell is it doing?
I like the default sleep feature,...which some random update causes it to remain asleep. Again, no exotic hardware, just a standard ASUS motherboard with a Core-Duo.
the added securitywhich explains that even with AVG professional I got no less than 5 adware registry entries within 3 months? (no, not browsing pr0n) My Windows XP box has never received even 1 (same AV engine). Oh yes, and making you click "Confirm"/"Deny" is really security? Why the hell did you execute the program, etc. if you didn't intend to? Idiot-proofing != security. You're stuck with Windows Firewall (which sucks) as opposed to being able to install (say) AVG Professional Firewall, which works well. There's no default AV program, and no free solutions were/are available, so there's another $60 to the price tag.
the photo gallerySo you bought a $500 OS and a $60 Anti-Virus program to get a photo gallery? Either you've got money to burn or you just bought the most expensive slide-show program on Earth? Apparently you need Vista's idiot-proofing features...
Maybe the fact that you don't actually use your computer explains why it works for you. As a desktop ornament it's great and has lots of eye-candy. So does Ubuntu, and I can do stuff with it too.
Um no. Try installing Ubuntu and notice that the software is categorized by type. If you want GNOME and nothing else, uncheck all the extra software and install manually from Synaptic. The specific distribution mentioned in the article is popular because it's good, not because it's advertised. It also has Xubuntu and Kubuntu variants for those who prefer a bare-bones c.1970 Unix-y desktop or a Windows clone. As opposed to my HP laptop that had to be completely reinstalled to get rid of all the useless HP crap.
There's a lot of bad blood between these two companies, dating back to the 80's. It's nice to see Microsoft crying "Uncle" for once. IBM has supported (with cash!) every "good" technology I've seen since the 90's.
I have a powerful enough machine that the eye-candy doesn't slow things down. Compiz+GNOME can be configured to look very sharp indeed. It's not OSX, it's definitely not Windows, but I'd have no problem convincing someone that it's a very useable desktop environment. There's alternatives for people who don't like GNOME. As one who likes the look and feel and has had very few problems, I'm most looking forward to improved PSP support in Rhythmbox and MythTV support in Totem. Moving to libswfdec seems to be a good idea. I had GNASH installed, but I switched since seeing the article, and other than a missing symlink, no problems with FLASH support. The Flash-block behavior is ideal for me, who hates "Punch-the-Monkey" popping up all over the place.
The implication in the title is that these "security experts" actually got in with one of the rings. As a matter of fact, they simply downloaded a phishing kit and signed up for a forum. They didn't talk to anyone who wrote one (not that much skill is required in that). They didn't gain access to any dark-nets. They didn't gain access to secure IRC channels. In short, they're just a couple of guys. Their agenda seems clear to me: push the IE anti-phishing UI. They make reference to it (though not by name) twice in TFA:
...the(sic) are abusing a few fundamental flaws such as lack of awareness, lack of standards around browser UI that clearly highlights high assurance websites... Instead we need to come up with browser UI standards that allow the users to clearly and easily distinguish high assurance domains and websites.They also talk about the need for a system that works without static identifiers like credit card and social security numbers, though they don't postulate any such system. They claim that writing secure code is secondary to this as-yet unknown system that doesn't use personally identifiable information to identify you. My thoughts: until we figure out how to identify you without using identifiers, maybe we should concentrate on the secure code angle for a while.
So by "not technically accurate", you mean "not used by Americans of the specialty".
In addition to Wikipedia, BMJ article discussing the usage. Being a Nazi about terminology isn't good for your karma, especially when you're only half-right. Besides, this isn't a symposium where we're all specialists (though most of us pretend to be...). Adrenaline is the accepted lay-person's terminology, and you don't need to make a big deal of it.
Generally a simple counter-suit for legal fees would be sufficient. Not to mention that the precedent set by previous failures would allow a judge to make a summary judgment and not waste time with a trial. Unfortunately anyone with $100 and a typewriter can file a lawsuit; it's up to the judge to determine the validity. That's how the system is supposed to work, and there's lots of people who make a living (or a hobby) of filing frivolous lawsuits. I certainly empathize with you; patent trolls are especially scum-sucking since they attempt to claim credit for someone else's ideas without doing any real work.
While they may not have found evidence of any other people involved, it's unlikely that a single person could establish a botnet large enough to overwhelm anything on his own. The only answer I can think of is education - botnets exist because the owners of the zombie PCs simply don't recognize that it's a zombie. There is certainly an overall lack of regulation, too. As a domain owner, I see lots of abusive traffic and have absolutely no legal recourse to punish a perpetrator. Responsible network owners often help, but there's so few networks that are responsible that I usually assume they're not, forcing me to do what little I can at my own site to prevent further abuse.
For the student's part, he was only fined (I couldn't find how much in TFA). Not much deterrent to prevent him from doing it again. No leverage to find out who he was working with. The lack of clear laws in any country makes prosecution of such actions impossible. As a domain owner, I'd like to see civilized countries show some direction toward making prosecution of such activities a reality. Until then, it's "you hack me, I hack you" which is completely counterproductive.
Allow me to insert one step before ???
* Follow-up on your SSH logs. If you see a phishing attack, do something about it!
That something could be:
- Report the IP to the owner of the netblock who can be found at ARIN. All netblock owners must have an IP-admin address or an abuse address. Unfortunately, my experience is that most of these go to /dev/null. There are those who actually have responsible NOC staff, and they will act on your complaint if you send them a copy of the relevant logs.
- Block further network access from that particular netblock at your firewall. I've found this to be a very effective method. Believe it or not, you don't end up blocking the entire Internet; the places that launch such attacks are not very common.
- Rate-limit SSH access. This works well, but I've locked myself out of my own server!
I don't want it. Yes, you feed your family. Good for you. You do it by supporting a system that you know to be flawed, and worse, you give us your "wisdom" about how you do it because "80% of the target audience uses this crap". Never mind that the 80% was gained by thoroughly illegal and unethical means. I've got news for you -- cowering in the corner chanting the Microsoft mantra isn't wisdom. I'll admit it -- I stood up for what I believed in and got shot down by the Juggernaut. That's what you fear most in life, that you can't provide for your family anymore because you dared to express an opinion that was contrary to the Mighty Microsoft's evil plan. Nothing in this world is permanent; in the words of Governor Arnie, "I'll be back". And when I and other similar minded people get into a position to remove you from your job and replace it with someone who's competent, I won't shed a single tear for you or your starving kids. You willingly spread the bullshit and lies, so when your turn comes to suffer, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I agree with the professor's statements -- mostly. The fact is that Java is not to blame, a lack of rigor and mathematics is. I love Java, not because of all the wonderful graphical fiddling, but because J2EE is a great server-side environment. I have taken the trouble to understand all of the server-level stuff before abstracting it away into an EJB; I understand what work the server is doing for me, and know how to fine-tune that behavior if necessary. Likewise, students should have to write GUI code in a text editor before learning how to use the IDE to save time. Anyone who expects to do any serious software engineering definitely needs to take a course in Algorithms. Math should not be ignored, as it is quite often the mathematics that is packaged up into a neat application, invisible to the end-user.
It's true, you can teach people how to use an IDE like a software application, and you will get "programmers" that can put together a basic program with no problems. Ask them to start debugging, add complex features, etc., however, and they have no idea how to begin. I've no problem with Prof. Dewar lambasting these people as they are a large problem in IT today. However to simply point the finger at Java (or .NET for that matter) misses the point entirely.
Online Crime Facilitates Political, Business Growth.
Seriously, who profits from the stuff that makes the headlines? It sure isn't me; I'm only into grey-area piracy.
Average score of only 8186 (vs. 8064 by humans). Nothing really amazing here; if the AI could soundly trounce the best humans on a regular basis I might be impressed, but I can consistently score above 10000, and I'm not very good. TFA also notes that humans make better decisions on scoring points, while the AI shows some survival ability. Sounds like they need a better Ms. Pacman program.
I love the hand waving here. You claim that figuring out who can afford health care is bad medicine. At the same time you claim that health care is a business, so socialized medicine can't be it. So one of your assumptions must be wrong. Given the fact that you seem too squeamish to condemn a sick person on their inability to pay the bill, perhaps it is the assumption that health care is a business that is incorrect. If we care about our fellow man, then everyone needs to foot the bill to pay for the buildings and the doctor's 6-figure student loan debt and we stop trying to figure out how to maximize profits. Not caring allows people to get rich. Still, a child of poor parents with a rare disease could end up in Ivy League and accomplishing something globally noteworthy. Too bad there's no possible way for his parents to afford the treatment and he dies long before getting there.
What's fundamentally broken is the idea that the patient requiring the most attention pays the most money. That's a guarantee that only the rich will have survivable families. Socialized medicine uses a fee for service model as well, but it's the health plan that pays the fee, using the money pooled from everyone paying their health bill. Granted, the system is prone to abuse as there are people who never pay their health plan premiums that still receive care. The collection agencies will get them eventually, and there are subsidies available to low-income individuals and families. Given that the premiums are so low, collecting the money is rarely a problem in practice. True, it's practically the honor system, but people who live in countries with socialized medicine tend to believe that it's the best way.
Fee for service from the patient is the best model for the doctor, as it allows economic forces to determine price for a treatment. It also requires payment up front. Socialized medicine is the best model for the patient. To anyone who feels that they should only pay when they get sick, I hope they end up with an excruciatingly painful illness or injury that costs lots to treat and is an ongoing expense.
Yes - Yes, we do indeed have better ways. But the goddamned fundies don't seem inclined to let us use the numerous extra embryos from human fertility therapies (nevermind abortions), so we need to find new, even more absurd, ways to get them.
I don't know that I'd say absurd. If we can get stem cells and appease the religious nuts at the same time without spending appreciably more money, then go for it. Most arguments against stem cell research are based on the idea that we're experimenting with "human life". This clearly isn't. Of course some nutbar is still going to equate destroying the embryos with abortion, but I'd say those people will largely be on the fringe.Well, I meant that decorative corn you get at Thanksgiving. That's what most corn looked like before the octoploid strain was selected for its plumper, more regular kernels.
Yes, but we don't contract mad cow disease from the abnormal protein itself. The Prion theory is still just a theory. But the point is taken -- a genetic defect may well have some kind of communicability through simple digestion. Cloning is unlikely to be a factor in causing a heretofore unseen disease like BSE, and it is just as likely to occur in a population raised through normal biology.
The genetic issues are confined to the animal. You can't screw up your own DNA by eating meat that has faulty DNA. I can think of a few possibilities that could happen down the line: genetic mutations in the cloned animals makes them more prone to disease. But, meat is already screened for human-communicable diseases, so nothing to worry about there, except that cloning may not prove to be a viable solution to making more livestock. Genetic mutations in the cloned animals cause them to grow differently, changing the quality of the meat. OK, that's something to be a bit concerned about, but grade A sirloin is grade A sirloin. I suppose if the taste was so different that it doesn't taste like cow, chicken, etc. any more they may need to start labeling stuff better (and show us pictures of the animals that are so freaky they don't taste like their ancestors any more). Cloned animals may not be able to reproduce. Of course, they don't really care about that since they're cloning instead of procreating.
All in all, there's nothing to worry about, and labeling meat as 'CLONED' will just make it easier for consumers to boycott perfectly safe products. There's just too much mis-information about a lot of biotechnology and I don't think that enabling advocacy groups to spread a bunch of FUD is the best plan. If you feel that badly about it, buy a ranch and grow your own. I assume that you'll also go back to eating maize instead of corn -- octoploid genetic freak vegetables.
Why hate WINE? Sometimes the software you need was developed in Windows. If you can run it, why worry? If you've got some sort of FOSS idealism going on, you might have a bit of a point; but what are the odds that the newly supported platforms would come complete with FOSS code?
I can certainly empathize with a number of his situations; I've been black-listed and treated like shit as well. I've even thrown a couple of tantrums. However, it's all counterproductive. The main thing I've learned is that throwing a hissy fit will never help your career, no matter how right you are. I've had problems with the car salesman MBA, the obsolete Java architect, poorly thought-out organizational structure and the like. These are general problems with IT that won't change overnight. If you write good code, you'll have a lot of roadblocks to deal with, and you have to accept that many of the people in charge simply don't understand what it is that makes you good. Only patience will overcome these obstacles and get you promoted to a place where you can actually influence later decisions.
The guys making decisions are few, and they are all political animals. Even the more liberal ones like Jon Stewart use their airtime to make political points. Television has become prescriptive, a way for the rich and powerful to tell us what to think. It's more noticeable in the U.S., I think, because both major parties have converging interests when it comes to issues like Al Qaeda, Iraq, etc. Big network TV in the U.S. is bordering on propaganda. I can recall one attempt by the Canadian Conservative government to play along, banning images of Canadian military caskets from the media. Thankfully there was a public outcry, and the decision was soon reversed. Unlike the Republican government, the Conservatives have a minority government and must make concessions to the Opposition on a regular basis. This is not a problem in the U.S., and I don't expect that we'll see a more empathetic viewpoint on major network television before Bush is out of office.
Sorry, that was a knee-jerk reaction. There's so many arguments about Linux and Grandma; I need to read more carefully.
...the scenario is I have a solution in a directory on the Home Server that I open in VS and start to edit. ...thus ignoring Microsoft's warning about saving VS project files on a network drive. OK, those errors aren't supposed to happen either, but it isn't part of the intended workflow. VS was intended to work with files on the local drive. Use version control to commit data to the network, or the method that you currently use. That's generally good policy no matter what development environment you use.