That's right, when you want to know the best medical treatment, ask a geologist. If only all of the neurologists and geriatricians that studied - you know, medicine - had thought of a simple dietary supplement as a cure for the apparently irreversible cognitive decline.
Although you may mean it in jest, actually what you're stating is a powerful argument, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. In the UK it's known as the 'Beachy Head Argument' (Beachy Head is a high cliff notorious for people jumping off to commit suicide). If you were there enjoying the view and saw someone preparing to leap off, would you run over and stop them? Clearly by taking that action, they are showing that they wish to die, yet the action of most reasonable people would be to prevent them - try to talk them out out of it - even maybe physically restrain them.
That's such a bizarre argument. It's not illegal to commit suicide in the UK, it's illegal to assist suicide. Terry Pratchett doesn't want to be 'allowed' to commit suicide, he wants a guarantee that his life will be ended with assistance at a time of his choosing. And, crucially, he wants to be able to enjoy his life up until the point where his cognitive impairment becomes unbearable and then end it, which as far as I am aware is illegal worldwide - even in countries where assisted suicide is legal, the person must be of sound mind.
To put it another way: by definition, if Pratchett states in advance that he wishes to commit suicide once he becomes unable to make a choice, then someone else would have to make that decision for him, which would completely defeat the autonomy he wishes to exercise. I love the man's works, and I'm amazed at the work he's putting in to keep his mind active, but the quest he is on is self defeating - and if you watch the documentary, he pretty much admits this.
Your post tells me you are totally ignorant of the large amount of formal research done into graphical user interfaces, and the effort made to measure how long it takes users to perform tasks using different interfaces.
First of all, menu bars were originally designed to be universal not per-app (Apple invented pull-down menus as part of the original Lisa/Mac GUI). The idea is that it's a quicker action to shove the mouse (or finger on trackpad) to the top of the screen and click, than to have to park the mouse over a menu somewhere arbitrary on the screen and click - fixed menus put them into muscle memory rather than having to look and act. It's actually been formally tested with tools to measure the time it takes users to perform actions on GUIs. On modern displays with hi-res mice and touchpads it probably doesn't matter that much anymore, but I personally find it really irritating when displays are getting shorter and wider to have so much vertical space taken up with menu bars, when you only ever need to see one at a time.
I don't understand why people keep touting MobileMe as a failure. I've been using it for 2 years for mail, calendars and file backups. It works great and keeps my calendar in sync with my wife's across our two iPhones and two MacBooks. I can also login from any PC at work to access the same. Why is everyone so sure that it's a 'failure'?
If he can wait a year for the possible release of a product that may or may not be better, he doesn't need it at all. If he does need a "PC experience" to see attached documents (presuming they're PDF / Excel / Powerpoint / Word) then an iPad will do that now, and if he needs it now he should get it now. It makes better business sense to have something that works now than something that may or may not be better, later. He could always sell the iPad any buy the [possible] Windows tablet when it [possibly] arrives. One of the great things about Apple products is they tend to retain their value.
I'm pretty sure they won't be expecting people to buy four of those. I reckon the newer WiiMote with built in Motion Plus will be the main playing remote for these, and the larger remote will be more for surfing from the sofa and playing more complicated games that are normally better on a PC. There's no way the Wii gaming model can work on a large rectangular remote - you couldn't simulate fishing or bowling with one of those.
Really? Because I definitely recall paying for OS X 10.6, then getting updates 10.6.1 through 10.6.7 for free. I may have been dreaming though. I think you're confusing service packs with new OS releases. Probably the reason is that Microsoft spent so long developing Vista (throwing away most of the proposed features in the process) that you're thinking it takes nearly a decade to release a new OS. The Vista to Windows 7 timeframe is probably a bit more realistic, and unless you pirated it, I'm sure you paid to upgrade from Vista to 7.
"If it did happen, that's a shame, but just because that happens to a few people, that doesn't mean that assisted suicide should be banned outright."
Read that statement again. That's shocking. If even one person would be killed unnecessarily by the legalisation of assisted suicide, that would be absolute reason to ban it outright. Why?
That's untrue, and it's this sort of misinformation that makes proper debate on this issue difficult. The role of palliative care is to prevent pain (and other distressing symptoms) even to the point of hastening death. This is already legal in the majority of Western countries (as fair as I am aware), and physicians are allowed to give painkillers up to AND INCLUDING a potentially lethal dose if the patient is suffering. This is different to assisted suicide where the aim is to cause death, rather the aim is to relieve pain etc. even if it brings the possibility of hastening death (doctrine of double effect). No one should be suffering, period.
What's sad (but I don't think ironic) is that so many people frame this debate as a choice between suffering and death. The choice should be between suffering and not suffering. In other words, if so many people are suffering to such an extent, rather than debating assisted death, we should be finding out why the care needs of a large number of people are not being met, and make the changes to health and social care that are needed. Only when we have done everything to ensure suffering-free life, should we even begin to discuss death as an alternative.
Objections to assisted suicide aren't only about the act, they're about the process. In other words, many people (including myself) believe that it is impossible to make assisted suicide available without compromising the protection of those who do not wish to commit suicide, but might be directly or indirectly pressured to do so. This includes internal pressure (e.g. mental illness). I do actually disagree with assisted suicide on principle, but even if I were to accept that ideally people should have a right to choose when they die, I would oppose its legalisation on the basis that the protection of the vulnerable (i.e. those who wouldn't wish to die early but by failure of the process end up doing so) trumps the desire of those who with a clear mind and without coercion do wish to die early. Can I also correct you on one point - there is a world of difference between deliberately causing death, and allowing death by not treating - the right to refuse treatment is enshrined in international and national law, so sustaining life "by any means" cannot (or at least should not) be imposed on anybody.
Windows 8, project codename "D.E.R.I.V.A.T.I.V.E.". I've been scanning the video, looking for something - anything - that they've actually invented. About the only thing I can see is the 'snapping' thing, which looks like an absolutely terrible way of having two windows next to each other. It also seems like it's a layer on top of Windows with the crufty Windows 7 desktop underneath. If this is to have any chance of success, they will need to ditch the traditional Windows GUI and have Old Windows programs run in a compatibility layer, otherwise this new UI will be ignored by the majority of developers and users, and it will become nothing more than a fullscreen Side Bar.
Yup, it's going to be really hard "dealing with" not downloading dodgy-sounding security apps from obscure websites, and then ignoring the warnings and just running them anyway. How will I STOP MYSELF!!! Better take the hard drive out of my Mac and just use paper and an abacus instead.
Thank you. Calling this "malware" is like calling the video of a dog I just shot on my smartphone a feature film. It's a program that asks to be downloaded and installed, then does something different than the user expected. On top of that, a few websites have been designed to make it more likely that the user will download the program. It's essentially the same as those "pages to like" on Facebook that lure people in with a semi-naked picture then post crap all over their profiles. A tax on stupidity collected by the Geek Squad / Genius Bar techs who will fix people boxes when they get 'infected'.
How does it actually prove this? It's a trojan, the user is tricked into downloading it, and has to accept a system dialog that tells them that they are running an untested program downloaded from the Internet. The trojan doesn't do any privilege escalation, and it's trivially easy to remove. There's no way to prevent such programs in any OS other than the 'total lockdown' (e.g. iOS approach). I'll believe that the low market share argument holds when we start seeing genuine worms mass infecting OSX boxes in the wild, requiring no user intervention other than connecting the box to a non-firewalled internet connection, or visiting an apparently innocent webpage.
I think they can make copyright violation stick (they made an unauthorised transmission of the exam paper). I think fraud can stick, because if the candidate had been successful, he would have entered into a contract with the college whereby the college provides education and the student provides fees PLUS their prior qualifications (including MCAT). I think you could argue that to take a medical degree based on false qualifications would be to defraud the college, and therefore this is a case of attempted fraud - I don't know the legal technicalities, certainly in the UK there are a range of criminal charges with the preamble "conspiracy to commit...".
You don't know what you're talking about. Surprisingly, lots of people are inept at altering settings on electronic devices, but quite good at examining, diagnosing and treating unwell people. Just like, lots of people who are very good at altering settings on electronic devices are inept at meeting, socialising with and ultimately enjoying intimate experiences with other people.
When it's a professional examination that can lead to someone gaining a medical license. I know it's an entrance exam, not a final exam, but the colleges take it very seriously. Looking at the article, though, it seems like they're using charges of 'computer misuse' and similar to make it criminal, rather than an actual exam 'crime'. Having sat a few exams like this myself, I would also guess that the contract they signed to sit the exam would allow the college to sue the candidate at least for the cost of having to arrange a whole new exam for the rest of the candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, when you want to know the best medical treatment, ask a geologist. If only all of the neurologists and geriatricians that studied - you know, medicine - had thought of a simple dietary supplement as a cure for the apparently irreversible cognitive decline.
Although you may mean it in jest, actually what you're stating is a powerful argument, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. In the UK it's known as the 'Beachy Head Argument' (Beachy Head is a high cliff notorious for people jumping off to commit suicide). If you were there enjoying the view and saw someone preparing to leap off, would you run over and stop them? Clearly by taking that action, they are showing that they wish to die, yet the action of most reasonable people would be to prevent them - try to talk them out out of it - even maybe physically restrain them.
That's such a bizarre argument. It's not illegal to commit suicide in the UK, it's illegal to assist suicide. Terry Pratchett doesn't want to be 'allowed' to commit suicide, he wants a guarantee that his life will be ended with assistance at a time of his choosing. And, crucially, he wants to be able to enjoy his life up until the point where his cognitive impairment becomes unbearable and then end it, which as far as I am aware is illegal worldwide - even in countries where assisted suicide is legal, the person must be of sound mind.
To put it another way: by definition, if Pratchett states in advance that he wishes to commit suicide once he becomes unable to make a choice, then someone else would have to make that decision for him, which would completely defeat the autonomy he wishes to exercise. I love the man's works, and I'm amazed at the work he's putting in to keep his mind active, but the quest he is on is self defeating - and if you watch the documentary, he pretty much admits this.
Your post tells me you are totally ignorant of the large amount of formal research done into graphical user interfaces, and the effort made to measure how long it takes users to perform tasks using different interfaces.
First of all, menu bars were originally designed to be universal not per-app (Apple invented pull-down menus as part of the original Lisa/Mac GUI). The idea is that it's a quicker action to shove the mouse (or finger on trackpad) to the top of the screen and click, than to have to park the mouse over a menu somewhere arbitrary on the screen and click - fixed menus put them into muscle memory rather than having to look and act. It's actually been formally tested with tools to measure the time it takes users to perform actions on GUIs. On modern displays with hi-res mice and touchpads it probably doesn't matter that much anymore, but I personally find it really irritating when displays are getting shorter and wider to have so much vertical space taken up with menu bars, when you only ever need to see one at a time.
I can't decide whether you're not getting the joke, or making another one of your own. I'm thinking it's probably whooooosshhh....
You had an electromagnetism teacher? That's seriously specific (I was taught that by my adjective teacher).
I'm thinking, that's what you need to keep avionics from being disrupted in a combat situation.
I don't understand why people keep touting MobileMe as a failure. I've been using it for 2 years for mail, calendars and file backups. It works great and keeps my calendar in sync with my wife's across our two iPhones and two MacBooks. I can also login from any PC at work to access the same. Why is everyone so sure that it's a 'failure'?
If he can wait a year for the possible release of a product that may or may not be better, he doesn't need it at all. If he does need a "PC experience" to see attached documents (presuming they're PDF / Excel / Powerpoint / Word) then an iPad will do that now, and if he needs it now he should get it now. It makes better business sense to have something that works now than something that may or may not be better, later. He could always sell the iPad any buy the [possible] Windows tablet when it [possibly] arrives. One of the great things about Apple products is they tend to retain their value.
I'm pretty sure they won't be expecting people to buy four of those. I reckon the newer WiiMote with built in Motion Plus will be the main playing remote for these, and the larger remote will be more for surfing from the sofa and playing more complicated games that are normally better on a PC. There's no way the Wii gaming model can work on a large rectangular remote - you couldn't simulate fishing or bowling with one of those.
Really? Because I definitely recall paying for OS X 10.6, then getting updates 10.6.1 through 10.6.7 for free. I may have been dreaming though. I think you're confusing service packs with new OS releases. Probably the reason is that Microsoft spent so long developing Vista (throwing away most of the proposed features in the process) that you're thinking it takes nearly a decade to release a new OS. The Vista to Windows 7 timeframe is probably a bit more realistic, and unless you pirated it, I'm sure you paid to upgrade from Vista to 7.
"If it did happen, that's a shame, but just because that happens to a few people, that doesn't mean that assisted suicide should be banned outright."
Read that statement again. That's shocking. If even one person would be killed unnecessarily by the legalisation of assisted suicide, that would be absolute reason to ban it outright. Why?
That's untrue, and it's this sort of misinformation that makes proper debate on this issue difficult. The role of palliative care is to prevent pain (and other distressing symptoms) even to the point of hastening death. This is already legal in the majority of Western countries (as fair as I am aware), and physicians are allowed to give painkillers up to AND INCLUDING a potentially lethal dose if the patient is suffering. This is different to assisted suicide where the aim is to cause death, rather the aim is to relieve pain etc. even if it brings the possibility of hastening death (doctrine of double effect). No one should be suffering, period.
What's sad (but I don't think ironic) is that so many people frame this debate as a choice between suffering and death. The choice should be between suffering and not suffering. In other words, if so many people are suffering to such an extent, rather than debating assisted death, we should be finding out why the care needs of a large number of people are not being met, and make the changes to health and social care that are needed. Only when we have done everything to ensure suffering-free life, should we even begin to discuss death as an alternative.
Objections to assisted suicide aren't only about the act, they're about the process. In other words, many people (including myself) believe that it is impossible to make assisted suicide available without compromising the protection of those who do not wish to commit suicide, but might be directly or indirectly pressured to do so. This includes internal pressure (e.g. mental illness). I do actually disagree with assisted suicide on principle, but even if I were to accept that ideally people should have a right to choose when they die, I would oppose its legalisation on the basis that the protection of the vulnerable (i.e. those who wouldn't wish to die early but by failure of the process end up doing so) trumps the desire of those who with a clear mind and without coercion do wish to die early. Can I also correct you on one point - there is a world of difference between deliberately causing death, and allowing death by not treating - the right to refuse treatment is enshrined in international and national law, so sustaining life "by any means" cannot (or at least should not) be imposed on anybody.
Apple invented pull-down menus when they developed the GUI for the original Mac and Lisa.
I think Microsoft have already done a lot of "comparing" with OS X Lion.
Windows 8, project codename "D.E.R.I.V.A.T.I.V.E.". I've been scanning the video, looking for something - anything - that they've actually invented. About the only thing I can see is the 'snapping' thing, which looks like an absolutely terrible way of having two windows next to each other. It also seems like it's a layer on top of Windows with the crufty Windows 7 desktop underneath. If this is to have any chance of success, they will need to ditch the traditional Windows GUI and have Old Windows programs run in a compatibility layer, otherwise this new UI will be ignored by the majority of developers and users, and it will become nothing more than a fullscreen Side Bar.
Yup, it's going to be really hard "dealing with" not downloading dodgy-sounding security apps from obscure websites, and then ignoring the warnings and just running them anyway. How will I STOP MYSELF!!! Better take the hard drive out of my Mac and just use paper and an abacus instead.
Thank you. Calling this "malware" is like calling the video of a dog I just shot on my smartphone a feature film. It's a program that asks to be downloaded and installed, then does something different than the user expected. On top of that, a few websites have been designed to make it more likely that the user will download the program. It's essentially the same as those "pages to like" on Facebook that lure people in with a semi-naked picture then post crap all over their profiles. A tax on stupidity collected by the Geek Squad / Genius Bar techs who will fix people boxes when they get 'infected'.
How does it actually prove this? It's a trojan, the user is tricked into downloading it, and has to accept a system dialog that tells them that they are running an untested program downloaded from the Internet. The trojan doesn't do any privilege escalation, and it's trivially easy to remove. There's no way to prevent such programs in any OS other than the 'total lockdown' (e.g. iOS approach). I'll believe that the low market share argument holds when we start seeing genuine worms mass infecting OSX boxes in the wild, requiring no user intervention other than connecting the box to a non-firewalled internet connection, or visiting an apparently innocent webpage.
I think they can make copyright violation stick (they made an unauthorised transmission of the exam paper). I think fraud can stick, because if the candidate had been successful, he would have entered into a contract with the college whereby the college provides education and the student provides fees PLUS their prior qualifications (including MCAT). I think you could argue that to take a medical degree based on false qualifications would be to defraud the college, and therefore this is a case of attempted fraud - I don't know the legal technicalities, certainly in the UK there are a range of criminal charges with the preamble "conspiracy to commit...".
You don't know what you're talking about. Surprisingly, lots of people are inept at altering settings on electronic devices, but quite good at examining, diagnosing and treating unwell people. Just like, lots of people who are very good at altering settings on electronic devices are inept at meeting, socialising with and ultimately enjoying intimate experiences with other people.
When it's a professional examination that can lead to someone gaining a medical license. I know it's an entrance exam, not a final exam, but the colleges take it very seriously. Looking at the article, though, it seems like they're using charges of 'computer misuse' and similar to make it criminal, rather than an actual exam 'crime'. Having sat a few exams like this myself, I would also guess that the contract they signed to sit the exam would allow the college to sue the candidate at least for the cost of having to arrange a whole new exam for the rest of the candidates.