Re:Not a cop-out, just a fact
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
User focused projects are fairly rare in free software actually. If you need your hand held you may be better off with a user focused OS.
I disagree. If a project is freezing on some kind of regular/irregular basis and producing a stable release of source with or without binaries then they are focusing on users; otherwise why not just keep everything is CVS and let people get the source from CVS whenever they feel like it? If a project is make stable releases then they should plan to fix major bugs in the release and not just ignore it and carry on with the bleeding-edge - otherwise, what is the point in the stable release? Lots of OSS projects are user-focused (Firefox, Openoffice.org, Gnome, Gimp, Evolution, to name just a few) and do this very well; unfortunately lots don't.
It's not about have my "hand held" it's about the fact that CVS is bleeding edge and is likely to have hundreds of new bugs, so everyone (inexperienced or otherwise) is left with the choice between a 'stable' release with a show-stopper bug or the CVS with that particular one fixed but hundreds more to be discovered. Experienced users may even submit patches, but if the projects policy is not to fix stable releases then the patch will be ignored.
Re:Not a cop-out, just a fact
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
Same with the "It's been fixed in CVS.". The developers know about the bug, they know how to fix it, they have fixed it, and there's not a thing they can do further until the next release version with the fix in it goes out.
But what they should do, if it's a serious bug, is fix it in the current stable branch and do a new point release that includes that bug fix. The CVS might have hundreds of new features and take months or years to arrive whilst those using the stable version are waiting. If a project is mature and/or user-focused enough to have a stable/development separation so that they expect people to mainly use the stable version, they should be prepared to backport major bug fixes or fix directly in the stable branch. If they're not ready to do that then they should stick to being a 'developers-only' project for the time being.
In fact your ideas that Prednisolone is an oral steroid are descriptive of the state of eczema treatement in the UK
When the word 'Prednisolone' alone is used in the UK, it refers to an oral steroid. Prednisolone is available as a topical preparation, but only as a liquid e.g. for eye drop use, and is refered to as 'prednisolone eye drops'. Methylprednisolone is a different compound, see http://www.bnf.org.uk/bnf/bnf/current/4255.htm (you may need to create a free login to see that page, I'm not sure), although the two are obviously related. Methylpred is not regarded as the strongest topical steroid, (http://www.skincell.org/topical_steroids.shtml) and the strongest two are available in the UK (http://www.bnf.org.uk/bnf/bnf/current/5837.htm). My experience with Aqueous cream and Diprobase is that they are very good, once the eczema is under control - I agree that they can be an irritant during a bad flare-up.
I can see that you've obviously had a really bad experience getting your kid's eczema treated appropriately in the UK, and the preparations that seem to work are not being made available to you. I don't know why methylpred isn't currently available in the UK, but I suspect it's not to do with the NHS because it's not even in the BNF, which lists all licensed drugs in the UK, not just those the NHS will pay for. I'm sorry that's the case, and I can only offer my sympathy, but there's nothing the doctors can do about it even if they wanted too (well, they could write letters I guess...).
My original post was in reponse to someone claiming that eczema couldn't be treated, and I responded to you when you disputed my claim that the majority of eczema sufferers could be symptom-free. I stand by that claim, but as a chronic eczema sufferer myself (and I remember having it on my scrotum when I was about 12... what else can I say?) I can offer my deepest sympathy that it isn't sorted out for your child. My motivation for my posts in this thread is that lots of people who have had real problems getting a condition thoroughly treated seem to think that doctors are terrible and modern medicine is useless. It doesn't help that some doctors do brush of patients that they see as a hassle, particularly if they feel there isn't anything further they can do, but most doctors don't want to see people suffer and do the best they can.
* The vast majority of people with eczema if treated appropriately can be absolutely symptom-free.
As they say this in the UK - utter bollocks
I'm sorry to hear that your child is one of the unfortunate ones who has uncontrollable eczema. But that doesn't mean that it's 'bollocks' that the vast majority can be symptom-free - if you sit-in on any UK GP for a few weeks, you will see dozens and dozens of children and adults that have chronic eczema that is extremely well treated. It sounds like you've had a nightmare and I'm really sorry, but that doesn't mean that there's no decent treatments or that the medical profession is useless (which you didn't say but strongly implied). I'm 26 and I've had eczema since I was 6 or 7, and the vast majority of the time it has been controlled because I've kept a supply of betnovate and used it when I've needed. The biggest problem I've had is convincing GPs that I need a repeat because they look at my hands and can't see anything.
All of the points that you made are valid (except the above) although I would dispute some of what you say (perhaps OT for a slashdot discussion!) - prednisolone is an oral steroid, I was talking about betnovate, dermovate etc. which are applied to the skin and should give improvement in all but the worst eczema; used correctly they don't cause any problems other than some local thinning of the skin which is much better than the eczema they treat. If dermovate doesn't work then you should be seeing a consultant dermatologist because I would imagine your kid is in an awful state and can't sleep at night for scratching. If you're still being seen by GPs at that stage then you've been failed by the system (and I certainly agree that there are big problems in the NHS).
I've not come across some of the emollients you mention, although I see that trixera is available here (http://www.garden.co.uk/catalog/trixera_body_emol lient.html) - I would tend to use aqueous cream or diprobase which will not cure anything but prevents the ongoing dryness and helps keep things at bay when the dermovate/betnovate has done its job; I use them every time I wash my hands when things are bad, and I wash my hands upwards of 20 times/day. Looking at the ingredients of some of the products you mention I'm surprised that they don't make things worse (for my skin I avoid any moisturiser that has more than 3-4 ingredients) - but like any junior doctor I've got lots to learn.
Modern dermatology cannot cure eczema. Most varieties of psoriasis are uncurable as well.
Nonsense. Well, not quite - if you mean by cure that the condition can be eradicated and never recur then yes, there is no cure - but there are very effective treatments that mean almost everybody should be symptom free (which is a much more sensible definition of 'cure'). It's like saying that 'modern dermatology has no cure for sunburn': red, itchy skin in response to some sort of biochemical insult is a normal and necessary immune response which we don't want to eradicate, but some people are more susceptible to getting inflamed skin based on a variety of different factors including their genetic makeup and the environment in which they live, which needs to be treated if it's causing a problem. People who get sunburn lots need to avoid the sun, and people with real problems (like albinos) need medical help.
Eczema can be treated very effectively with a combination of lifestyle change (avoiding irritants such as dust, pets, chemicals etc.), emollients (moisturisers) and topical steroids. There are also newer treatments such as tacrolimus which can be applied to the skin to modify the immune response. The vast majority of people with eczema if treated appropriately can be absolutely symptom-free. A very small minority have refractory symptoms (don't respond to treatment) which may need more nasty meds like oral steroids - more work on this category of people would be good.
This seems to assume that the OSS drivers will always be really good, and the closed-source vendor drivers will be really bad. There's nothing forcing anyone to use a device with "binary only shit" and it's unlikely that the availability of binary drivers will deter OSS programmers from producing open drivers - ultimately open drivers are written when a developer somewhere decides to scratch an itch, or one of the commercial distros realise that it's too important to not have a driver for and pays someone to code it. Decent enterprise hardware will always have good solid drivers, because both the hardware vendors and (of course) the commercial distros want to sell to the healthy Linux market.
It's on the home desktop where binary drivers matter. There will always be new bits of hardware coming out that work a little bit better with the vendor drivers, or are too niche for anyone to write decent OSS drivers. Multi-channel sound cards for the home studio market come to mind - they come to market with a fanfare, are very useful to those who need them, but become obsolete quickly when replaced by the next incompatible product. Giving the hardware vendors a reasonable mechanism to port their Windows/Mac drivers to Linux that is consistent across distros would be a great service to home Linux users without damaging the general stability of the OS.
Actually, it doesn't. It just tells you what he says about how he conducts himself on the job.
Actually, it does. Just because I have to interpret it and synthesize my own idea of what actually happens doesn't mean it doesn't tell me anything - which is the (invalid) point that was being asserted. It gives me information that contributes to my understanding of the complete picture. To assert that it doesn't tell me anything at all ("reading a blog entry does not tell you anything") is absolutely ridiculous. All 'facts' have to be interpreted and understood as part of a bigger picture.
In the study of history, even works of fiction and satire may be interpreted as shedding some light on the era in which they were written or in which they were set, they just have to be handled carefully. A diary entry written by the figure under scrutiny is a very important primary source that gives a great deal of information.
Why are we even talking about this? The poster that originally made this stupid claim is clearly an idiot and I'm amazed anyone is defending him.
Reading a blog entry does not tell you anything about how someone conducts himself on the job.
It does if the blog entry is all about how he conducts himself on the job - which this one clearly is. You need to think a little harder before making categorical statements like that.
Man, that's truly evil, but in a good kind of way! You could charge them $150/hr to teach them how to clear the cache and install anonymisation software etc.;-).
No, I would either use web based email, or else run it off an IMAP server with everything stored on the server and set everything up with the right server address etc. before burning the CD. Another option could be to use a cheap and small USB flash key for the home directory, but that increases the chances that an error could occur that could not be fixed by a reboot.
Another thing I've started - well actually, stopped doing - is giving 'clever' cheap solutions to problems. I used to help people download free virus checkers and firewall software, install Firefox etc. Now I just say 'you need Norton antivirus and Spysweeper, it's going to cost you nnn, I can download them and install them for you now if you have a credit card or else you should go and buy them tomorrow from a shop'.
Sometimes they moan about the cost, and I point out that what my time is worth and say that I will not help them with any further problems until they have the required software to protect their system. I'll happily point out that using Firefox (or even switching to Linux) will get rid of a lot of their annoying problems, but I won't do this for them - they have to figure it out for themselves otherwise it continues to be 'that thing you installed for me still isn't working right'.
'What's in it for me?' is an important question. Maybe the answer is 'a warm fuzzy feeling' or 'being pleased to see a friend/relative is happy'. Unfortunately for IT support the answer is often 'another thousand or so calls from the same person who is perfectly capable of using google but can't be bothered'.
I don't mind providing help, but I get very annoyed when people (including friends and relatives) presume that because I can do something then it's my moral duty to do it for them, for free, for an indefinite length of time. This is particularly true when they could quite easily pay for support, so in effect I'm just giving them something a free service so they can spend their money on something else.
If I knew someone who was a professional chef, I wouldn't expect them to come to my house and cook a meal every weekend to save me the cost of going to a decent restaurant, but I hope they wouldn't mind answering the occasional question when I really couldn't understand the recipe book or maybe recommending a local restaurant.
I've been thinking about this lately too, and I think I have an answer for completely clueless relatives. Next time someone just wants a box for web and e-mail, I'm going to modify knoppix or some other live CD so it just has firefox and thunderbird, plus relevant plugins and burn a custom CD. No problem with e-mail - it comes via Imap direct from my own Linux server. Then stick the CD-ROM drive in the case back to front with a blanking plate over its back (i.e. only accessible from inside the case). Whenever there's a problem, they just reboot. Other than hardware failure, it's impossible for this to go wrong. Every 6 months or so I'll burn a new CD and upgrade their system. So long as they really only want web and email this'll work fine - if they want something more they can talk to the nice people at the local computer shop.
Sure, it's viable. The problem is that for most people, Linux isn't a product. What do I mean by that? Of course you can buy Redhat and Suse boxes in the larger high street stores. But the thing that's changed in the computer market over the last 20 years is that the computer has become a commodity. People expect to buy it and plug it in and it'll just work. They see an advert on the TV and think "I'd like that" and go and buy one. They understand the difference between Mac and PC (==Wintel) but don't really understand that windows is just one choice on their box.
Linux is good, and it's getting better. But it won't gain traction in the home market in North America or Western Europe until a company takes it on and makes a product out of it - selling pre-configured boxes with TV, radio and billboard advertising and a clear reason to choose the product over Microsoft and Apple alternatives. Linspire market on cut-price, but people know that they're getting an inferior product. What's needed is a reason why a Linux-based machine is a better purchase for the family.
OSX is marketed on style, Windows is marketed on great new features that will make your life easier (I think there is a clear difference between the two). Linux could be marketed on being the practical choice - you get a complete system with an entire office suite, graphics tools, music production etc., very compatible with MS Office, very few viruses or crashes. This isn't the same as marketing on cut-price - it's appealing to the middle-aged, middle-income family market where people want something that just works and they don't want to pay again to get an office suite, again to get a photo editor etc.
An analogy would be transport - people buy cars for different reasons: some want a sports car others want a family estate. At the moment Linux looks like a Landrover self-modified to run biodiesel; or else like a scooter in its cheapie Walmart/Linspire incarnation. What's needed is to create a new class of home computer product - Linux could be the MPV of the home computer market: a practical and reliable product for a busy family that won't cost a fortune to buy and run. It would take a big player, not a startup, to do this - and they would need to make a much bigger effort than Apple with their switch campaign, because Apple already had a loyal user base. I don't think it's likely that this would happen, although I would love it if it did.
Thank you...! Finally someone speaking some sense. I had some friends here on Saturday who are medical workers in Zulu South Africa and fluent Zulu speakers. They saw 'Ubuntu' pop up on my computer and were instantly really interested. Thinking about it, isn't "Windows" a really stupid name for a piece of software?
Then you have a serious problem somewhere! I have Ubuntu on my 5 year old laptop, 1Ghz PIII, 256Mb RAM. I can browse with firefox, read email and browse my filesystem with Nautilus without any problems. I only get heavy swapping if I open a large image in Gimp at the same time, and even then it's only when I switch apps that I get swapping.
Like Fedora Core... 4? Thats the grandparent's point. Theres 100 distros that have up to date packages. Whats so great about Ubuntu that have people crazy about it?
Because there are a lot of people - myself included - who have used Debian for a long time. We like it for various reasons including it's proper Free-(as in speech)-ness, the apt/dpkg package management system, the fairly hands-on approach to system configuration and all sorts of other reasons that vary from person to person. The biggest problem with Debian is that it sucks as a desktop distro because it's too out of date. Ubuntu gives those of us that are long-term Debian fans what we need on the desktop without sacrificing what we love about Debian - except, arguably, a certain level of stability since Debian stable is tested like crazy.
To put it another way, here's why I don't use a selection of other distros: Redhat - too commercial, Suse - ditto, Fedora - can't stand the package management, Mandriva - ditto, Gentoo - would rather spend my time configuring the package well rather than compiling it. I have Debian on my server and love it, and have the closest thing to Debian on my desktop.
Ubuntu does now what we all hope Debian will do in six months... or 1 year... or 6 years... I've been using Debian for nearly eight years now, and for the first four it was my desktop OS as well as my server OS. Then I started getting fed up with the number of packages I needed to use from backports or unstable to get a fairly up-to-date Gnome desktop, Firefox/Mozilla, video player etc., and how often it would break because of the number of packages coming from different sources. I used Mandrake for a while but couldn't stand it. Then I tried Ubuntu. Everything I need for a decent multi-purpose workstation/desktop, fairly up-to-date, good community support, software updates rarely break anything. It's still properly Free Software so I get the warm fuzzy feeling. All pros and no cons. And they contribute back to Debian. I can't understand how anyone would want to use Debian stable in preference to Ubuntu.
If only someone could figure out a way to get that content from your PC onto your bigscreen TV.
But it would still be low-res and so would look terrible on the bigscreen TV. That's not about to change because some 'nerd' works on the problem - the data stream from the website will look good in a quarter-screen window but will look terrible at 1280x1024 or taken from the PC's composite output onto a big TV.
If someone brings you to trial, and the court rules that you did something wrong, then you are subject to their will. That is the exact opposite of freedom. This is not a difficult concept.
Actually, no - that's freedom being worked out right there. There's no such thing as freedom unless there's a framework in which freedom can safely be worked out. For instance, 'freedom of speech' requires that someone's 'freedom' to prevent you from speaking is curtailed. All freedom has to take place within certain boundaries otherwise the result is not freedom but anarchy. And this is a difficult concept that takes a lot of working out and a lot of checks and balances. I'm a Brit, and we're seeing in our country now some of the difficulties with this, just as you are. Recent laws have introduced the concept of "incitement to hatred" (religious, racial, etc.) as a form of speech that may be subject to legal action, on the basis that freedom to speak in that way is incompatible with the freedom to pursue one's religion or - in the case of racism - to live a 'normal' life in any way at all.
These sorts of balancing acts are not easy and will always require refinement and sometimes completely overturning. I appreciate the viewpoint that one should be able to say anything one wishes, but in practice this does not work - powerful people can, with a few words, cause the most awful actions and consequences (e.g. riots) that limit others' freedoms to go about their business. In the case of, e.g. clear-cut racism, this must not be allowed.
Now, I realise we are talking here about trade secrets and not incitement of racial hatred, but I'm responding to your assertion that a court intervening and asserting their will is the opposite of freedom, and arguing that in fact it is what underpins freedom in a working society.
Thanks for your many replies. I've been enjoying this conversation, but I'm aware that the story is getting older (although knowing Slashdot they'll probably post it again in a couple of days/weeks).
I do totally understand where you're coming from, and I agree with most of what you're saying. My point about the Big Bang is that it was originally seen as implying a first cause, so was avoided rather than considering it on its own merits - until the weight of evidence became too great for it to be ignored. The mass of knowledge that was added to cosmology by this theory was held up for a long time because of religious (atheistic) beliefs. It never required a supreme being, but my perception is that it left a bad taste in the mouth for many scientists because a 'god' was an obvious candidate. ID does not require a supreme being either - if a designer is demonstrated then it could be space aliens - but obviously theists would be quick to point to a god/God as the answer. I hope that we can get a coherent framework to determine design (or lack of) in biological systems so that the issue can be settled.
Thanks again. Since you're willing to read Dembski if you get the chance, I think perhaps I should reciprocate by reading a Dawkins book - I've been wanting to read The Blind Watchmaker for a while so I'll pop over to Amazon!
The Lamarck comment was interesting as most people don't even know of it. Saying that the current situation is the same as his is not correct, I am afraid.
Thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood me with regard to Lamarckism - I was comparing the state of ID to him, not of evolution or origins science in general. In other words, I'm admitting that the science behind ID has serious problems, but I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction; just as Lamarckism was right (big picture - inherited characteristics, gradual changes etc.) but wrong in pretty much all the details, I think that the thrust of ID is right (looking for real evidence of design in biological systems) whilst many of the details (e.g. the human blood clotting cascade cannot have evolved) are wrong.
Where I differ from you is that I don't think "no supernatural influences allowed" is a reasonable criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. As an example, cosmology was held up for years because the 'Big Bang' implied a definite start to the universe, and a definite start was thought to imply a cause ('who lit the fuse?'). Only as the evidence became compelling was the thoery accepted. Attempts have been made to exclude the possibility of a first cause by postulating an expanding and eventually contracting universe ('big crunch') - but really there is no answer to this because we can't know what happened before the bang.
I understand your viewpoint that ID is just an attempt to discredit evolution, but I don't think that's true based on what the ID people are saying (i.e. those that have published real books and papers - not 'Creationists' jumping on the bandwagon). Both Behe and Dembski state frequently that they have no problem with evolution being the general mechanism of species development. Again, I think there's confusion between motivation and the actual ideas that are being thrown around. I'm quite certain that Dawkin's motivation is to eradicate theism (he recently made a TV show entitled The Root of all Evil that attemps to show that religion is just that). But this has nothing really to do with his scientific theories and research (although he was trading on his name and reputation as a scientist when he made that programme). As a theist, I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit.
The peer review issue is often cited as a reason for regarding ID as pseudoscience; I think there's a chicken and egg issue there. It's worth noting that The Origin of Species was published as a book. There are plenty of ID books in print that can be pulled apart and tested - as many biochemists have done with Behe's work. Papers that are explicit about ID will not get published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals until the ideas that are proposed are acceptable to the peer reviewers. I think this is a shame, because the sort of work that Dembski is doing (is it possible to determine if there is design in biological systems?) is important - the answer might be 'yes it is, and there isn't any'. I believe science can both ask and answer this question (but that is just a belief) and I hope that the forum to do that will emerge and all the nonsense of young-earth creationists bashing evolution will stop.
I do understand and appreciate that ID is distasteful for a number of reasons. I've just read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and if that is all I had read I would agree with you 100%. But I've also just read Dembski's The Design Revolution and it's really, really good stuff. If you've enjoyed this discussion then I would really recommend reading Dembski's book. You probably won't agree with its conclusions, but I think you will find that it does give some promise of adding to our understanding of the world, and I would put it in that category of books that give a stimulating intellectual experience even if many would disagree with it overall.
In other words, given only one location; after ~31,709 years, the probability of abiogenesis having occured at some point is a virtual certainty.
But only if we take your P=10^-10 which you arbitrarily set, as a reasonable assumption. As P gets smaller, we get to the stage where we have to ask the question as to whether there have been enough events in the universe to allow abiogenesis to occur.
I've been keeping fairly quiet in this story (and I'm aware it will get stale as it drops off the front page) but as someone who's interested in Intelligent Design (note interested, not sold on it!) your comment sprung out at me. If you haven't read it, I would really recommend reasing William Dembski's The Design Revolution. You might not agree with it, but it's a very well-written book and I think you would find it very stimulating. He deals with just the kinds of questions that you raise. Is it possible to determine P? Abiogenesis would require a sequence of events such that a stable product is produced (presumably a protein) that would kick-start evolution, so there is some possibility of modeling what is required (which I know little about). If we start heading towards the point where we need to use up all of the events in the universe just to get evolution started, what do we say then? Is it reasonable to presume that someone or something intervened (space aliens, or... yes... god/God).
ID is the bastard child of those who cannot stand the athestic property of science where God/god is not disproven, but actually not involved at all.
Thanks for your intelligent and interesting replies - I was waiting for a bunch of flames and for my comment to be moderated to oblivion so I'm pleasantly surprised.
I do think Behe's arguments are flawed (I've just read Darwin's Black Box) and I understand why so many get angry with him. His attempts to explain biochemistry to the layperson are actually incredibly confusing, and he does often effectively argue 'I don't understand this so there must be no evolutionary solution'. What's interesting - and why I'm not afraid to mention ID - is that a more important idea arises out of his book, which is to turn the question on its head and ask whether it's possible for science to detect design (regardless of the mechanism, which could be evolutionary). It's a shame that much of the discussion around ID focuses on evolution-bashing, rather than on really looking at this question. (See the article this story refers to where it says ID proponents will be upset by the 'missing link').
I've also just read William Dembski's The Design Revolution. This book is much better written, and really focuses on the question of design detection. He uses the illustration of SETI to establish precedent for a scientific framework for the detection of the actions of an intelligent agent and looks at the philosophical and mathematical implications of applying this to origins of life.
I am a theist, and that is the main reason why I am interested in the above. I certainly agree with you that I "cannot stand the athestic property of science" - but I have no desire to put up with bad science just because it might chime in with my religious beliefs. It's worth noting that understanding motivation tells us nothing about the validity or otherwise of a scientific theory. Richard Dawkins is probably the most 'evangelical' atheist I have come across, but his science must be judged on its own merits.
I don't think there's yet a coherent 'theory' of Intelligent Design, but I do think there are important questions being raised - unfortunately amongst a muddle of half-baked ideas and theories, many of which at best count as pseudoscience, and the Creationist people have jumped on the bandwagon because it adds some credibility to their science.
I would compare the current situation to the work of Lamarck - at a big picture level he was really along the right lines, (and those who wanted a naturalistic origins story were prepared to accept his theories) but the actual science was profoundly wrong, which anyone who has studied basic science can appreciate. I hope there's a 'Darwin' for ID. But I'm also willing to accept that it may all come to nothing.
Thanks for a good conversation - hope you don't mind my long reply.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. If a project is freezing on some kind of regular/irregular basis and producing a stable release of source with or without binaries then they are focusing on users; otherwise why not just keep everything is CVS and let people get the source from CVS whenever they feel like it? If a project is make stable releases then they should plan to fix major bugs in the release and not just ignore it and carry on with the bleeding-edge - otherwise, what is the point in the stable release? Lots of OSS projects are user-focused (Firefox, Openoffice.org, Gnome, Gimp, Evolution, to name just a few) and do this very well; unfortunately lots don't.
It's not about have my "hand held" it's about the fact that CVS is bleeding edge and is likely to have hundreds of new bugs, so everyone (inexperienced or otherwise) is left with the choice between a 'stable' release with a show-stopper bug or the CVS with that particular one fixed but hundreds more to be discovered. Experienced users may even submit patches, but if the projects policy is not to fix stable releases then the patch will be ignored.
But what they should do, if it's a serious bug, is fix it in the current stable branch and do a new point release that includes that bug fix. The CVS might have hundreds of new features and take months or years to arrive whilst those using the stable version are waiting. If a project is mature and/or user-focused enough to have a stable/development separation so that they expect people to mainly use the stable version, they should be prepared to backport major bug fixes or fix directly in the stable branch. If they're not ready to do that then they should stick to being a 'developers-only' project for the time being.
When the word 'Prednisolone' alone is used in the UK, it refers to an oral steroid. Prednisolone is available as a topical preparation, but only as a liquid e.g. for eye drop use, and is refered to as 'prednisolone eye drops'. Methylprednisolone is a different compound, see http://www.bnf.org.uk/bnf/bnf/current/4255.htm (you may need to create a free login to see that page, I'm not sure), although the two are obviously related. Methylpred is not regarded as the strongest topical steroid, (http://www.skincell.org/topical_steroids.shtml) and the strongest two are available in the UK (http://www.bnf.org.uk/bnf/bnf/current/5837.htm). My experience with Aqueous cream and Diprobase is that they are very good, once the eczema is under control - I agree that they can be an irritant during a bad flare-up.
I can see that you've obviously had a really bad experience getting your kid's eczema treated appropriately in the UK, and the preparations that seem to work are not being made available to you. I don't know why methylpred isn't currently available in the UK, but I suspect it's not to do with the NHS because it's not even in the BNF, which lists all licensed drugs in the UK, not just those the NHS will pay for. I'm sorry that's the case, and I can only offer my sympathy, but there's nothing the doctors can do about it even if they wanted too (well, they could write letters I guess...).
My original post was in reponse to someone claiming that eczema couldn't be treated, and I responded to you when you disputed my claim that the majority of eczema sufferers could be symptom-free. I stand by that claim, but as a chronic eczema sufferer myself (and I remember having it on my scrotum when I was about 12... what else can I say?) I can offer my deepest sympathy that it isn't sorted out for your child. My motivation for my posts in this thread is that lots of people who have had real problems getting a condition thoroughly treated seem to think that doctors are terrible and modern medicine is useless. It doesn't help that some doctors do brush of patients that they see as a hassle, particularly if they feel there isn't anything further they can do, but most doctors don't want to see people suffer and do the best they can.
As they say this in the UK - utter bollocks
I'm sorry to hear that your child is one of the unfortunate ones who has uncontrollable eczema. But that doesn't mean that it's 'bollocks' that the vast majority can be symptom-free - if you sit-in on any UK GP for a few weeks, you will see dozens and dozens of children and adults that have chronic eczema that is extremely well treated. It sounds like you've had a nightmare and I'm really sorry, but that doesn't mean that there's no decent treatments or that the medical profession is useless (which you didn't say but strongly implied). I'm 26 and I've had eczema since I was 6 or 7, and the vast majority of the time it has been controlled because I've kept a supply of betnovate and used it when I've needed. The biggest problem I've had is convincing GPs that I need a repeat because they look at my hands and can't see anything.
All of the points that you made are valid (except the above) although I would dispute some of what you say (perhaps OT for a slashdot discussion!) - prednisolone is an oral steroid, I was talking about betnovate, dermovate etc. which are applied to the skin and should give improvement in all but the worst eczema; used correctly they don't cause any problems other than some local thinning of the skin which is much better than the eczema they treat. If dermovate doesn't work then you should be seeing a consultant dermatologist because I would imagine your kid is in an awful state and can't sleep at night for scratching. If you're still being seen by GPs at that stage then you've been failed by the system (and I certainly agree that there are big problems in the NHS).
I've not come across some of the emollients you mention, although I see that trixera is available here (http://www.garden.co.uk/catalog/trixera_body_emol lient.html) - I would tend to use aqueous cream or diprobase which will not cure anything but prevents the ongoing dryness and helps keep things at bay when the dermovate/betnovate has done its job; I use them every time I wash my hands when things are bad, and I wash my hands upwards of 20 times/day. Looking at the ingredients of some of the products you mention I'm surprised that they don't make things worse (for my skin I avoid any moisturiser that has more than 3-4 ingredients) - but like any junior doctor I've got lots to learn.
Nonsense. Well, not quite - if you mean by cure that the condition can be eradicated and never recur then yes, there is no cure - but there are very effective treatments that mean almost everybody should be symptom free (which is a much more sensible definition of 'cure'). It's like saying that 'modern dermatology has no cure for sunburn': red, itchy skin in response to some sort of biochemical insult is a normal and necessary immune response which we don't want to eradicate, but some people are more susceptible to getting inflamed skin based on a variety of different factors including their genetic makeup and the environment in which they live, which needs to be treated if it's causing a problem. People who get sunburn lots need to avoid the sun, and people with real problems (like albinos) need medical help.
Eczema can be treated very effectively with a combination of lifestyle change (avoiding irritants such as dust, pets, chemicals etc.), emollients (moisturisers) and topical steroids. There are also newer treatments such as tacrolimus which can be applied to the skin to modify the immune response. The vast majority of people with eczema if treated appropriately can be absolutely symptom-free. A very small minority have refractory symptoms (don't respond to treatment) which may need more nasty meds like oral steroids - more work on this category of people would be good.
Lee (soon to be MBBS, UK equivalent of MD).
It's on the home desktop where binary drivers matter. There will always be new bits of hardware coming out that work a little bit better with the vendor drivers, or are too niche for anyone to write decent OSS drivers. Multi-channel sound cards for the home studio market come to mind - they come to market with a fanfare, are very useful to those who need them, but become obsolete quickly when replaced by the next incompatible product. Giving the hardware vendors a reasonable mechanism to port their Windows/Mac drivers to Linux that is consistent across distros would be a great service to home Linux users without damaging the general stability of the OS.
Actually, it does. Just because I have to interpret it and synthesize my own idea of what actually happens doesn't mean it doesn't tell me anything - which is the (invalid) point that was being asserted. It gives me information that contributes to my understanding of the complete picture. To assert that it doesn't tell me anything at all ("reading a blog entry does not tell you anything") is absolutely ridiculous. All 'facts' have to be interpreted and understood as part of a bigger picture.
In the study of history, even works of fiction and satire may be interpreted as shedding some light on the era in which they were written or in which they were set, they just have to be handled carefully. A diary entry written by the figure under scrutiny is a very important primary source that gives a great deal of information.
Why are we even talking about this? The poster that originally made this stupid claim is clearly an idiot and I'm amazed anyone is defending him.
It does if the blog entry is all about how he conducts himself on the job - which this one clearly is. You need to think a little harder before making categorical statements like that.
Man, that's truly evil, but in a good kind of way! You could charge them $150/hr to teach them how to clear the cache and install anonymisation software etc. ;-).
No, I would either use web based email, or else run it off an IMAP server with everything stored on the server and set everything up with the right server address etc. before burning the CD. Another option could be to use a cheap and small USB flash key for the home directory, but that increases the chances that an error could occur that could not be fixed by a reboot.
Sometimes they moan about the cost, and I point out that what my time is worth and say that I will not help them with any further problems until they have the required software to protect their system. I'll happily point out that using Firefox (or even switching to Linux) will get rid of a lot of their annoying problems, but I won't do this for them - they have to figure it out for themselves otherwise it continues to be 'that thing you installed for me still isn't working right'.
I don't mind providing help, but I get very annoyed when people (including friends and relatives) presume that because I can do something then it's my moral duty to do it for them, for free, for an indefinite length of time. This is particularly true when they could quite easily pay for support, so in effect I'm just giving them something a free service so they can spend their money on something else.
If I knew someone who was a professional chef, I wouldn't expect them to come to my house and cook a meal every weekend to save me the cost of going to a decent restaurant, but I hope they wouldn't mind answering the occasional question when I really couldn't understand the recipe book or maybe recommending a local restaurant.
I've been thinking about this lately too, and I think I have an answer for completely clueless relatives. Next time someone just wants a box for web and e-mail, I'm going to modify knoppix or some other live CD so it just has firefox and thunderbird, plus relevant plugins and burn a custom CD. No problem with e-mail - it comes via Imap direct from my own Linux server. Then stick the CD-ROM drive in the case back to front with a blanking plate over its back (i.e. only accessible from inside the case). Whenever there's a problem, they just reboot. Other than hardware failure, it's impossible for this to go wrong. Every 6 months or so I'll burn a new CD and upgrade their system. So long as they really only want web and email this'll work fine - if they want something more they can talk to the nice people at the local computer shop.
Linux is good, and it's getting better. But it won't gain traction in the home market in North America or Western Europe until a company takes it on and makes a product out of it - selling pre-configured boxes with TV, radio and billboard advertising and a clear reason to choose the product over Microsoft and Apple alternatives. Linspire market on cut-price, but people know that they're getting an inferior product. What's needed is a reason why a Linux-based machine is a better purchase for the family.
OSX is marketed on style, Windows is marketed on great new features that will make your life easier (I think there is a clear difference between the two). Linux could be marketed on being the practical choice - you get a complete system with an entire office suite, graphics tools, music production etc., very compatible with MS Office, very few viruses or crashes. This isn't the same as marketing on cut-price - it's appealing to the middle-aged, middle-income family market where people want something that just works and they don't want to pay again to get an office suite, again to get a photo editor etc.
An analogy would be transport - people buy cars for different reasons: some want a sports car others want a family estate. At the moment Linux looks like a Landrover self-modified to run biodiesel; or else like a scooter in its cheapie Walmart/Linspire incarnation. What's needed is to create a new class of home computer product - Linux could be the MPV of the home computer market: a practical and reliable product for a busy family that won't cost a fortune to buy and run. It would take a big player, not a startup, to do this - and they would need to make a much bigger effort than Apple with their switch campaign, because Apple already had a loyal user base. I don't think it's likely that this would happen, although I would love it if it did.
Thank you...! Finally someone speaking some sense. I had some friends here on Saturday who are medical workers in Zulu South Africa and fluent Zulu speakers. They saw 'Ubuntu' pop up on my computer and were instantly really interested. Thinking about it, isn't "Windows" a really stupid name for a piece of software?
Then you have a serious problem somewhere! I have Ubuntu on my 5 year old laptop, 1Ghz PIII, 256Mb RAM. I can browse with firefox, read email and browse my filesystem with Nautilus without any problems. I only get heavy swapping if I open a large image in Gimp at the same time, and even then it's only when I switch apps that I get swapping.
Because there are a lot of people - myself included - who have used Debian for a long time. We like it for various reasons including it's proper Free-(as in speech)-ness, the apt/dpkg package management system, the fairly hands-on approach to system configuration and all sorts of other reasons that vary from person to person. The biggest problem with Debian is that it sucks as a desktop distro because it's too out of date. Ubuntu gives those of us that are long-term Debian fans what we need on the desktop without sacrificing what we love about Debian - except, arguably, a certain level of stability since Debian stable is tested like crazy.
To put it another way, here's why I don't use a selection of other distros: Redhat - too commercial, Suse - ditto, Fedora - can't stand the package management, Mandriva - ditto, Gentoo - would rather spend my time configuring the package well rather than compiling it. I have Debian on my server and love it, and have the closest thing to Debian on my desktop.
Ubuntu does now what we all hope Debian will do in six months... or 1 year... or 6 years... I've been using Debian for nearly eight years now, and for the first four it was my desktop OS as well as my server OS. Then I started getting fed up with the number of packages I needed to use from backports or unstable to get a fairly up-to-date Gnome desktop, Firefox/Mozilla, video player etc., and how often it would break because of the number of packages coming from different sources. I used Mandrake for a while but couldn't stand it. Then I tried Ubuntu. Everything I need for a decent multi-purpose workstation/desktop, fairly up-to-date, good community support, software updates rarely break anything. It's still properly Free Software so I get the warm fuzzy feeling. All pros and no cons. And they contribute back to Debian. I can't understand how anyone would want to use Debian stable in preference to Ubuntu.
Me too!!!
But it would still be low-res and so would look terrible on the bigscreen TV. That's not about to change because some 'nerd' works on the problem - the data stream from the website will look good in a quarter-screen window but will look terrible at 1280x1024 or taken from the PC's composite output onto a big TV.
Actually, no - that's freedom being worked out right there. There's no such thing as freedom unless there's a framework in which freedom can safely be worked out. For instance, 'freedom of speech' requires that someone's 'freedom' to prevent you from speaking is curtailed. All freedom has to take place within certain boundaries otherwise the result is not freedom but anarchy. And this is a difficult concept that takes a lot of working out and a lot of checks and balances. I'm a Brit, and we're seeing in our country now some of the difficulties with this, just as you are. Recent laws have introduced the concept of "incitement to hatred" (religious, racial, etc.) as a form of speech that may be subject to legal action, on the basis that freedom to speak in that way is incompatible with the freedom to pursue one's religion or - in the case of racism - to live a 'normal' life in any way at all.
These sorts of balancing acts are not easy and will always require refinement and sometimes completely overturning. I appreciate the viewpoint that one should be able to say anything one wishes, but in practice this does not work - powerful people can, with a few words, cause the most awful actions and consequences (e.g. riots) that limit others' freedoms to go about their business. In the case of, e.g. clear-cut racism, this must not be allowed.
Now, I realise we are talking here about trade secrets and not incitement of racial hatred, but I'm responding to your assertion that a court intervening and asserting their will is the opposite of freedom, and arguing that in fact it is what underpins freedom in a working society.
I do totally understand where you're coming from, and I agree with most of what you're saying. My point about the Big Bang is that it was originally seen as implying a first cause, so was avoided rather than considering it on its own merits - until the weight of evidence became too great for it to be ignored. The mass of knowledge that was added to cosmology by this theory was held up for a long time because of religious (atheistic) beliefs. It never required a supreme being, but my perception is that it left a bad taste in the mouth for many scientists because a 'god' was an obvious candidate. ID does not require a supreme being either - if a designer is demonstrated then it could be space aliens - but obviously theists would be quick to point to a god/God as the answer. I hope that we can get a coherent framework to determine design (or lack of) in biological systems so that the issue can be settled.
Thanks again. Since you're willing to read Dembski if you get the chance, I think perhaps I should reciprocate by reading a Dawkins book - I've been wanting to read The Blind Watchmaker for a while so I'll pop over to Amazon!
Thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood me with regard to Lamarckism - I was comparing the state of ID to him, not of evolution or origins science in general. In other words, I'm admitting that the science behind ID has serious problems, but I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction; just as Lamarckism was right (big picture - inherited characteristics, gradual changes etc.) but wrong in pretty much all the details, I think that the thrust of ID is right (looking for real evidence of design in biological systems) whilst many of the details (e.g. the human blood clotting cascade cannot have evolved) are wrong.
Where I differ from you is that I don't think "no supernatural influences allowed" is a reasonable criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. As an example, cosmology was held up for years because the 'Big Bang' implied a definite start to the universe, and a definite start was thought to imply a cause ('who lit the fuse?'). Only as the evidence became compelling was the thoery accepted. Attempts have been made to exclude the possibility of a first cause by postulating an expanding and eventually contracting universe ('big crunch') - but really there is no answer to this because we can't know what happened before the bang.
I understand your viewpoint that ID is just an attempt to discredit evolution, but I don't think that's true based on what the ID people are saying (i.e. those that have published real books and papers - not 'Creationists' jumping on the bandwagon). Both Behe and Dembski state frequently that they have no problem with evolution being the general mechanism of species development. Again, I think there's confusion between motivation and the actual ideas that are being thrown around. I'm quite certain that Dawkin's motivation is to eradicate theism (he recently made a TV show entitled The Root of all Evil that attemps to show that religion is just that). But this has nothing really to do with his scientific theories and research (although he was trading on his name and reputation as a scientist when he made that programme). As a theist, I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit.
The peer review issue is often cited as a reason for regarding ID as pseudoscience; I think there's a chicken and egg issue there. It's worth noting that The Origin of Species was published as a book. There are plenty of ID books in print that can be pulled apart and tested - as many biochemists have done with Behe's work. Papers that are explicit about ID will not get published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals until the ideas that are proposed are acceptable to the peer reviewers. I think this is a shame, because the sort of work that Dembski is doing (is it possible to determine if there is design in biological systems?) is important - the answer might be 'yes it is, and there isn't any'. I believe science can both ask and answer this question (but that is just a belief) and I hope that the forum to do that will emerge and all the nonsense of young-earth creationists bashing evolution will stop.
I do understand and appreciate that ID is distasteful for a number of reasons. I've just read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and if that is all I had read I would agree with you 100%. But I've also just read Dembski's The Design Revolution and it's really, really good stuff. If you've enjoyed this discussion then I would really recommend reading Dembski's book. You probably won't agree with its conclusions, but I think you will find that it does give some promise of adding to our understanding of the world, and I would put it in that category of books that give a stimulating intellectual experience even if many would disagree with it overall.
But only if we take your P=10^-10 which you arbitrarily set, as a reasonable assumption. As P gets smaller, we get to the stage where we have to ask the question as to whether there have been enough events in the universe to allow abiogenesis to occur.
I've been keeping fairly quiet in this story (and I'm aware it will get stale as it drops off the front page) but as someone who's interested in Intelligent Design (note interested, not sold on it!) your comment sprung out at me. If you haven't read it, I would really recommend reasing William Dembski's The Design Revolution. You might not agree with it, but it's a very well-written book and I think you would find it very stimulating. He deals with just the kinds of questions that you raise. Is it possible to determine P? Abiogenesis would require a sequence of events such that a stable product is produced (presumably a protein) that would kick-start evolution, so there is some possibility of modeling what is required (which I know little about). If we start heading towards the point where we need to use up all of the events in the universe just to get evolution started, what do we say then? Is it reasonable to presume that someone or something intervened (space aliens, or... yes... god/God).
Thanks for your intelligent and interesting replies - I was waiting for a bunch of flames and for my comment to be moderated to oblivion so I'm pleasantly surprised.
I do think Behe's arguments are flawed (I've just read Darwin's Black Box) and I understand why so many get angry with him. His attempts to explain biochemistry to the layperson are actually incredibly confusing, and he does often effectively argue 'I don't understand this so there must be no evolutionary solution'. What's interesting - and why I'm not afraid to mention ID - is that a more important idea arises out of his book, which is to turn the question on its head and ask whether it's possible for science to detect design (regardless of the mechanism, which could be evolutionary). It's a shame that much of the discussion around ID focuses on evolution-bashing, rather than on really looking at this question. (See the article this story refers to where it says ID proponents will be upset by the 'missing link').
I've also just read William Dembski's The Design Revolution. This book is much better written, and really focuses on the question of design detection. He uses the illustration of SETI to establish precedent for a scientific framework for the detection of the actions of an intelligent agent and looks at the philosophical and mathematical implications of applying this to origins of life.
I am a theist, and that is the main reason why I am interested in the above. I certainly agree with you that I "cannot stand the athestic property of science" - but I have no desire to put up with bad science just because it might chime in with my religious beliefs. It's worth noting that understanding motivation tells us nothing about the validity or otherwise of a scientific theory. Richard Dawkins is probably the most 'evangelical' atheist I have come across, but his science must be judged on its own merits.
I don't think there's yet a coherent 'theory' of Intelligent Design, but I do think there are important questions being raised - unfortunately amongst a muddle of half-baked ideas and theories, many of which at best count as pseudoscience, and the Creationist people have jumped on the bandwagon because it adds some credibility to their science.
I would compare the current situation to the work of Lamarck - at a big picture level he was really along the right lines, (and those who wanted a naturalistic origins story were prepared to accept his theories) but the actual science was profoundly wrong, which anyone who has studied basic science can appreciate. I hope there's a 'Darwin' for ID. But I'm also willing to accept that it may all come to nothing.
Thanks for a good conversation - hope you don't mind my long reply.