"Wikipedia is NOT a good place to cite "evidence" relating to scientific health studies"
You're quite right. But it's a start, and better than the post I was referring to, which only stated that "Except the evidence shows that it doesn't." without attempting to provide some backup.
I'm not going to go chapter and verse on the literature, I believe that the precautionary principle should apply - organophosphates can cause serious problems in humans in certain studied doses, but the effects of micro-doses are un-tested and therefore unknown. The post I was referring to claimed that micro-exposure wasn't a problem. "Taking small amounts of most types of poison won't poison you a little bit. Usually it does nothing."
Phosmet, as used in the experiment, is an organophosphate compound.
This from wikipedia: "Even at relatively low levels, organophosphates may be hazardous to human health. The pesticides act on acetylcholinesterase,[14] an enzyme found in the brain chemicals closely related to those involved in ADHD, thus fetuses and young children, where brain development depends on a strict sequence of biological events, may be most at risk.[15] They can be absorbed through the lungs or skin or by eating them on food. According to a 2008 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, âdetectableâ traces of organophosphate were found in a representative sample of produce tested by the agency, 28% of frozen blueberries, 20% of celery, 27% of green beans, 17% of peaches, 8% of broccoli, and 25% of strawberries.[16]"
So tell me please, what's your "evidence that shows it doesn't". I'd really like to know.
And, just a bit of insight here - we evolved alongside most/all of the foods "that can be poisonous at certain levels". That's one of the reasons we evolved, i.e. we learned not to eat too much of those foods. We have *not* evolved alongside many, if not all of the synthetic compounds commonly used as biocides in agriculture, so we don't know the effects of long-term exposure - not just one or two generations, but centuries of low-level exposure.
I'll try again. Windows, and Linux, have a history of poor reliability, which has admittedly improved a lot. Compared to historical and current alternatives in the mid-range field, their price point, both initial and ongoing, becomes self-explanatory. If you want something with high, really high reliability, you have to be realistic about what you need to spend.
Expensive, yes. As I said, you get what you pay for, in other words, Windows and Linux systems are cheap solutions, and should be viewed as such. Place your expectations accordingly.
Niche? At its peak, AS400 systems had a higher installed base than all its competitors *combined* - that was mostly Unix midrange systems. If you've had no experience with it, you shouldn't be dismissive about it.
OK - fair point. Software should improve as it matures.
Windows server is still a weak envrironment that needs lots of support to keep running - but you get what you pay for. If you want a robust solution, you have to be prepared to pay.
Linux/windows are good performers for lots of scenarios. No-one with any experience would consider them for five-nines situations.
"There are many Microsoft "engineers" simply due to Windows being easier to use, but many of those people couldn't script themselves out of a paper-bag."
Windows' *own* scripts often fail. I had the pleasure of migrating a SBS2003 system to SBS2011. I had to intervene and do some of the migration scripts' jobs manually, bcause they kept falling over. The logs told me the failure point (e.g. line 118), but not *why*.
It was a hell of an achievement to get it up there and working as long as it did, but it experienced failure before its projected end-of-mission - that kind of puts a limit on the "quality" score.
If you want to talk technical and quality achievement, look at Spirit and Opportunity, Voyager, Cassini, and so on.
IIRC the story goes that Gibson walked out of Blade Runner (original 1982 version) after 20 minutes, because "it was too much like the inside of my head".
Well, that's great for you. Others have different reasons.
FWIW, not a novel, but "Burning Chrome" is one of the few stories that draw me in and give belief to the world it describes. Not many writers can do that.
Tailor-made cancers. indeed.
Another idea I liked was the use of synthetic endorphins to allow malfeasants to continue their deeds while injured - sometimes badly injured. "Walking on bloody stumps" comes to mind.
That'd be a pretty powerful electromagnet, yes? And then you have to deal with the effects on the various power and electronics systems. Electromagnets have been known to induce current in wiring.
Toshiba laptops going back to the WinXP/Win7 crossover, so about 8-9 years. You bought a Satellite Pro with Win7 installed and facial recognition available. If you initiated a factory restore and chose XP, facial recognition wasn't available/installed. Not very reliable so I switched it off.
Also available on my Motorola RAZR HD from 2013. I trained it with and without glasses, with and without beard, and it works reliably nearly everywhere and everywhen, except...... first thing in the morning. Doesn't like bleary eyes, apparently. Also, it has a "must blink" option to prevent a photograph being used.
Slashdot Mirror
It almost makes me wonder if the whole fuss was manufactured for publicity....
Nahhh, Apple wouldn't do that.
Never.
I'm in awe. Someone who never made a mistake.
It's...... beautiful.
Except for the bit where you advocate corporal punishment. You should seek some help.
Even if you were joking, you need help.
P.S. if Daddy was working for Apple, he'll have a decent CV, which will get him a job elsewhere - you know these Silicon Valley types.
So transparent.
"Wikipedia is NOT a good place to cite "evidence" relating to scientific health studies"
You're quite right. But it's a start, and better than the post I was referring to, which only stated that "Except the evidence shows that it doesn't." without attempting to provide some backup.
Is this a bit more reliable:
https://tools.niehs.nih.gov/sr...
I'm not going to go chapter and verse on the literature, I believe that the precautionary principle should apply - organophosphates can cause serious problems in humans in certain studied doses, but the effects of micro-doses are un-tested and therefore unknown. The post I was referring to claimed that micro-exposure wasn't a problem. "Taking small amounts of most types of poison won't poison you a little bit. Usually it does nothing."
I disagree.
There's quite a bit of fibre in the peel. Quite a bit in the flesh, too, but discarding the peel does lose some of the "goodness".
The peel is not a nutrition-free zone, so eat it or don't, but it's a bit of a waste if you discard it.
Phosmet, as used in the experiment, is an organophosphate compound.
This from wikipedia:
"Even at relatively low levels, organophosphates may be hazardous to human health. The pesticides act on acetylcholinesterase,[14] an enzyme found in the brain chemicals closely related to those involved in ADHD, thus fetuses and young children, where brain development depends on a strict sequence of biological events, may be most at risk.[15] They can be absorbed through the lungs or skin or by eating them on food. According to a 2008 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, âdetectableâ traces of organophosphate were found in a representative sample of produce tested by the agency, 28% of frozen blueberries, 20% of celery, 27% of green beans, 17% of peaches, 8% of broccoli, and 25% of strawberries.[16]"
So tell me please, what's your "evidence that shows it doesn't". I'd really like to know.
And, just a bit of insight here - we evolved alongside most/all of the foods "that can be poisonous at certain levels". That's one of the reasons we evolved, i.e. we learned not to eat too much of those foods. We have *not* evolved alongside many, if not all of the synthetic compounds commonly used as biocides in agriculture, so we don't know the effects of long-term exposure - not just one or two generations, but centuries of low-level exposure.
No, thanks
Is there some rule about multiple posts?
I'll try again. Windows, and Linux, have a history of poor reliability, which has admittedly improved a lot. Compared to historical and current alternatives in the mid-range field, their price point, both initial and ongoing, becomes self-explanatory. If you want something with high, really high reliability, you have to be realistic about what you need to spend.
Expensive, yes. As I said, you get what you pay for, in other words, Windows and Linux systems are cheap solutions, and should be viewed as such. Place your expectations accordingly.
Niche? At its peak, AS400 systems had a higher installed base than all its competitors *combined* - that was mostly Unix midrange systems. If you've had no experience with it, you shouldn't be dismissive about it.
And I was using OS400 from release 2, so what? It didn't experience any of your examples.
Of course, it cost tens of thousands of dollars for even an entry-level machine, but you get what you pay for.
OK - fair point. Software should improve as it matures.
Windows server is still a weak envrironment that needs lots of support to keep running - but you get what you pay for. If you want a robust solution, you have to be prepared to pay.
Linux/windows are good performers for lots of scenarios. No-one with any experience would consider them for five-nines situations.
"There are many Microsoft "engineers" simply due to Windows being easier to use, but many of those people couldn't script themselves out of a paper-bag."
Windows' *own* scripts often fail. I had the pleasure of migrating a SBS2003 system to SBS2011. I had to intervene and do some of the migration scripts' jobs manually, bcause they kept falling over. The logs told me the failure point (e.g. line 118), but not *why*.
It was a hell of an achievement to get it up there and working as long as it did, but it experienced failure before its projected end-of-mission - that kind of puts a limit on the "quality" score.
If you want to talk technical and quality achievement, look at Spirit and Opportunity, Voyager, Cassini, and so on.
Nice bit of editing on that opening episode:
"she is hit by the toilet seat of the re-entering Space Station"
Looks up, squints, "Ahh, shi.....BOOM
A double-tap, or a tap followed by verbal, or something that the user finds satisfactory.
IIRC the story goes that Gibson walked out of Blade Runner (original 1982 version) after 20 minutes, because "it was too much like the inside of my head".
So Syd Mead had some concept of that world.
Funny, but for the rest of the millenials, TV tuned to a dead channel was often referred to as an "ant race".
Think "static" on a monitor screen as projected by 1908s sci-fi shows.
Well, that's great for you. Others have different reasons.
FWIW, not a novel, but "Burning Chrome" is one of the few stories that draw me in and give belief to the world it describes. Not many writers can do that.
Tailor-made cancers. indeed.
Another idea I liked was the use of synthetic endorphins to allow malfeasants to continue their deeds while injured - sometimes badly injured. "Walking on bloody stumps" comes to mind.
"I wonder if they have to stop for traffic lights."
There's not a lot of traffic lights out there.
"xxxxxx is the anomaly, not Australia"
Well *that's* a first.
"deflect a lot of it with an electromagnet"
That'd be a pretty powerful electromagnet, yes? And then you have to deal with the effects on the various power and electronics systems. Electromagnets have been known to induce current in wiring.
Say what?
https://www.computerworld.com/...
https://www.computerworld.com/...
That's not to defend XP as a choice, but let's not be misleading, here.
Or helicopters. Also noisy, polluting, and expensive.
Except that Wedge-tailed eagles are protected.
Toshiba laptops going back to the WinXP/Win7 crossover, so about 8-9 years. You bought a Satellite Pro with Win7 installed and facial recognition available. If you initiated a factory restore and chose XP, facial recognition wasn't available/installed. Not very reliable so I switched it off.
Also available on my Motorola RAZR HD from 2013. I trained it with and without glasses, with and without beard, and it works reliably nearly everywhere and everywhen, except...... first thing in the morning. Doesn't like bleary eyes, apparently. Also, it has a "must blink" option to prevent a photograph being used.
A bacteria species that can metabolize a drug designed to kill cells.
Kill rapidly-dividing-and-growing cells of selected cancers, yes - but... it can drink a chemo concoction and just.... burp?
That's almost scarier than the cancer itself.