Linux was to me, the smart bomb for all that bloatware. It serves more than one purpose, however. Eliminating Microsoft software also reduces the chance that web developers will be enticed to program their site just for Windows. By using Chrome or Firefox on Linux, I'm "voting" for software freedom - freedom to use the software I want, and freedom from bloatware.
This in turn will make Windows server software seem less appealing to those same programmers and their supervisors and the investors in the company. That could mean one less hideously expensive sale for Microsoft.
Before I blew away the partitions on the drive, I made the install DVDs in the event that I would ever need them again for someone who really wants to use Windows if I ever give the machine away or sell it. But in my hands, this machine isn't going to run Windows. See? I believe in freedom of choice.
I'm being a bit idealist here, I know. But I can dream a little, can't I?
Thanks for clarifying that. I wonder why so many Christians are silent on the topic of genetically engineered food. Seems like that would be a very controversial topic of discussion in school.
If you had said nothing, I never would have guessed that English is not your native language. I only surmised that your grammar needed just a little bit of work. I'd say you're quite fluent in your writing. Good show!
As to the other points, I agree with you on most of what you said. I prefer ethics to brutality. But the point remains that it's not completely within our conscious power to control or contain viruses. I suppose I really just meant to offer a warning that vaccines are not the final answer. Eventually, we'll come back to cleaning up the environment if we're still around to do it.
Whether a "property" is desired is irrelevant to natural selection. The only properties that matter are those that support survival in the face of adversity. The rest is dressing.
My point is that given current trends, natural selection will eventually resume its course as before, no matter how good the vaccines get because we're simply not going to be able to keep up with virus evolution in the design of vaccines.
Besides, the human immune system, given proper conditions will be far more capable of keeping up with virus evolution than science will, and we've got about 2 million years of evolution to prove it. By proper conditions, I mean clean land, air, water and food. We aren't anywhere close to that in the air and water department, but our food is much better than it was in times past (assuming that the source of food is whole food).
I just wanted to clarify something. What exactly did Ransom Love buy? Are you saying his company *did* buy the copyrights to Unix even though two trials and an appeals court say no, he did not?
Boy, Slashdot is really fired up on this one. I'm pretty sure the judge is going to slap them down for trying to pawn off the lawsuit to a deeper pocket.
I agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. As you pointed out, natural selection was a much greater factor in the mortality rate in the past and that people died of many diseases we cure now. The use of medicine subverts the process of natural selection, so there is no way of knowing if humans would die or naturally adapt to viruses except for the fact that we are all here now and that the human genome is rife viral DNA inserted into it over the eons. Your statement that "a lot more people would be dead right now" is an assumption that at the moment can't be proved either way as we have no way of knowing how humans would evolve.
A good case in point to show that animals in general can adapt and even coexist with what would otherwise be a deadly virus is the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. I suggest that we might be missing the benefit of natural selection by using medicine rather than letting our bodies figure it out. if that were feasible without a giant die-off, it's something to consider. However, given the possibility that viruses can evolve faster than we can treat them, the odds of a giant die-off will increase with our increasing population and the steady decline of our ecosystem.
So unless we clean up our mess, it's only a matter of time before natural selection resumes it's natural course.
As is so often the case, we can't always see the long-term implications of our actions. For now, it's working out and benefiting most of the people who have accepted vaccines.
It just seems to me that vaccines are a band-aid for a much bigger problem: the environment. As we pollute the environment and live in densities that humans are not really accustomed to, we're weakening our immune systems to the point where we need vaccines.
You're welcome to your choice, but I prefer to reserve judgement on the question.
This article documents Bill Gates and his associations as well as his foundations holdings rather well and given that information, I find good reason to question his motives. I simply don't believe he is as charitable as he wants us to believe. The article is quoted in relevant part as follows:
"According to the Wall Street Journal(1), among others, the Gates Foundation has holdings in:
- Walmart (9.2 million shares)
- McDonald's (9.4 million shares)
- ExxonMobil (6.3 million shares)
- Berkshire Hathaway (76.4 million Class B shares)
- Monsanto (500,000 shares)"
Some might find him to be accurate in his assessment of the vaccine situation, but they might at least consider the source. I'm not so sure myself.
The human immune system is capable of producing billions of different immunoglobulins, most of which are unknown or undocumented, therefore your statement that anyone could be 100% not immune is based on a false premise. The capabilities of the human immune system are still not fully known, and any doctor will tell you that they don't heal people, they help them heal.
I've also noticed that few are willing to discuss the evolution of viruses in response to vaccines. While it is true that I have been vaccinated and have probably benefited from it, I have to wonder if we have fully thought out the consequences of vaccines in the same way that we have seen what happens with antibiotics. There is considerable risk that vaccines, like antibiotics could give rise to "superbugs".
Well, thanks for the clarification, and I didn't think of it as you took a long time to respond. No apology needed there. I respect that people here are busy working.
I really appreciate learning what a tough time Linux has had in the colleges there. I hope things improve for Linux on the campus as that's what they're using for the supercomputer work and such.
That's an interesting point and raises the issue of how we're framing the incident of an "attack". By calling it an attack, we're attempting to justify retaliation. As to the best response, I'd say diverting the attack and logging the method of attack makes more sense. As data is collected about attacks, their sources, methods and frequency become the basis for standard operating procedure rather than the news.
By reducing their effect with black hole strategies rather than retaliation, we reduce the chance of escalation between the parties and hopefully, injury to unsuspecting third parties. It's worth noting that blackhole-ing attackers means that they have no way of knowing they've been spotted. Thus, they will continue their attacks without knowing for sure if they've been spotted, allowing the targets of attacks to properly identify the sources of attacks and even allowing a better chance of prosecuting attackers.
I guess you could say that I prefer to err on the side of peace, if possible.
Agreed. There are similar sentiments about the constant drive for maximum profits popping up around the web, here and there. The best example I can cite (If I could paste it in this box) is from Salon magazine. In fact, just do a search there for the term "unhappy" and you will find a plethora of articles written by people who just can't figure why they have everything they have ever wanted, but they're unhappy. (Sorry, I can't paste a link here today. Maybe tomorrow.)
Ok, but does the Linux client work outside of the universities to get Internet access? Or are you saying that *everyone* needs to authenticate with a central server using a Windows only client just in order to get Internet access?
I think that's why the US is still #1 in spam production. Hmmm. I can't copy and paste links in this box, in Google Chrome on Linux. I'll be back. In the meantime, you can check out the Spamhaus home page for current stats.
Actually, world-wide pricing of Windows varies from country to country. MS has been making very significant discounts for Windows depending on the income of the people who live there. I can recall seeing articles that said that MS had reduced the price of Windows down to $1 just to fend off competition from Linux and piracy. Curiously, when I try to search for those articles, the returns are not relevant. I might need to adjust my search terms, or someone has done a really good job of cleaning the internet of those stories.
Really? Not in my experience. In every new install, I run Windows Update. When I do, I see on the right side of the browser window a notice that says, "turn on Windows Updates". Then I have to configure it. I have never seen it configured to run by default in XP. Maybe it is in Vista and Windows 7 - I don't know because I haven't done that many installs. My last install of Windows 7 had updates running by default. But XP? I'm pretty sure that is not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I've done a bit of that, too. And there is the "decrapifyer" software that will automatically search for and remove the bloatware.
Linux was to me, the smart bomb for all that bloatware. It serves more than one purpose, however. Eliminating Microsoft software also reduces the chance that web developers will be enticed to program their site just for Windows. By using Chrome or Firefox on Linux, I'm "voting" for software freedom - freedom to use the software I want, and freedom from bloatware.
This in turn will make Windows server software seem less appealing to those same programmers and their supervisors and the investors in the company. That could mean one less hideously expensive sale for Microsoft.
Before I blew away the partitions on the drive, I made the install DVDs in the event that I would ever need them again for someone who really wants to use Windows if I ever give the machine away or sell it. But in my hands, this machine isn't going to run Windows. See? I believe in freedom of choice.
I'm being a bit idealist here, I know. But I can dream a little, can't I?
Thanks for clarifying that. I wonder why so many Christians are silent on the topic of genetically engineered food. Seems like that would be a very controversial topic of discussion in school.
I thought intuition had a use in the workplace, but not by MBAs.
If you had said nothing, I never would have guessed that English is not your native language. I only surmised that your grammar needed just a little bit of work. I'd say you're quite fluent in your writing. Good show!
As to the other points, I agree with you on most of what you said. I prefer ethics to brutality. But the point remains that it's not completely within our conscious power to control or contain viruses. I suppose I really just meant to offer a warning that vaccines are not the final answer. Eventually, we'll come back to cleaning up the environment if we're still around to do it.
Whether a "property" is desired is irrelevant to natural selection. The only properties that matter are those that support survival in the face of adversity. The rest is dressing.
My point is that given current trends, natural selection will eventually resume its course as before, no matter how good the vaccines get because we're simply not going to be able to keep up with virus evolution in the design of vaccines.
Besides, the human immune system, given proper conditions will be far more capable of keeping up with virus evolution than science will, and we've got about 2 million years of evolution to prove it. By proper conditions, I mean clean land, air, water and food. We aren't anywhere close to that in the air and water department, but our food is much better than it was in times past (assuming that the source of food is whole food).
Agreed. It's going to take some time as software tends to have inertia. Just ask anyone hooked on IE6.
I just wanted to clarify something. What exactly did Ransom Love buy? Are you saying his company *did* buy the copyrights to Unix even though two trials and an appeals court say no, he did not?
Boy, Slashdot is really fired up on this one. I'm pretty sure the judge is going to slap them down for trying to pawn off the lawsuit to a deeper pocket.
I agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. As you pointed out, natural selection was a much greater factor in the mortality rate in the past and that people died of many diseases we cure now. The use of medicine subverts the process of natural selection, so there is no way of knowing if humans would die or naturally adapt to viruses except for the fact that we are all here now and that the human genome is rife viral DNA inserted into it over the eons. Your statement that "a lot more people would be dead right now" is an assumption that at the moment can't be proved either way as we have no way of knowing how humans would evolve.
A good case in point to show that animals in general can adapt and even coexist with what would otherwise be a deadly virus is the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. I suggest that we might be missing the benefit of natural selection by using medicine rather than letting our bodies figure it out. if that were feasible without a giant die-off, it's something to consider. However, given the possibility that viruses can evolve faster than we can treat them, the odds of a giant die-off will increase with our increasing population and the steady decline of our ecosystem.
So unless we clean up our mess, it's only a matter of time before natural selection resumes it's natural course.
As is so often the case, we can't always see the long-term implications of our actions. For now, it's working out and benefiting most of the people who have accepted vaccines.
It just seems to me that vaccines are a band-aid for a much bigger problem: the environment. As we pollute the environment and live in densities that humans are not really accustomed to, we're weakening our immune systems to the point where we need vaccines.
You're welcome to your choice, but I prefer to reserve judgement on the question.
This article documents Bill Gates and his associations as well as his foundations holdings rather well and given that information, I find good reason to question his motives. I simply don't believe he is as charitable as he wants us to believe. The article is quoted in relevant part as follows:
"According to the Wall Street Journal(1), among others, the Gates Foundation has holdings in:
- Walmart (9.2 million shares)
- McDonald's (9.4 million shares)
- ExxonMobil (6.3 million shares)
- Berkshire Hathaway (76.4 million Class B shares)
- Monsanto (500,000 shares)"
Some might find him to be accurate in his assessment of the vaccine situation, but they might at least consider the source. I'm not so sure myself.
The human immune system is capable of producing billions of different immunoglobulins, most of which are unknown or undocumented, therefore your statement that anyone could be 100% not immune is based on a false premise. The capabilities of the human immune system are still not fully known, and any doctor will tell you that they don't heal people, they help them heal.
I've also noticed that few are willing to discuss the evolution of viruses in response to vaccines. While it is true that I have been vaccinated and have probably benefited from it, I have to wonder if we have fully thought out the consequences of vaccines in the same way that we have seen what happens with antibiotics. There is considerable risk that vaccines, like antibiotics could give rise to "superbugs".
I like the first mover advantage better.
...in the comments section. I'm sure you guys will eventually get it sorted out. Try it on Chrome on Ubuntu 10.10. Enjoy.
Well, thanks for the clarification, and I didn't think of it as you took a long time to respond. No apology needed there. I respect that people here are busy working.
I really appreciate learning what a tough time Linux has had in the colleges there. I hope things improve for Linux on the campus as that's what they're using for the supercomputer work and such.
Thanks.
"Tantric VAX"? As in the really old computer?
That's an interesting point and raises the issue of how we're framing the incident of an "attack". By calling it an attack, we're attempting to justify retaliation. As to the best response, I'd say diverting the attack and logging the method of attack makes more sense. As data is collected about attacks, their sources, methods and frequency become the basis for standard operating procedure rather than the news.
By reducing their effect with black hole strategies rather than retaliation, we reduce the chance of escalation between the parties and hopefully, injury to unsuspecting third parties. It's worth noting that blackhole-ing attackers means that they have no way of knowing they've been spotted. Thus, they will continue their attacks without knowing for sure if they've been spotted, allowing the targets of attacks to properly identify the sources of attacks and even allowing a better chance of prosecuting attackers.
I guess you could say that I prefer to err on the side of peace, if possible.
Agreed. There are similar sentiments about the constant drive for maximum profits popping up around the web, here and there. The best example I can cite (If I could paste it in this box) is from Salon magazine. In fact, just do a search there for the term "unhappy" and you will find a plethora of articles written by people who just can't figure why they have everything they have ever wanted, but they're unhappy. (Sorry, I can't paste a link here today. Maybe tomorrow.)
Thanks for sharing that.
Ok, but does the Linux client work outside of the universities to get Internet access? Or are you saying that *everyone* needs to authenticate with a central server using a Windows only client just in order to get Internet access?
I think that's why the US is still #1 in spam production. Hmmm. I can't copy and paste links in this box, in Google Chrome on Linux. I'll be back. In the meantime, you can check out the Spamhaus home page for current stats.
Actually, world-wide pricing of Windows varies from country to country. MS has been making very significant discounts for Windows depending on the income of the people who live there. I can recall seeing articles that said that MS had reduced the price of Windows down to $1 just to fend off competition from Linux and piracy. Curiously, when I try to search for those articles, the returns are not relevant. I might need to adjust my search terms, or someone has done a really good job of cleaning the internet of those stories.
Really? Not in my experience. In every new install, I run Windows Update. When I do, I see on the right side of the browser window a notice that says, "turn on Windows Updates". Then I have to configure it. I have never seen it configured to run by default in XP. Maybe it is in Vista and Windows 7 - I don't know because I haven't done that many installs. My last install of Windows 7 had updates running by default. But XP? I'm pretty sure that is not the case.
I think I spoke too soon. I can see your point there.
Perhaps we give them too much credit to be stupid. What if they are just sub-clinically psychopathic and don't know it yet?