OK, so you at least concede that homeopathy is "often" so far beyond any reasonable concept of an actual treatment that it cannot possibly have any effect other than placebo.
I assert that even in the cases where some of the initial substance remains that it's still quackery, in that in cases where it has been subjected to clinical trials it fails to have any measurable effect beyond placebo, except in the few cases where some high concentrations have been shown to cause harm, such as the Zicam loss of ability to smell incidents.
Of course you have to believe it. Placebo is incredible stuff, it works for all kinds of conditions, but you have to believe it.
My hypotheses is that it tricks the brain into triggering production of chemicals that actually act on the condition in question, but that's entirely unproven as far as I know. Someone should really do a study on the mechanism of effectiveness of placebo.
I'll mention it to my friend who is a research scientist working for big pharma. I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of it, since there's no profit in placebo.
From the article you link to, in the first paragraph: Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
If disease were a forest fire, that would be putting water on it. Unfortunately, disease isn't a fire, and putting water on it won't work, thus homeopathy is quackery, not medicine.
"I don't need some statistics" - The science is irrelevant, I'm going with my gut reaction and clamoring for the government to DO SOMETHING!!! Oh Noes!!!
The statistics will of course show that fatal crashes are dropping as cell phone use is increasing, which is likely why you don't want to look at them.
It's difficult to find total crash numbers quickly, but I suspect that cell phone use likely has very little to do with it. The drivers who are distracted by a cell phone are likely to be drivers who would be distracted by something else if the cell phone wasn't there.
Locking up somebody for 15 years for a moment of misjudgment is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Just from a cost standpoint, it's fantastically expensive. And it removes someone from the realm of taxpayer and turns them into a burden on society.
It's going to be an utter failure as a deterrent as well, because no one considers the possibility of killing someone before texting while driving, and therefore no one will consider the possibility of this penalty.
The US already locks up more of its population than any other nation in the world. It's time to fix that, not make it worse.
Yeah, it sounds bad at first, but the upside very much overcomes the downside.
And throw in that cell phones in the US don't have long distance charges to anywhere else in the US (and that's a lot of land to cover) and it's really a better deal here.
And you can even port a landline number to a cell phone, since they're not charged differently to call.
Oh, and don't forget, we have several unlimited calling options, it's about $100/month and then you never have to worry about per minute charges again, incoming or outgoing - for a local area carrier like Cricket, it's even less (around $40/month these days I think), you just don't get coverage outside your home town.
Strange that you should mention the instance of my face being pasted to someone else's body and distributed over the internet.
It's actually happened to me. There is, floating around the internet somewhere, a photo that includes me and two of my friends appearing to be about to engage in some gay sex. It was created to be embarrassing, and distributed widely among my friends. Just like the photos in these cases would have to be, it's obviously not my body. Was it intended to be abusive? Sure. It was created by someone who doesn't like me, and posted online to cause me embarrassment.
Does that make it legally actionable? No, and it should not. We have a little thing in this country called the First Amendment that protects the right to say things that are abusive and offensive, with very limited exceptions.
Is it even abusive in this case? The images weren't distributed, the individuals in the photos had no idea that they were ever involved, and likely still don't know. No, it's obviously not abusive. Would it be if they were distributed? It depends on the goal of the distribution - if it was intended to be abusive, it might be. If not, it certainly wouldn't be.
You might be offended by it, but this instance is constitutionally protected. I'd say it doesn't even get past district court level.
That's why the emergency number shouldn't be a 3 number sequence of the same number. That's just stupid, the emergency services are just asking for more accidental calls when they do that.
Totally untrue. Under a socialist system, if no one in Tennessee needs the liver, it goes somewhere else, probably on a geographic radius basis.
Since SJ is a CA resident, the liver would likely be appropriately given to someone else before him, but if he were the only compatible recipient for that liver when it came available, he would get it.
If I upgrade early, I'm paying full price for the phone, there is no subsidy. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I'm not yet at the point in my contract that they'll give me another subsidy on the phone.
But... The phone is still subsidy locked to AT&T. I've just paid full unsubsidized price for it, it's mine. They shouldn't be allowed to lock the phone at that point.
The problem is that medical software makers used a known insecure operating system, and then failed to patch it when if they had put two brain cells together they would have known that someone was going to end up connecting one of these things to a non-sanitized network.
So yes, they CAN be expected to test against the patches if they want to continue to use M$ garbage operating systems in their devices. And they can also be expected to provide timely patch mechanisms to get these patches on their systems.
The expectation should be that a device will at some point be connected to an insecure network, either by accident or intentionally, and these devices MUST be hardened against that eventuality.
In the TV stations I've done support work (medium market, full power, multi-state coverage) those systems most certainly WERE networked, and most had internet access. It comes in too handy to have access to the web to take those offline, and they use the network to move files around.
They were also updated with the latest security patches.
Red Hat 5 was far more ready for mission critical systems than anything M$ has ever released, and likely more ready than anything M$ will ever release.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous and offensive things I've ever read on Slashdot.
Students are individuals, not property of their parents. Parents should not get to filter everything.
And yes, school is about education - and should not be about doing busywork class assignments, but about real education. And real education requires access to information, one of the best sources of which today is the internet. Having it available only in a creampuff filtered version is doing a serious disservice to education.
I DID NOT state that Apple or the hard drive manufacturers did no additional testing.
I stated that the people writing the article did no additional testing. While the article doesn't say that, as it's intended to be in some way technically informative, they would certainly have stated it if they did in fact do additional testing to verify Apple's claims about performance increases due to the custom firmware. The people writing the article did in fact just regurgitate what an Apple spokesman told them about drive performance, and that in my experience the custom firmware does not offer a real-world performance benefit.
So, what I'm saying is not bullshit, and what your friend told you is irrelevant to my comment.
Now, to your assertion about hard drive testing - while additional testing at the manufacturer will catch a few more drives that would have suffered failures in the initial few weeks of use, it will have no impact on long-term drive survival rates. They're not testing for that, because they can't. They can do accelerated failure condition testing on a few drives, but that won't really give you real-world failure data. They can do long-term testing on a few drives, but they certainly can't do that to the entire batch, as they'd ship ready for end-of-life failures.
The article says that Apple claims 48 - 60 hours of additional testing. That's perfectly believable, I have no reason to doubt its truthfulness, but it's of limited usefulness. Those drives are tested before being drop-kicked in shipping. I'd trust my own 24 hour post-install testing more than even a month-long test prior to a trip across the country (or even around the block) in a Fedex or UPS truck.
In conclusion, read what you're replying to before you call someone an idiot. And, consumer grade drives are just fine in servers. Oh, and you should be doing burn-in testing on ANY drive before you put it into production - whether you spent too much on a "server" drive or not.
Yes. You can use off the shelf SATA drives in your ADMs. They will work just fine, and any special firmware tweaks Apple has done in the drive firmware are completely unnoticeable in any real world environment, if they're there at all.
I've replaced 500GB SATA drives in ADMs with 1TB off the shelf "consumer grade" Seagate drives. They work flawlessly, with no performance penalty. I'd trust them EXACTLY as much as I would Apple-supplied drives - which is to say, not at all without RAID mirroring and a good backup. ALL hard drives fail.
Not Informative:
The article. They didn't do anything but trust what some low-level Apple rep gave them. They did NO actual testing, the whole thing is purely anecdotal.
Well, that certainly sends an interesting message to the highly knowledgeable tech worker:
"Document nothing. If you do, they're just going to fire you and be able to get along just fine without you. Instead, if you document nothing and obfuscate everything, they'll be fucked and likely won't do that sort of thing to anybody else."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you certainly make an excellent case.
An excellent case for the elimination of private property ownership and collectivization of ownership of everything.
OK, so you at least concede that homeopathy is "often" so far beyond any reasonable concept of an actual treatment that it cannot possibly have any effect other than placebo.
I assert that even in the cases where some of the initial substance remains that it's still quackery, in that in cases where it has been subjected to clinical trials it fails to have any measurable effect beyond placebo, except in the few cases where some high concentrations have been shown to cause harm, such as the Zicam loss of ability to smell incidents.
Of course you have to believe it. Placebo is incredible stuff, it works for all kinds of conditions, but you have to believe it.
My hypotheses is that it tricks the brain into triggering production of chemicals that actually act on the condition in question, but that's entirely unproven as far as I know. Someone should really do a study on the mechanism of effectiveness of placebo.
I'll mention it to my friend who is a research scientist working for big pharma. I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of it, since there's no profit in placebo.
No, it really does mean no dosage.
From the article you link to, in the first paragraph: Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
If disease were a forest fire, that would be putting water on it. Unfortunately, disease isn't a fire, and putting water on it won't work, thus homeopathy is quackery, not medicine.
"I don't need some statistics" - The science is irrelevant, I'm going with my gut reaction and clamoring for the government to DO SOMETHING!!! Oh Noes!!!
The statistics will of course show that fatal crashes are dropping as cell phone use is increasing, which is likely why you don't want to look at them.
It's difficult to find total crash numbers quickly, but I suspect that cell phone use likely has very little to do with it. The drivers who are distracted by a cell phone are likely to be drivers who would be distracted by something else if the cell phone wasn't there.
No, this is about as wrong as you can get.
Locking up somebody for 15 years for a moment of misjudgment is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Just from a cost standpoint, it's fantastically expensive. And it removes someone from the realm of taxpayer and turns them into a burden on society.
It's going to be an utter failure as a deterrent as well, because no one considers the possibility of killing someone before texting while driving, and therefore no one will consider the possibility of this penalty.
The US already locks up more of its population than any other nation in the world. It's time to fix that, not make it worse.
http://blog.iphone-dev.org/
Jailbreak it. You'll be a lot happier.
Yeah, it sounds bad at first, but the upside very much overcomes the downside.
And throw in that cell phones in the US don't have long distance charges to anywhere else in the US (and that's a lot of land to cover) and it's really a better deal here.
And you can even port a landline number to a cell phone, since they're not charged differently to call.
Oh, and don't forget, we have several unlimited calling options, it's about $100/month and then you never have to worry about per minute charges again, incoming or outgoing - for a local area carrier like Cricket, it's even less (around $40/month these days I think), you just don't get coverage outside your home town.
Strange that you should mention the instance of my face being pasted to someone else's body and distributed over the internet.
It's actually happened to me. There is, floating around the internet somewhere, a photo that includes me and two of my friends appearing to be about to engage in some gay sex. It was created to be embarrassing, and distributed widely among my friends. Just like the photos in these cases would have to be, it's obviously not my body. Was it intended to be abusive? Sure. It was created by someone who doesn't like me, and posted online to cause me embarrassment.
Does that make it legally actionable? No, and it should not. We have a little thing in this country called the First Amendment that protects the right to say things that are abusive and offensive, with very limited exceptions.
Is it even abusive in this case? The images weren't distributed, the individuals in the photos had no idea that they were ever involved, and likely still don't know. No, it's obviously not abusive. Would it be if they were distributed? It depends on the goal of the distribution - if it was intended to be abusive, it might be. If not, it certainly wouldn't be.
You might be offended by it, but this instance is constitutionally protected. I'd say it doesn't even get past district court level.
That's why the emergency number shouldn't be a 3 number sequence of the same number. That's just stupid, the emergency services are just asking for more accidental calls when they do that.
Totally untrue. Under a socialist system, if no one in Tennessee needs the liver, it goes somewhere else, probably on a geographic radius basis.
Since SJ is a CA resident, the liver would likely be appropriately given to someone else before him, but if he were the only compatible recipient for that liver when it came available, he would get it.
Well, obviously the answer is yes, we should deny the billionaire. Heath care should be a basic human right, not one rationed by wealth.
If it's impossible to provide the treatment to the garbageman, it's wrong to provide it to the billionaire.
So, here's the slap in the face:
If I upgrade early, I'm paying full price for the phone, there is no subsidy. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I'm not yet at the point in my contract that they'll give me another subsidy on the phone.
But... The phone is still subsidy locked to AT&T. I've just paid full unsubsidized price for it, it's mine. They shouldn't be allowed to lock the phone at that point.
THAT is a slap in the face.
The problem is that medical software makers used a known insecure operating system, and then failed to patch it when if they had put two brain cells together they would have known that someone was going to end up connecting one of these things to a non-sanitized network.
So yes, they CAN be expected to test against the patches if they want to continue to use M$ garbage operating systems in their devices. And they can also be expected to provide timely patch mechanisms to get these patches on their systems.
The expectation should be that a device will at some point be connected to an insecure network, either by accident or intentionally, and these devices MUST be hardened against that eventuality.
In the TV stations I've done support work (medium market, full power, multi-state coverage) those systems most certainly WERE networked, and most had internet access. It comes in too handy to have access to the web to take those offline, and they use the network to move files around.
They were also updated with the latest security patches.
Actually, what this story proves is that that approach is unworkable, and threats WILL reach the equipment.
It's time for a new approach. Seriously.
Are you kidding?
Red Hat 5 was far more ready for mission critical systems than anything M$ has ever released, and likely more ready than anything M$ will ever release.
Um, it's not a GPL violation to give your friend a binary unless he asks for the source and you refuse to give it to him.
You just have to make the source available to someone you distribute a binary to.
You have a serious misunderstanding of constitutional law.
Local school boards, cities, and states most certainly ARE bound by the US Constitution.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous and offensive things I've ever read on Slashdot.
Students are individuals, not property of their parents. Parents should not get to filter everything.
And yes, school is about education - and should not be about doing busywork class assignments, but about real education. And real education requires access to information, one of the best sources of which today is the internet. Having it available only in a creampuff filtered version is doing a serious disservice to education.
What do you mean by "can't"?
Do you mean it's illegal, or do you mean it's impossible?
Because if it's illegal, that hardly means it can't be done.
What a stupid reply to my post.
I DID NOT state that Apple or the hard drive manufacturers did no additional testing.
I stated that the people writing the article did no additional testing. While the article doesn't say that, as it's intended to be in some way technically informative, they would certainly have stated it if they did in fact do additional testing to verify Apple's claims about performance increases due to the custom firmware. The people writing the article did in fact just regurgitate what an Apple spokesman told them about drive performance, and that in my experience the custom firmware does not offer a real-world performance benefit.
So, what I'm saying is not bullshit, and what your friend told you is irrelevant to my comment.
Now, to your assertion about hard drive testing - while additional testing at the manufacturer will catch a few more drives that would have suffered failures in the initial few weeks of use, it will have no impact on long-term drive survival rates. They're not testing for that, because they can't. They can do accelerated failure condition testing on a few drives, but that won't really give you real-world failure data. They can do long-term testing on a few drives, but they certainly can't do that to the entire batch, as they'd ship ready for end-of-life failures.
The article says that Apple claims 48 - 60 hours of additional testing. That's perfectly believable, I have no reason to doubt its truthfulness, but it's of limited usefulness. Those drives are tested before being drop-kicked in shipping. I'd trust my own 24 hour post-install testing more than even a month-long test prior to a trip across the country (or even around the block) in a Fedex or UPS truck.
In conclusion, read what you're replying to before you call someone an idiot. And, consumer grade drives are just fine in servers. Oh, and you should be doing burn-in testing on ANY drive before you put it into production - whether you spent too much on a "server" drive or not.
It's really NOT that informative.
Informative:
Yes. You can use off the shelf SATA drives in your ADMs. They will work just fine, and any special firmware tweaks Apple has done in the drive firmware are completely unnoticeable in any real world environment, if they're there at all.
I've replaced 500GB SATA drives in ADMs with 1TB off the shelf "consumer grade" Seagate drives. They work flawlessly, with no performance penalty. I'd trust them EXACTLY as much as I would Apple-supplied drives - which is to say, not at all without RAID mirroring and a good backup. ALL hard drives fail.
Not Informative:
The article. They didn't do anything but trust what some low-level Apple rep gave them. They did NO actual testing, the whole thing is purely anecdotal.
Well, that certainly sends an interesting message to the highly knowledgeable tech worker:
"Document nothing. If you do, they're just going to fire you and be able to get along just fine without you. Instead, if you document nothing and obfuscate everything, they'll be fucked and likely won't do that sort of thing to anybody else."
They're using a Xeon 5500. It's a LGA 1366 socket chip.