My hypothesis when this was posted on Digg a few days ago was that the magic of the immune system was at play.
Venom causes an immune response; immune system fights the nasties; post-immune response repairs some of the damage.
But after reading jandrese's comment above... methinks he's right.
I've seen bits of it. I don't remember that bit.
They ain't excuses. I just have different tastes to you. I hope that's not too offensive to your sensibilities.
I'm sorry I don't conform to your vision of the idealised Slashdot user.
Even worse, I was born after Monty Python was on the telly, and... I don't own a TV. Yes, I'm that weird.
MS claim they were allowed to nick his IP rights since he failed to reveal this when he joined the company (although they also tried to licence the technology prior to him joining)
So the wrong thing was viewing some documents he shouldn't have? Not having your IP rights stolen, then.
Instinctively, I don't trust the interpretation of the stats.
Perhaps the young Dutch comprise proportionately more of the downloaders. Young Dutch also like new music. Young Dutch are more likely to buy music than older Dutch, who have their CD and LP collection and feel no need to buy much more.
Thus you get your result. It doesn't necessarily mean that piracy leads to buying more stuff legitimately.
You have to weigh up the cost of storage vs likelihood of use.
Two points to consider.
1. I'm not convinced these cells will remain viable in storage for anything like the lifetime of your child.
2. The longer your offspring live, the more likely they'd be to need this. If they hit >60 years, for example.
Of course, if I was in that position, rationality would go out the window. I'd pay it, if I could afford it, for the peace of mind-- even though I never knew the service existed until 3 minutes ago.
'm guessing, based on your name, but I suspect that you're rather "youngish", and are in the middle of your drinking/partying years
A false assumption on your part, then.
I'm right now trying to think of a single religion that considers booze to be related to medicine... granted, my grandmother was a great believer in the occasional medicinal shot of brandy, but that was hardly a religious belief.
Heh, what was written by me, wasn't what I meant to say.
Having researched it a bit more, I realise that Jehova's Witnesses and Amish do occasionally have some alcohol-- JWs aren't normally fans of modern medicine.
Salt has the same affect - but it's not intuitive that we should stay away from salt, any more than it is with alcohol.
No. Nice try though.
In my biology class at school (and those nice human physiology courses all those years ago at University), I was taught of Anti-diuretic hormone; its effects on kidney function. Salt and alcohol have opposite effects. Salt increases levels of ADH makes your kidneys piss out less water, mitigating the problem. Alcohol rapidly stops ADH production, making you piss out more water. On top of that, it dehydrates tissue rather effectively too. Which is why in the histology lab, I don't use increasing levels of salt to dehydrate tissue samples; I use increasing concentrations of ethanol.
rst - I suspect that the misunderstanding of stats & demographics are more likely to be your problem this time, not the media.
You know what. I'm not going to present my CV here, but I do understand 'em. Journalists, with a BA in English, rather than a BS in anything, presented with stats, more often than not, misinterpret or overinterpret them.
Repeatedly data showing mild amounts of alcohol intake are benefical are reported as "Ah, a glass of wine a day must be good for you. It's the tannins/ oils/ whatever", when no consideration is given to the fact is that a portion of the non-alcohol imbibing people are more likely to be ill (for whatever reason that proscribes them from drinking it) than those allowed to drink alcohol. It isn't controlled for. It is bias. It isn't what people-- especially the media with their nice reader friendly stories for people that like alcohol-- want to hear. Which (if my assumption that TFM = the fucking media is correct) is why you're not going to read those stats in the TFM, are you? There are few newspapers with good science journalism left, and the internet seems to be awash with blogs and sites promoting agendas left right and centre.
In essence, "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" needs to be employed on these topline blithe statements that are reported everywhere. I mean, the 3 cups of coffee doubles your risk of hallucinations bollocks recently: -- total sh*te
Actually, the guy that runs the badscience.net site wrote a book. There's a chapter in there that deals with this debate. They guy explains it all (with... evidence) far more eloquently than I. I suggest you read it. http://www.badscience.net/buy-the-book/ I'd have quoted from it, but I've loaned it to my Dad. Who is very old, just to reassure you I'm not a youngster. I just coined my username many years ago.
Fair point, my list wasn't exhaustive, but I think you have to look at the bigger picture.
Many people that can't drink alcohol are ill. Hepatitis, former alcoholism, transplanted livers, etc. I would argue that certain religious groups that abhor alcohol, also abhor other aspects of medicine.
This is my key point (that I obviously didn't convey well). These people (but not people like you) skew the data towards people having moderate drinking habits appearing healthier than people that don't drink at all.
Since alcohol impairs the liver, dehydrates tissue, blah de blah, it's intuitive that it isn't healthy. And yet all of the data shows that teetotalers. Are less healthy than moderate drinkers on all manner of health and wellbeing tests.
You, are presumably, healthier than your alcohol-drinking peers. Yet the media tell you you're worse off. What I'm saying is despite what the media say (through misunderstanding of statistics and demographics), you are (statistically more likely to be) healthier than the rest of us!
Er. rejoice!
This is a very, very important point when interpreting this sort of data.
Teetotalars are an odd bunch of people.
This demographic consists mainly of:
Ill people -- who aren't allowed to drink as they have a serious disease, or less relevantly...
Certain religious factions -- imho, odd.
These factors are almost NEVER controlled for. Therefore the people in the non-drinking group are
always going to perform worse in almost every health indicator, than people with moderate drinking habits-- i.e. "normal", healthier people.
With that in mind, you need to weep for the love of science and decent journalism, next time newspaper or big website reports that "moderate amounts of alcohol protect you from..." or "a glass of wine a day..."
Although it's an easily understandable mechanism of action, and promoted by sellers of overpriced health foods, e.g. PomeGREAT! Juice...
I thought that the antioxidant hypothesis had pretty much been debunked. If you have a functioning pancreas and liver, you don't need to supplement what's in your diet.
And coffee doubling your chances if you drink more than 3 cups per day?
I think the bad stats of the Relative Risk Increase is at work here. Let me see. Very very very low risk of something happening * 2 = still a very very very low risk of something happening.
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been ANECDOTALLY linked to aggressive behavior"
Any bulletproof evidence for that? What if the overall effect is calming (e.g. people get the GRR! out of their system by playing Duke Nukem Forever (or whatever) and don't kill?
Still. Those empty gestures that play to your core voters are great. Far better than taxing your brain on fixing the economy or improving education.
i.e., when the first batch of DRM-free 'choons' came out, the purchaser's info was in there; ditto the DRM'd stuff-- the tools to strip the DRM out of the file still left the personal information in the file (as of course, you were stripping the DRM for freedom to play on any device, not for piracy. Of course).
Nah, people that claim to be sensitive to microwave/ mobile phone/ WiFi/ whatever radiation somehow mysteriously lose that sensitivity when subjected to double-blinded trials of their ailment/skill.
BBC's Panorama made a huge fuck-up by broadcasting similar proaganda in Dec '07: http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/bbc-editorial-complaints-unit-debags-the-panorama-wifi-scare/
Turns out there was an agenda-- the proponent in the show was selling protective devices. Alas, they weren't Faraday cages, they were useless trinkets. Even people that pretend to be hippies are slaves to the cash.
No, believe me, I understand fatigue, and energizing, and my, perverse, personal, borne of a 3-day visit, experience was energizing.
Perhaps living there, with a long commute to work there would grind me down-- like it does from a suburb to a business park in England-- but unless I was a street vendor, I'm not sure I would be that (additionally) b*ggered by everyday work in an air-conditioned office with double glazing to insulate me from the noise, like the one I currently work in.
In essence, I suppose I love NY, but I'd probably age at twice the normal rate, if I lived there for a long time!
Perhaps it's because I've only visited as a tourist, but I find Manhattan's busy-ness and bustling quite energizing, and the memory of it makes me want to visit again.
As I type this at my desk. In a managed office building. In a business park. Looking at a motorway. Zzzzzz....
So as much as I agree with "stick Ubuntu on it", that's not answering the guy's question.
We're going to have to assume his Grandma needs:
1. E-mail (Thunderbird? With Gmail's not bad antispam filters going?)
2. A browser (Firefox, with some useful senior citizen extensions [if they exist!]), and possibly...
3. an IM client for a webcam (Skype?).
Since it's Windows, you'll also need
4. An auto-updating AV
5. An auto-updating firewall
6. An auto-updating spyware muncher
7. Remote control e.g. VNC or TeamViewer, or the like.
I can't really comment on these last ones-- I left Windows behind years ago, and only use it on my work PC, which has Trend something or other on it, and doesn't visit naughty, malware ridden websites (on pain of unemployment).
One other thought. Windows XP FLP? Is that less of a mess in terms of vulnerabilites than full blown XP?
Can anyone suggest anything better?
Twenty bucks a month to torrent? I've been tempted to buy it so that I could watch stuff on Hulu (I'm in the UK) but lots of people paying that sort of money soon becomes silly-- you might as well pay the blanket surcharge tax-for-doing-nothing straight to the studios, which would be cheaper than $20/mo.
Anything that you can use legally, you can pretty much use illegally.
For example, cars-- drive to the bank; drive very fast away from the bank, with the bank's money. You don't find banks lobbying the government to ban the sale of cars that might be used in bank jobs.
I've come to the conclusion that politics is now lobby groups vs lobby groups-- fair and representative politics is long gone. And I don't think techies lobby louder than the **AAs. : (
Ah, rednecks. All of those Sunday sermons they attended, for all of those years.
"Turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbour" etc. And yet they want to shoot a black president.
How Christian of them. If, of course, by "Christian", you mean "moron-tastic".
Actually, try that substitution in other situations too. IT works well.
Slashdot Mirror
My hypothesis when this was posted on Digg a few days ago was that the magic of the immune system was at play. Venom causes an immune response; immune system fights the nasties; post-immune response repairs some of the damage. But after reading jandrese's comment above... methinks he's right.
I've seen bits of it. I don't remember that bit. They ain't excuses. I just have different tastes to you. I hope that's not too offensive to your sensibilities.
I'm sorry I don't conform to your vision of the idealised Slashdot user. Even worse, I was born after Monty Python was on the telly, and... I don't own a TV. Yes, I'm that weird.
AMD? Or are we going for the full "Advanced Micro Devices"?
He claims he revealed his patent when joining MS.
MS claim they were allowed to nick his IP rights since he failed to reveal this when he joined the company (although they also tried to licence the technology prior to him joining)
So the wrong thing was viewing some documents he shouldn't have? Not having your IP rights stolen, then.
I'm sure "developing countries" is the modern, PC, terminology.
Perhaps the young Dutch comprise proportionately more of the downloaders. Young Dutch also like new music. Young Dutch are more likely to buy music than older Dutch, who have their CD and LP collection and feel no need to buy much more.
Thus you get your result. It doesn't necessarily mean that piracy leads to buying more stuff legitimately.
You have to weigh up the cost of storage vs likelihood of use. Two points to consider. 1. I'm not convinced these cells will remain viable in storage for anything like the lifetime of your child. 2. The longer your offspring live, the more likely they'd be to need this. If they hit >60 years, for example. Of course, if I was in that position, rationality would go out the window. I'd pay it, if I could afford it, for the peace of mind-- even though I never knew the service existed until 3 minutes ago.
It was powered by bicarbonate of soda. Went round the bath a treat.
A false assumption on your part, then.
Heh, what was written by me, wasn't what I meant to say.
Having researched it a bit more, I realise that Jehova's Witnesses and Amish do occasionally have some alcohol-- JWs aren't normally fans of modern medicine.
No. Nice try though.
In my biology class at school (and those nice human physiology courses all those years ago at University), I was taught of Anti-diuretic hormone; its effects on kidney function. Salt and alcohol have opposite effects. Salt increases levels of ADH makes your kidneys piss out less water, mitigating the problem. Alcohol rapidly stops ADH production, making you piss out more water. On top of that, it dehydrates tissue rather effectively too. Which is why in the histology lab, I don't use increasing levels of salt to dehydrate tissue samples; I use increasing concentrations of ethanol.
You know what. I'm not going to present my CV here, but I do understand 'em. Journalists, with a BA in English, rather than a BS in anything, presented with stats, more often than not, misinterpret or overinterpret them.
Repeatedly data showing mild amounts of alcohol intake are benefical are reported as "Ah, a glass of wine a day must be good for you. It's the tannins/ oils/ whatever", when no consideration is given to the fact is that a portion of the non-alcohol imbibing people are more likely to be ill (for whatever reason that proscribes them from drinking it) than those allowed to drink alcohol. It isn't controlled for. It is bias. It isn't what people-- especially the media with their nice reader friendly stories for people that like alcohol-- want to hear. Which (if my assumption that TFM = the fucking media is correct) is why you're not going to read those stats in the TFM, are you? There are few newspapers with good science journalism left, and the internet seems to be awash with blogs and sites promoting agendas left right and centre.
In essence, "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" needs to be employed on these topline blithe statements that are reported everywhere. I mean, the 3 cups of coffee doubles your risk of hallucinations bollocks recently: -- total sh*te
Actually, the guy that runs the badscience.net site wrote a book. There's a chapter in there that deals with this debate. They guy explains it all (with... evidence) far more eloquently than I. I suggest you read it. http://www.badscience.net/buy-the-book/ I'd have quoted from it, but I've loaned it to my Dad. Who is very old, just to reassure you I'm not a youngster. I just coined my username many years ago.
Many people that can't drink alcohol are ill. Hepatitis, former alcoholism, transplanted livers, etc. I would argue that certain religious groups that abhor alcohol, also abhor other aspects of medicine.
This is my key point (that I obviously didn't convey well). These people (but not people like you) skew the data towards people having moderate drinking habits appearing healthier than people that don't drink at all.
Since alcohol impairs the liver, dehydrates tissue, blah de blah, it's intuitive that it isn't healthy. And yet all of the data shows that teetotalers. Are less healthy than moderate drinkers on all manner of health and wellbeing tests.
You, are presumably, healthier than your alcohol-drinking peers. Yet the media tell you you're worse off. What I'm saying is despite what the media say (through misunderstanding of statistics and demographics), you are (statistically more likely to be) healthier than the rest of us! Er. rejoice!
Teetotalars are an odd bunch of people.
This demographic consists mainly of:
Ill people -- who aren't allowed to drink as they have a serious disease, or less relevantly... Certain religious factions -- imho, odd.
These factors are almost NEVER controlled for. Therefore the people in the non-drinking group are always going to perform worse in almost every health indicator, than people with moderate drinking habits-- i.e. "normal", healthier people.
With that in mind, you need to weep for the love of science and decent journalism, next time newspaper or big website reports that "moderate amounts of alcohol protect you from..." or "a glass of wine a day..."
I thought that the antioxidant hypothesis had pretty much been debunked. If you have a functioning pancreas and liver, you don't need to supplement what's in your diet.
And coffee doubling your chances if you drink more than 3 cups per day? I think the bad stats of the Relative Risk Increase is at work here. Let me see. Very very very low risk of something happening * 2 = still a very very very low risk of something happening.
Any bulletproof evidence for that? What if the overall effect is calming (e.g. people get the GRR! out of their system by playing Duke Nukem Forever (or whatever) and don't kill?
Still. Those empty gestures that play to your core voters are great. Far better than taxing your brain on fixing the economy or improving education.
i.e., when the first batch of DRM-free 'choons' came out, the purchaser's info was in there; ditto the DRM'd stuff-- the tools to strip the DRM out of the file still left the personal information in the file (as of course, you were stripping the DRM for freedom to play on any device, not for piracy. Of course).
Nah, people that claim to be sensitive to microwave/ mobile phone/ WiFi/ whatever radiation somehow mysteriously lose that sensitivity when subjected to double-blinded trials of their ailment/skill. BBC's Panorama made a huge fuck-up by broadcasting similar proaganda in Dec '07: http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/bbc-editorial-complaints-unit-debags-the-panorama-wifi-scare/ Turns out there was an agenda-- the proponent in the show was selling protective devices. Alas, they weren't Faraday cages, they were useless trinkets. Even people that pretend to be hippies are slaves to the cash.
No, believe me, I understand fatigue, and energizing, and my, perverse, personal, borne of a 3-day visit, experience was energizing. Perhaps living there, with a long commute to work there would grind me down-- like it does from a suburb to a business park in England-- but unless I was a street vendor, I'm not sure I would be that (additionally) b*ggered by everyday work in an air-conditioned office with double glazing to insulate me from the noise, like the one I currently work in. In essence, I suppose I love NY, but I'd probably age at twice the normal rate, if I lived there for a long time!
Perhaps it's because I've only visited as a tourist, but I find Manhattan's busy-ness and bustling quite energizing, and the memory of it makes me want to visit again. As I type this at my desk. In a managed office building. In a business park. Looking at a motorway. Zzzzzz....
Depressingly true. But you need to add to that rehashing AP/ Reuters articles as their own work too.
Ah, useful response if this article ever made it onto Digg
Netscape ran on DOS?
So as much as I agree with "stick Ubuntu on it", that's not answering the guy's question. We're going to have to assume his Grandma needs: 1. E-mail (Thunderbird? With Gmail's not bad antispam filters going?) 2. A browser (Firefox, with some useful senior citizen extensions [if they exist!]), and possibly... 3. an IM client for a webcam (Skype?). Since it's Windows, you'll also need 4. An auto-updating AV 5. An auto-updating firewall 6. An auto-updating spyware muncher 7. Remote control e.g. VNC or TeamViewer, or the like. I can't really comment on these last ones-- I left Windows behind years ago, and only use it on my work PC, which has Trend something or other on it, and doesn't visit naughty, malware ridden websites (on pain of unemployment). One other thought. Windows XP FLP? Is that less of a mess in terms of vulnerabilites than full blown XP? Can anyone suggest anything better?
Twenty bucks a month to torrent? I've been tempted to buy it so that I could watch stuff on Hulu (I'm in the UK) but lots of people paying that sort of money soon becomes silly-- you might as well pay the blanket surcharge tax-for-doing-nothing straight to the studios, which would be cheaper than $20/mo.
Anything that you can use legally, you can pretty much use illegally. For example, cars-- drive to the bank; drive very fast away from the bank, with the bank's money. You don't find banks lobbying the government to ban the sale of cars that might be used in bank jobs. I've come to the conclusion that politics is now lobby groups vs lobby groups-- fair and representative politics is long gone. And I don't think techies lobby louder than the **AAs. : (
Ah, rednecks. All of those Sunday sermons they attended, for all of those years. "Turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbour" etc. And yet they want to shoot a black president. How Christian of them. If, of course, by "Christian", you mean "moron-tastic". Actually, try that substitution in other situations too. IT works well.