Did you read Mr Blair's famous file on the Iraqi weapons programme? [...] It was all stuff we already knew
They were hardly going to put quality intelligence information into a press release, which is all that the `dossier' was. I don't see that one can draw any conclusions about what they do or don't know from what they publish in such trivia collections.
If Blunkett is trying so hard to pass this law, it can only mean that Echelon [echelonwatch.org] is not as effective as some people thought.
On the contrary, if i were Blunkett and had something like Echelon working, this kind of silly fuss with the ISPs would be my next move. Basic missdirection strategy.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2, Funny
if you accidentally type *a*f*c*.* you might delete the wrong thing.
When a new advance comes along one would be foolish not to use it. Saying that they should have been using it all along is pointless. There is a saying "a wise man will change his mind, but a fool never will."
Deciding on a course of action based on the evidence of what is effective in such cases is hardly `a new advance'.
At least to anyone outside medicine.
It's not that not all treatments have formal trials behind them that is particularly worrying, but that the profession only recently decided to look at formal trials and so on, and demand them if they don't exist.
There are very few 'old wives tales' out there. Much of past medicine was based on a physician's personal experince.
This is, if anything, worse. At least old wives tales may contain truth tested by generations of experience. But you are right, prescribing antibiotics for colds is not based on old wives tales, antibiotics have not been around long enough. It's based on amazing levels of ignorance or stupidity or negligence.
As for your "running on whatever is being advertized heavily," that sounds like empty rhetoric to me. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that claim.
The advertising budgets of drug companies. They don't do it because it doesn't work.
What doctors? In only one or two more generations they'll (hopefully) be mostly out of work thanks to the "miracle" of the Artificial Immune System and self-repair nanotechnology.
Powered by nuclear power too cheap to meter no doubt:-).
Thousands of years? The medical profession as we know it know has barely existed for 100 years let alone thousands.
Isn't this just a way of saying that for thousands of years they were so bad that physicians today are embarassed to admit kinship? No doubt a couple of generations from now when (hopefully) the majority of doctors are relying on evidence not voodoo, they will be saying that `medicine as we know it' has only existed since 2000 or so.
Some small number? it seems to me that quite a large number favor this approach. So much so that all of medicine is converting to this approach.
Doesn't it strike you as shameful that they have to convert to working based on the evidence? It's an admission that up until now they have been running on old wives tales and whatever is being advertised heavily.
As for quite a large number, if I went into some random GP in Europe or North America complaining of sneezes etc. and was prescribed the seemingly inevitable antibiotics, what do you think the odds are that the GP would be able to cite me evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics against the common cold?
Personally I think that this database would be useful, although I doubt that there would be much in there that doesn't exist in the literature already.
Surely the point is that this is a very sophisticated index to the literature.
What I object to is the portrayal of physicians as bumbling buffoons bent on preserving their undeserved elite status at the cost of proper health care.
As a potential victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hpatient, what frightens me is that parts of the medical profession found it necessary to advance the exciting new idea of `evidence based medicine' so recently. After thousands of years, suddenly some small number of them think it might be interesting to actually base their actions on the real world, not what they were told in school.
Your original comment was that they were waiving their copyright. This is clearly false. They are doing exactly the oposite, using those rights to control distribution of their work.
The point about publishers is exactly to the point, since it sinks the silly idea that copyright is the right to copy rather than the right to control copying.
And no `copyleft' scheme I know of allows reproduction simply on codition of referring back, whatever you mean by that. The whole point of copyleft is to impose strict terms and conditions, eg the GPL.
A copyright is the exclusive right of the author to copy, modify and distribute the work.
No.
Copyright is the right of the creator to control who can copy and under what conditions. They are not waiving that right.
If you have doubts, consider the fact that most books are not reproduced for sale by the copyright holder, but by a publisher authorised by the holder or by a printer authorised by the publisher.
They seem to define copyleft as "We have a copyright but we are waiving it so that it can be redistributed".
No, they have retained copyright so they can force people who copy the article to distribute it and derived works under the same licence. Basicly the same as GPL'ed things.
While you license the software, you still own the physical manifestation of it. I.E the media and box and such.
However, the idea of the licence rather than buy scam is the claim that while you own the media, you don't own what is written on it. While you have fair use and similar rights of copies of copyright material you own, I think the point of those EULAs is the claim that you don't own the copy, so you don't get those rights.
Whether the courts agree is, so far as I am aware, undecided. Who has the money to fight M$ up to the supreme court or ECJ over the right to quote some M$ licenced code in a review for instance?
The task for which the item is sold is to
reproduce music from a cd player, not a computer, there for it meets the requirement (on all but some older cd players)
If it fails to play on any device certified for CD playing, it's not a CD. If they sell it as a CD and it fails on a certified device then their only comeback would be to claim that your device was certified a CD player erroniously. Let them argue that with Sony and Philips.
This, I suspect, is why Universal is saying they will honour all returns. They would hate a messy case where they end up on the opposite side to Sony and Philips.
And please spare us the virus/worm refs because as we have painfully learned, even the nix's are vulnerable.
Well, my mailer has never caught a virus. You need to compare apples with apples. Working mailers don't get viruses and working OSs don't allow virus infected applications to undermine the entire system. M$ fails on both counts independently.
I can't say what's what in the US, but in the UK the core consumer protection is the notion of something being `fit for the purpose for which it is sold'. If it won't play on standard CD playing equipment (eg a DVD player) it's not a CD, so they had better take it back or expect a visit from the local trading standards officers.
To get around that they would have to put up a bloody big sign saying `some of our so called CDs are not real CDs and will not play on some equipment', which itself might make them a bit pissed off with the manufacturers.
Re:Those bastards hacked the linux kernel too!
on
al Qaeda Hacks XP?
·
· Score: 1
It's worse than you think, the actual compiled kernel is infected:
$ grep -ci 'a.*l.*q.*a.*e.*d.*a'/boot/vmlinuz
190
Clearly this was more than just a few subversive comments.
Slashdot Mirror
They were hardly going to put quality intelligence information into a press release, which is all that the `dossier' was. I don't see that one can draw any conclusions about what they do or don't know from what they publish in such trivia collections.
On the contrary, if i were Blunkett and had something like Echelon working, this kind of silly fuss with the ISPs would be my next move. Basic missdirection strategy.
Altogether Now:
Don't Do That Then.
Someone has to keep the old jokes alive you know.
I remember when 360k was enough for software and data]
Argh! Who gave Bill Gates an account?
Those Cobol programmers who came out of retirement for the Y2K scam have to be kept off the streets somehow.
Go watch `Demolition Man':-)
The only true answer to computer security problems is: (wait for it)
You mean that kiddie show that seems to be on tv every time I look to see if there's anything worth watching while I eat my tea?
`Hardcore' and `underground' sure have devalued recently.
Nearly 100 years! Wow!:-)
The old saying tht `Americans think 100 years is a long time while Europeans think 100 miles is a long way' is clearly true.
It depends on your POV. Some would class humans as a species of chimp, in which case the common ancestor would be a kind fo chimp too.
Clearly it is the result of use of so many artifical fertilizer. If we overfeed the earth it naturally gets fat!
Deciding on a course of action based on the evidence of what is effective in such cases is hardly `a new advance'.
At least to anyone outside medicine.
It's not that not all treatments have formal trials behind them that is particularly worrying, but that the profession only recently decided to look at formal trials and so on, and demand them if they don't exist.
There are very few 'old wives tales' out there. Much of past medicine was based on a physician's personal experince.
This is, if anything, worse. At least old wives tales may contain truth tested by generations of experience. But you are right, prescribing antibiotics for colds is not based on old wives tales, antibiotics have not been around long enough. It's based on amazing levels of ignorance or stupidity or negligence.
As for your "running on whatever is being advertized heavily," that sounds like empty rhetoric to me. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that claim.
The advertising budgets of drug companies. They don't do it because it doesn't work.
Powered by nuclear power too cheap to meter no doubt:-).
Isn't this just a way of saying that for thousands of years they were so bad that physicians today are embarassed to admit kinship? No doubt a couple of generations from now when (hopefully) the majority of doctors are relying on evidence not voodoo, they will be saying that `medicine as we know it' has only existed since 2000 or so.
Some small number? it seems to me that quite a large number favor this approach. So much so that all of medicine is converting to this approach.
Doesn't it strike you as shameful that they have to convert to working based on the evidence? It's an admission that up until now they have been running on old wives tales and whatever is being advertised heavily.
As for quite a large number, if I went into some random GP in Europe or North America complaining of sneezes etc. and was prescribed the seemingly inevitable antibiotics, what do you think the odds are that the GP would be able to cite me evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics against the common cold?
Surely the point is that this is a very sophisticated index to the literature.
What I object to is the portrayal of physicians as bumbling buffoons bent on preserving their undeserved elite status at the cost of proper health care.
As a potential victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hpatient, what frightens me is that parts of the medical profession found it necessary to advance the exciting new idea of `evidence based medicine' so recently. After thousands of years, suddenly some small number of them think it might be interesting to actually base their actions on the real world, not what they were told in school.
cvsup
make buildworld installworld buildkernel installkernel
mergemaster
reboot
The point about publishers is exactly to the point, since it sinks the silly idea that copyright is the right to copy rather than the right to control copying.
And no `copyleft' scheme I know of allows reproduction simply on codition of referring back, whatever you mean by that. The whole point of copyleft is to impose strict terms and conditions, eg the GPL.
No.
Copyright is the right of the creator to control who can copy and under what conditions. They are not waiving that right.
If you have doubts, consider the fact that most books are not reproduced for sale by the copyright holder, but by a publisher authorised by the holder or by a printer authorised by the publisher.
No, they have retained copyright so they can force people who copy the article to distribute it and derived works under the same licence. Basicly the same as GPL'ed things.
However, the idea of the licence rather than buy scam is the claim that while you own the media, you don't own what is written on it. While you have fair use and similar rights of copies of copyright material you own, I think the point of those EULAs is the claim that you don't own the copy, so you don't get those rights.
Whether the courts agree is, so far as I am aware, undecided. Who has the money to fight M$ up to the supreme court or ECJ over the right to quote some M$ licenced code in a review for instance?
Otherwise known as XOR.
If it fails to play on any device certified for CD playing, it's not a CD. If they sell it as a CD and it fails on a certified device then their only comeback would be to claim that your device was certified a CD player erroniously. Let them argue that with Sony and Philips.
This, I suspect, is why Universal is saying they will honour all returns. They would hate a messy case where they end up on the opposite side to Sony and Philips.
Well, my mailer has never caught a virus. You need to compare apples with apples. Working mailers don't get viruses and working OSs don't allow virus infected applications to undermine the entire system. M$ fails on both counts independently.
I'm sure it will when they stop doing it.
Apple released software (iTunes) that destroyed data! It actually deleted files!
Like Outlook Express you mean?
I can't say what's what in the US, but in the UK the core consumer protection is the notion of something being `fit for the purpose for which it is sold'. If it won't play on standard CD playing equipment (eg a DVD player) it's not a CD, so they had better take it back or expect a visit from the local trading standards officers.
To get around that they would have to put up a bloody big sign saying `some of our so called CDs are not real CDs and will not play on some equipment', which itself might make them a bit pissed off with the manufacturers.