No, we do not. More and more people are realizing that doctors are people, not robots.
It seems older generations (I'm speaking from personal experience here) are the ones that accept everything a doctor tells them without questioning. The later generations seem to be more involved in diagnosing (sometimes correctly, sometimes wrongly) their own ailments.
Hear, hear! My father's in the end stages of pancreatic cancer right now, and neither he nor my mother will even consider the possibility that their doctors could be doing a better job. Drives me crazy...
A Sympathy for the Doctor?
on
Complications
·
· Score: 3, Offtopic
I have not read the book. I'm planning on it, when finances permit me to spend something on myself again that isn't required for my profession (we've all just come through the annual gift-giving frenzy).
There's a saying: You can find "sympathy" in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis". That pretty well sums up my feelings about sympathy in general. Unfortunately, it also sums up my feelings about the medical industry, of which, like it or not, doctors are a part.
Now, Americans live in a country where crisis medicine (medical procedures used to treat catastrophic and sudden bodily failures, like injuries due to vehicular accidents or sudden onset of acute illnesses, like appendicitis) is king, and is very well developed. Why? Several reasons.
-It's sexy. The procedures are flashy, the results are often dramatic, the doctor is directly responsible for the save if it occurs, and provides the doctor with the most hands-on approach to the save.
-It's mandated. That's right, mandated. A doctor can't work with a patient for months or years to slowly correct a problem, or prevent it, because the HMO won't pay for it. But they will pay for a surgery.
-It's a quick fix. And I don't think I have to elaborate on how much we Americans love quick fixes. We love them so much that we won't consider anything else, unless none exist.
Unfortunately, the very nature of quick fixes is that they are prone to mistake. So, we see doctors make mistakes. No reasonable person would fail to cut someone slack for making an honest mistake. Of course, that's the rub. Most people aren't all that reasonable, period, much less so when they're in pain.
But the flip-side to that is what I'm going to focus on, and it's a point alluded to in the review above. When doctors make mistakes that aren't honest. Maybe they were being sloppy. Maybe they were in too much of a hurry, not for good reasons, but for a golf game. Or maybe
he just had to get to the bank. In the cases of the most notorious failings, like Dr. David C. Arndt (mentioned in the linked story), national coverage guarantees that he won't work in this, or any, town again. But what about the ones who don't make the headlines?
In 1994, I had surgery to repair a hernia. It was a dime-sized hole in my left lower abdominal wall. The surgeon that my GP sent me to declined to do the surgery laproscopically, even though it was acknowledged as a method of reducing the recovery time. "We've had problems with the procedure," he told me. So I had the old method used, an anterior incision that was 4.5" long and had a piece of nylon mesh sewn in to close the hole. The surgeon prescribed codeine for the pain. Not co-tylenol, just codeine. When my wife went to the pharmacy, the clerk told her that no one had prescribed that alone in over 15 years. I later found out that the surgeon definitely had had trouble with the laproscopic procedure: he had been the surgeon working the procedure when he clipped the artery of a patient, nearly killing him on the table. Of course, I was never told that. I was never offered that information, and if I had asked, the surgeon, the hospital, the medical community as a whole would have zipped their lips to protect one of their own.
There is where the doctors fail in a way that could be avoided. Be honest! Be open! Educate me in the why's and wherefore's of your past mistake, and I'll be much more likely to give you credence in the future. But if you keep it quiet, and I find out later, then you're toast. I'll sing like a bird to anyone who will listen, and that's when the power of "word of mouth" advertising really shines.
Sympathy for their mistakes? Sure, if it's warranted. I'll cut that much slack for anyone. But if you hide it all from me, I'm going to assume you don't want me to know, and I'm by nature a very suspicious person...
Instead of a password, you need the hardware device to access a specific account. then again, it is just one more device to lose/break/power/carry
Unless you embed the device, say, under a layer of muscle. Or in a distributed network, perhaps powered by chemical interaction with the bloodstream. That way the device can't be lost, or stolen.. or... or removed. Say did anyone else just feel a chill?
I've installed and removed Morpheus on my machine. I installed Limewire, and it's still installed at the moment.
I can uninstall software; that's no problem... if I can find it. Can anyone direct us on how to remove the stealware from our systems? Oh, and I have Limewire installed on both Linux and Windows machines.
I like to call the Atkins diet the "make yourself sick diet" (someone elses quote, can't remember who - some registered dietitian) - If I remember correct, you survive off of ketones instead of glucose, which makes you somewhat ill and accordingly, you lose your appetite, eat less, and lose weight.
Sorry. It's not true. I've been on the Atkins for almost 2 months, my wife's been on it for three. We have not had the 40+ pound weight loss, but we didn't want that to happen so quickly anyway. I've lost slightly over 20 pounds. I have kept my carb consumption to under 20 grams per day, as the diet specifies, and here's a big one: there actually are no forbidden foods! If I want to chow on a candy bar, I can... but that will use up all of my carb allotment for the day. I just decide where I want to spend my carbs, and eat that.
Two weeks ago, Jen had her bloodwork done, just like she'd planned to do when she started. The results? ALL indicators improved. Her BP was normal, iron up in the healthy range (it was low before the diet), triglycerides, LDL, HDL... everything was improved. We both have more energy, we're lighter, and we've both gained muscle mass. Your body has to do something with all that protein, after all.
Oh, and the nausea? It doesn't happen. Ever. Not even a smidgen. I have no idea where the common belief that it causes nausea came from, but it wasn't from anyone I know on the diet.
I strongly recommend that you read Atkin's book, or visit his web site (http://www.atkinscenter.com/) and read the data. There's a perfectly good explanation of why the program works, but it's too lengthy for me to spew on about here.
As for the long term effects fears, and the article's pointed reference to the fact that there's been no long-term study of the safety and efficacy, try this: find the long-term safety and efficacy studies for rBGH, Viagra, and most importantly, the DPT vaccine. Good luck, and think on the implications of those.
I find it far more of an invasion of privacy that my telephone and e-mail contacts are abused by people or companies wanting to sell their wares for me. The only reason we might be afraid of a centralised data repository is that it could be hacked. I would contend that, providing appropriate measures are taken, and that photographs are not stored on the database, there is nothing to be afraid of.
I suppose it's too much to hope you're joking. Out of curiosity, where do you think those telemarketers and spammers are getting your contact information in the first place? There are several states (Michigan comes to mind immediately) that have no law prohibiting the state government from selling the data they collect to any business who buys it. The fear that the centralized databased could be cracked is actually minor. After all, why break in, when you can slip the doorman a large enough payment, and have him open the door for you?
In addition, given the current climate of terror running amuck in the US ever since 9-11 and the passage of the so-called Patriot Act, there will be little resistance in the halls of the legislature to idea of some kind of biometric data attached to the central record. Whether that's a photo, a retinal print or a genetic sequence would remain to be seen.
E-nough is *enough*!
on
High Score
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I usually take a pretty dim view of people who assault one of Katz' articles on the basis of it being a Katz article. But the longer I'm a reader of Slashdot in general, and of Katz' writings, the less charitable I become. Until I finally reach the boil-over point, which occured today.
First, I'll reiterate the call against the use of the term e-game. E-nough, thank you.
Second, I want to address this tendency that Katz has to assume that those of us who've been out of high school more than 5 years are clueless cretins totally out of touch with the current progress of (so-called) culture in this country. Here's a clue for you, Katz: I'm 38, I remember all too well what high school was like, and I've managed to survive quite nicely, thanks. I was not a member of the oppressed fringe that you clearly identify so well with, and I do not think that that oppressed fringe is going to have any greater impact on our society than any previous oppressed fringe did. Which is to say that yes, some of the fringe elements have had enormous impact, some have eaten a bullet before they turned 21, and the vast majority will join the great consumer-base that is the foundation of American society and culture. I know, it ain't pretty, but there it is. Now get off your high-horse and recognize that your 'audience' here on Slashdot includes more than lamers who couldn't get past the fact that they were hazed in high school (like I was, but I grew up).
I am an Unbeliever, by nature. Tell me that a distro is easy to use, and I will ask you what your biases are that lead you to make such a statement.
SO I ordered a CD of Desktop/lx to run my own tests. I built a box from parts, just so I could have something to test it on. And then I ran my own little lab using Mandrake 8.1, Windows 2000 Professional, and Desktop/lx.
The machine is this: Abit SL6 motherboard, Intel Pentium 4 1GHz processor, NetGear FA310tx NIC, ATI Rage128 Pro AGP card, Maxtor DiamondMax 30GB HDD, a generic 1.44 floppy, HP cd12-series CD-RW. Total RAM: 384MB.
The first install was Mandrake.It installed, but didn't recognize the card on installation. I got it working, but only in 16 color, 640x480 resolution. It did not recognize the VIA onboard sound, nor the CD burner. As an out-of-the-box install, it wouldn't have won any prizes. I purposely did not spend any time on it, as I was testing the distro's ability on a clean, simple install.
Next, I tried Win2K, just to give myself a benchmark. After all, hardware manufacturers almost universally create their wares for the MS world. Surprisingly, the Win2K also did not handle the Rage128 correctly, leaving me with the job of downloading and installing the new driver. Same for the cd-burner. I have to say, I was pretty shocked. I expected the machine to install right away.
The Lycoris distro happened to arrive in the mail that same day, so I blew away the partition for a third time and popped the disk in.
Installation was a breeze. After answering a few questions, the file-copies started, leaving me with a Caldera-like configuration, answering network and user-creation questions. Having answered all those, I got to play solitaire for a bit. After the copying was finished, I started the X configuration. The card was recognized and configured on the first try with no input from me. After I rebooted the system, I was left with a KDE system which had been themed like Microsoft's XP. And here's where things got interesting.
On the desktop was a cute little Network Browser icon. I clicked on it, largely to see how much it failed in my work environment, where I have Win2K servers and workstations, Linux servers and workstations, and Win98 laptops. The Win2K servers are running an Active Directory tree. The browser not only found them all and displayed them, I received access under my normal user account to all resources on the network. On the first try.
All in all, I think this distro is one to watch...
I'd suggest taking Eve's rosy view of the situation with a grain of salt.
An Anonymous Coward logs in to trash on two people whose profitable company was driven into the ground? And then has the nerve to tell us to take Eve's account with a grain of salt? That is cowardice, in its most purified form. C'mon, pal, if you're going to make comments like that and expect to be believed, put your name forward. Otherwise, how do we know you're not just some flunky from that VC coalition, trying to blunt the edge of some rather pointed commentary? Mind you, having your name on this message wouldn't prove that you weren't, but to anonymously make these kinds of comment shows a lack of guts that Eve, regardless of what you think of her, didn't exhibit.
Your position is naive in the extreme, and you are missing the danger. Look more closely at the situation, please.
MS Windows controls the desktop market with over 90% marketshare. This is a fact.
The word processor package most Windows workstations (home or office) use is Word. This is also a fact. Even systems built for the home market are being shipped with the Small Business edition of Office. University students here at UW-Madison (WI) have the opportunity (through a deal between the UW and MS) to purchase full-blown version of Office 2000 Professional for $26, which of course encourages students to use that package.
Now, an observation I've recently made is that people are much, much more reliant on the MS tools for grammar, spelling and word selection that I would have believed. We recently rolled out MS Exchange with Outlook, and I was planning on allowing my remote users to avoid the pain of setting up a VPN client and running the Outlook fat client by simply using the Outlook Web Agent. The plan was nixed shortly after roll-out. The primary reasons? No spellchecker, no access to the grammar and thesaurus tools. I was stunned to find that of the 30 people in the HQ, only I and one other person did not have to resort to those tools to craft a business-grade letter or email.
In short, more people than you would believe need those tools to express themselves. And thanks to Orwell's 1984, we do know what happens when you start removing definitions and/or associations from words: people lose the ability to communicate certain ideas. And after a time, people will lose the ability to formulate those ideas.
Microsoft's actions in this case are reprehensible, and they are rightly being taken to task for it.
The decision made to initiate this level of attack was made by someone else, who apparently never read the history books to learn what Americans do when someone attacks us in this fashion. We retaliate, in spades.
Yes, there will be a lot of people in danger in whatever other part of the world we have to go to, in order to get to those responsible. And yes, there will be innocent blood spilled. The kind of cowards who perpetrate these kinds of attacks will hide behind them, thinking themselves safe. But we'll have the memory of our own innocents in mind. And when we've finished, assuming our politicians don't cave in to those who think appeasement is the answer and stop us too soon, then anyone in the future who wants to try this will certainly think twice.
Barbaric? Perhaps. Sometimes, you have to meet the problem head on. And destroy it.
OK, first, your entire post is based on a specious argument, that the cessation of the WoD will automatically result in the proliferation of drug dealers who will entrap and encourage young children who will (of course) mindlessly follow the dealers into the dens and dope themselves into oblivion. That position is not supported by any data or conceptual underpinning.
Oh, and for the record, I do have a daughter, so I can speak from experience.
You didn't state whether or not you had a daughter, but I'm going to emphatically state, that in my opinion, if a parent has a child, it is incumbent on them to make sure their child knows how to make a decision. And yes, they CAN make right decisions on their own, if they're taught to do so, and aren't laboring under constant oversight of someone who doesn't believe they can exercise judgement. I know that from experience too.
I also disagree with Rob's idea, but not because the WoD is good idea; far from it. We need to immediately legalize weed, as it's far less destructive than alcohol or tobacco, and start working on serious education programs to kill the demand for hard drugs. Unless we do that, the supply will always be there, no matter how hard you fight.
Statics show that the average American is exposed to dozens of acts of violence every night on television. Almost never is the perpetrator nor the victim a child. So when we hear of a man who shot a 14 year old, we may get angry. I say "may" because there were four incidents of such violence in the newspaper this morning, and none of them were front page news. On the contrary, if the police report section wasn't in the paper, we'd have heard nothing about it at all. Even those who read it shook their heads... and moved on to the comics.
But when a child kills, we sit up. The idea that a child is supposed to be this idyllic, wide-eyed and wondering being whose potential is unlimited and whose promise is still great, is embedded in the public psyche. And when that being turns out to be a murderer, and his or her victims are other children, well, our vision of reality just had a train wreck. And we react in horror. Hence the harsher justice.
Ponder this: Back in '98, Someone at Microsoft applies to patent this idea of an online voting mechanism. Why? What possible reason would someone have had for trying to patent it back then? After all, the process is going to take years (and it did). And the profit scheme that would have sold the upper-level management on this idea would have been thin at best. The hey-day of portal sites had yet to be, back then. Still, it might have been foreseen that there were some profits in selling voting bundles to some small group.
But what if there were bigger profits to be had in other ways, licensing the concept and the how-to plans, for instance, rather than selling the software built on it? At that point, our target market gets a little bigger.
After the debacle in Florida, voting reform is a hot topic. There have been many who have called for electronic voting that would occur over the Internet. How much, I wonder, could be realized from licensing the 'online voting' concept to every governmental body in the US that required voting, from the municipal to the federal levels?
Novell has had years of head start when it comes to directory solutions that really work. The ease of administration, across an enterprise-size network, has proven NDS to be an excellent solution, if not a superior one. The recent improvements to the way NDS handles replication, as well as its cross-platform capabilities, I believe, ensure it's survival. As long as Novell hangs onto NDS, it'll be all right
Of course, it might be a good idea for Novell to merge with someone... Caldera, maybe, since they're already related.
As an identical twin, how would the DNA database differentiate between my brother and I? Our DNA is identical... that's the definition of an identical twin.
Regardless of the claims of worker shortages, I know several IT people, those who are just starting out as well as those who've been employed for years and are now looking for other work, who aren't finding work as easily as they did two years ago. Or even last year. The jobs aren't paying as much, there isn't the sense that the company is desperate to find someone to do the work...
I'm in the Midwest (Wisconsin), so maybe the situation is different toward the coasts, but you no longer hear of newly graduated/newly certified people getting top-dollar jobs, as they did in the recent past.
IIRC, the people who downloaded the specification from Microsoft were required to accept what was essentially a non-disclosure agreement, in effect stating that they would not share with anyone what they were about to receive. At that point, the download occurred, and some people immediately broke their promise to keep it under their hats. They posted it, or parts thereof, or links thereto, on Slashdot. For a second, let's imagine that we were looking at this happenning in a different industry. Say, the automotive industry.
So Chrysler has a specification for a new car, and they're sharing it with people from their industry. Only this time, they decide to make it available to the public as well, but requiring everyone to sign an NDA. But upon reading the spec sheet, several people from several industries realize that the spec is designed to make a car that almost everyone will drive, but has a special engine that will only work with Chrysler-brand oil and parts. They think this is just plain evil, and in an effort to expose this plan, many of them send their copies (or parts of it) to the Chicago Tribune. That paper, knowing news when it sees it, prints the story. Along come Chrysler's lawyers, informing the Tribune that the specification was under an NDA, and that they have to round up all copies of their paper in order to protect Chrysler's trade secret. (For the moment, let's pretend this is possible!)
The Tribune might (rightly) say, "Nuts to you!", because the Tribune itself never agreed to any such NDA, and if Chrysler wants to pursue legal recourse, it must pursue it with the parties that violated its NDA.
That's where Slashdot is, I believe. So Rob & Co., if you're listening: I say stand your ground. Refuse to censor, refuse to become part of anyone's goon squad, and refuse to allow the Internet to be clipped apart by those who think that linking to information is a problem in and of itself. Let the burden be on the accuser, as it should be.
Less than a week ago, we were reading your diatribe about Metallica's lawsuit, and the implication that the suit was an attack on free speech rights. You railed against the RIAA for pursuing MP3.com in courts, and painted the mass-transit of copyrighted material across the Internet as a rebellion against Big Corporations and their stranglehold on the music industry. Amazing what a difference a well-thought court decision makes, yes?
For the record, I can't stand what RIAA has become: a cudgel used by non-human immortal entities (read that: corporations) who exist solely for the purpose of maximizing profits for their few shareholders at whatever cost. In my opinion, the recording industry has suffered at RIAA's hands, becoming linked with the heartless materialism at the core of big business. And the industry's insistance on holding back the use of digital channels to move entertainment to the people (both RIAA and MPAA are guilty here) will most assuredly backfire.
Frankly, the time has never been better for a company to spring up who will sponsor digital recording of smaller acts in exchange for the rights to give away one (1) song from each act on the Internet. Skip the pressing of CD's and the add campaigns. That same company should purchase and give away Rio players to radio stations to give their acts air time.
But that idea does not give people the right to steal, and that is what most of those who are complaining about the lawsuits, and RIAA's actions, are doing. This is not a revolution; it is plundering. Those who are suing have every right to do so; indeed they have a responsibility, if they're going to protect their copyright.
Mr. Katz, you strike me as someone who was always in "rebel" mode. I went to school with plenty of them, and I've worked with some. They always had an axe to grind against "the establishment". Often, they were right. But they were just as often wrong, and I believe you're wrong on this one. You shouldn't be glorifying theft as "revolution".
Incidentally, as a network admin, I also point out that the universities who've banned Napster are doing so for several reasons, one of which is due to the unprecedented load of network traffic the music-traders (or thieves, if you will) are generating. And I fully agree with their decision.
OK, I usually allow posts like these to roll off the monitor, but not this time. Seems like every time there's a story on certification, the anti-cert contingent rolls out of the woodwork. Fine. Now let's hear from the other side of the aisle.
I'm not employed by any vendor, nor am I employed to teach any vendor's curriculum, although I once was: I still hold CNI certification in addition to the other alphabet soup that I could staple at the end of my.signature file. I say that so that those who want to dismiss my viewpoint simply because I have a certification can do so immediately.
I'm surprised to find out that anyone gives a fsck about vendor "certification". I thought everyone had realized it was a meaningless scam by now. A week or two of training isn't going to get you any more knowledge than reading a good book (like an O'Reilly guide) and playing with the system a bit - and an O'Reilly guide is a hell of a lot cheaper.
Let me put this as delicately as I can: you have no idea what you're talking about, if you believe that a person can learn just as much about a system they've not worked with from a book and some play time, as they can from an instructor-led class. Now, I'm not saying that all instructors ran their classes as well as I did (and I have the trust of several companies in this town who continue to ask for me, even though I haven't worked the classroom for over a year), but I can say that if an instructor is worth a damn, and most of us are, then the only way you can use a self-study book to outstrip participation in my class is to ignore me and the curriculum, and sleep in the back row. If you do that, it's your own fault. The concept of certification isn't to blame here. It's shitty implementation on the part of some, not all.
["Our customers ask if we are [certified], and certification gives our business more legitimacy.] Not with knowledgable customers - or knowledgable potential employees.
Oh, yeah, right. That's why vendor certification programs are so popular among the best and brightest companies and people. They certify because they want to know that all those who are certified have taken exams demonstrating that they all have a certain minimum level of knowledge. Not "competence". The best test in the world won't prevent a well-trained bozo from screwing up your server. Competence isn't just knowledge, it's also judgement, and quite honestly: character. The best people I've worked with knew when to say "I don't know" from behind their multiple certifications. They were the smart ones. But the truth is, companies want to have the ability to say, "OK, our people will know at least as much as a CNE", and be able to learn that about their employees (and potential new-hires) by looking at a certificate. Does that guarantee competence? Of course not! But given all else equal... training, opportunity, experience... I'm more likely to give the nod to a certified engineer, because I know she's proven herself in testing. That isn't the only factor I'd apply, of course, but it carries weight. And I'm knowledgable, thank you.
Stop knocking certification. You want to knock the programs, go ahead. The instructors? Go ahead, but be ready to back yourself up with hard evidence. The companies who use certification as their only criterion? Please, feel free, and I'll join you! But to slam on the idea of certification itself shows lack of understanding, not only in the realm of corporate hiring practices, but in human pshycology as well.
Am I the only one who thinks that part of the "interview" should have been marked "Flamebait"?
No, you're not alone at all. I think that Katz' response WAS a flame. But no, I don't think it was flameBAIT... that was Q*Bert's message. Frankly, I'm not surprised that questions like Q*Bert posted got moderated up so high; Katz-bashing is apparently a sport on/. as well.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
Who's the "we" you're referring to? As Katz quite correctly pointed out, there are too many of us readers of Slashdot to easily categorize. Ergo, no one can claim to know us better or worse than any other.
Dune. Might be a little heavy for a younger reader, but if they're strong enough in comprehension skills to be reading decent SF in the first place, this one will provide lots of ammo for good discussions.
Songs of Distant Earth. In addition to being a decent story, IMO, it's a little lighter than Dune, and introduces some advanced physics in a way that makes it seem more interesting and lively. The book has some sex in it, however, which may make it inappropriate for the very young.
This is going to sound hopelessly sycophantic, and for that I apologize.
To Linus Torvalds: Thank you, for spending the time to inform us as to the reasons for your recent actions, and for detailing the intricacies of your position as a trademark owner. Frankly, I had no idea that you would be required to go to such lengths; I had naively assumed that once you'd registered "Linux", it was done!
Second, it is my opinion that Linus' behavior here should be seen as an example to emulate. Rather than whine about the difficulties involved in enforcing his trademark, or blasting the people who expressed dismay at "lawyer-tactics" being used in Linux's name, he very clearly and politely explained himself, clarified the groundrules regarding the use of "Linux" in a URL, and even explained why he was using the term "nominal fee" (an expression I hate as much as he apparently does). I think we should be pleased that he chose to react in this manner, and resolve to behave likewise when confronted by disapproval and disagreement.
I took a whole of 5 seconds to skim through this article (the hokey blurb forewarned me), so take this with a grain of salt.
A whole 5 seconds.... You'll have to forgive me for a moment's sarcasm, but really... If all you're going to spare is 5 seconds (or frankly any amount of time that doesn't allow you to actually read the article), then why post a "response"? Your comments weren't about Katz article; they were a commentary on the blurb! That's like writing a book review based solely on the jacket text.
What if we are not really creating jerks, but actually enabling communications so transparently, effortlessly, and safely, that people feel/free/ so say what they mean. Perhaps it's this freedom that seems hostile.
It doesn't seem hostile, it is hostile. Something I've been trying to teach my six-year-old daughter is that, most of the time, what you say isn't as important as how you say it. Say "I really appreciate your help" in a disgusted, sneering tone with a revolted expression on your face, and you'll see what I mean. The same holds true for the Net. Posters who claim that they're simply "exercising their freedom" are, in fact, abusing that freedom when they post a response full of vitriol. There's no call for it. A message delivered in such a way has failed to communicate to the intended recipient, and the fault lies solely with the sender.
Perhaps what you consider "being jerks" is a symptom of a culture which forces you to have concrete support for your views.
Having concrete support for your points does not deter the sender of a "You suck"-message. Nor does it stop the hordes who, upon seeing John Katz' name on a story, immediately post a "response" decrying that the man has even been allowed to post on Slashdot. It doesn't matter how well he supports his argument; they simply want him to go, period. No, what he considers "being jerks" is more a symptom of a culture that doesn't encourage thoughtful, polite speech. The flamer is glorified, even when he (or she, let's be fair here) hides behind the AC curtain. Until that is addressed, and the flamers unmasked, there can be no "peer review" of their actions, and therefore, no consequation of their bad behavior.
The major problem I have with your arguments in this thread is your lack of anything approaching a reasonable solution. You pointedly state in fact, that you "have no intention to help [Katz]" in improving in the areas you find him deficient. While I realize that Slashdot "ain't Writing 101", I submit that any open or semi-open forum should not blast those who speak on a topic.
I did not find Katz' article to be shameless self-promotion. Quite the contrary, I was reading an article about the hostile nature of the Net, a nature proven to any reasonable POV by this thread alone. After all, you've not asked that Katz improve. You've pointed out that he doesn't seem to join the forums on Slashdot (A point neither of us can confirm beyond doubt, as Katz could be posting anonymously in some threads. I don't read all of the stories on/., and I doubt you do either. For this argument, however, I'll concede that if Katz does post, he doesn't do it under his own name). But even though you "invited" him to enter into these discussions, it's clear from your tone that doing so will gain him nothing. It's not what Katz is saying that you don't like; you don't like him, and you want him to go away. That's hostile, period. And it's common on the Internet to have hostility in discussion threads.
That's the point I got from Katz article. I saw the comments he made regarding those who post negatively. I took those to be anecdotal evidence for his point, and personal experiences as such evidence is considered to be an excellent way to make such points. You'd learn that in any public speaking or argumentation class.
Slashdot Mirror
- No, we do not. More and more people are realizing that doctors are people, not robots.
Hear, hear! My father's in the end stages of pancreatic cancer right now, and neither he nor my mother will even consider the possibility that their doctors could be doing a better job. Drives me crazy...It seems older generations (I'm speaking from personal experience here) are the ones that accept everything a doctor tells them without questioning. The later generations seem to be more involved in diagnosing (sometimes correctly, sometimes wrongly) their own ailments.
I have not read the book. I'm planning on it, when finances permit me to spend something on myself again that isn't required for my profession (we've all just come through the annual gift-giving frenzy).
There's a saying: You can find "sympathy" in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis". That pretty well sums up my feelings about sympathy in general. Unfortunately, it also sums up my feelings about the medical industry, of which, like it or not, doctors are a part.
Now, Americans live in a country where crisis medicine (medical procedures used to treat catastrophic and sudden bodily failures, like injuries due to vehicular accidents or sudden onset of acute illnesses, like appendicitis) is king, and is very well developed. Why? Several reasons.
Unfortunately, the very nature of quick fixes is that they are prone to mistake. So, we see doctors make mistakes. No reasonable person would fail to cut someone slack for making an honest mistake. Of course, that's the rub. Most people aren't all that reasonable, period, much less so when they're in pain.
But the flip-side to that is what I'm going to focus on, and it's a point alluded to in the review above. When doctors make mistakes that aren't honest. Maybe they were being sloppy. Maybe they were in too much of a hurry, not for good reasons, but for a golf game. Or maybe he just had to get to the bank. In the cases of the most notorious failings, like Dr. David C. Arndt (mentioned in the linked story), national coverage guarantees that he won't work in this, or any, town again. But what about the ones who don't make the headlines?
In 1994, I had surgery to repair a hernia. It was a dime-sized hole in my left lower abdominal wall. The surgeon that my GP sent me to declined to do the surgery laproscopically, even though it was acknowledged as a method of reducing the recovery time. "We've had problems with the procedure," he told me. So I had the old method used, an anterior incision that was 4.5" long and had a piece of nylon mesh sewn in to close the hole. The surgeon prescribed codeine for the pain. Not co-tylenol, just codeine. When my wife went to the pharmacy, the clerk told her that no one had prescribed that alone in over 15 years. I later found out that the surgeon definitely had had trouble with the laproscopic procedure: he had been the surgeon working the procedure when he clipped the artery of a patient, nearly killing him on the table. Of course, I was never told that. I was never offered that information, and if I had asked, the surgeon, the hospital, the medical community as a whole would have zipped their lips to protect one of their own.
There is where the doctors fail in a way that could be avoided. Be honest! Be open! Educate me in the why's and wherefore's of your past mistake, and I'll be much more likely to give you credence in the future. But if you keep it quiet, and I find out later, then you're toast. I'll sing like a bird to anyone who will listen, and that's when the power of "word of mouth" advertising really shines.
Sympathy for their mistakes? Sure, if it's warranted. I'll cut that much slack for anyone. But if you hide it all from me, I'm going to assume you don't want me to know, and I'm by nature a very suspicious person...
Unless you embed the device, say, under a layer of muscle. Or in a distributed network, perhaps powered by chemical interaction with the bloodstream. That way the device can't be lost, or stolen.. or... or removed. Say did anyone else just feel a chill?
I've installed and removed Morpheus on my machine. I installed Limewire, and it's still installed at the moment.
I can uninstall software; that's no problem... if I can find it. Can anyone direct us on how to remove the stealware from our systems? Oh, and I have Limewire installed on both Linux and Windows machines.
Sorry. It's not true. I've been on the Atkins for almost 2 months, my wife's been on it for three. We have not had the 40+ pound weight loss, but we didn't want that to happen so quickly anyway. I've lost slightly over 20 pounds. I have kept my carb consumption to under 20 grams per day, as the diet specifies, and here's a big one: there actually are no forbidden foods! If I want to chow on a candy bar, I can... but that will use up all of my carb allotment for the day. I just decide where I want to spend my carbs, and eat that.
Two weeks ago, Jen had her bloodwork done, just like she'd planned to do when she started. The results? ALL indicators improved. Her BP was normal, iron up in the healthy range (it was low before the diet), triglycerides, LDL, HDL... everything was improved. We both have more energy, we're lighter, and we've both gained muscle mass. Your body has to do something with all that protein, after all.
Oh, and the nausea? It doesn't happen. Ever. Not even a smidgen. I have no idea where the common belief that it causes nausea came from, but it wasn't from anyone I know on the diet.
I strongly recommend that you read Atkin's book, or visit his web site (http://www.atkinscenter.com/) and read the data. There's a perfectly good explanation of why the program works, but it's too lengthy for me to spew on about here.
As for the long term effects fears, and the article's pointed reference to the fact that there's been no long-term study of the safety and efficacy, try this: find the long-term safety and efficacy studies for rBGH, Viagra, and most importantly, the DPT vaccine. Good luck, and think on the implications of those.
I suppose it's too much to hope you're joking. Out of curiosity, where do you think those telemarketers and spammers are getting your contact information in the first place? There are several states (Michigan comes to mind immediately) that have no law prohibiting the state government from selling the data they collect to any business who buys it. The fear that the centralized databased could be cracked is actually minor. After all, why break in, when you can slip the doorman a large enough payment, and have him open the door for you?
In addition, given the current climate of terror running amuck in the US ever since 9-11 and the passage of the so-called Patriot Act, there will be little resistance in the halls of the legislature to idea of some kind of biometric data attached to the central record. Whether that's a photo, a retinal print or a genetic sequence would remain to be seen.
First, I'll reiterate the call against the use of the term e-game. E-nough, thank you.
Second, I want to address this tendency that Katz has to assume that those of us who've been out of high school more than 5 years are clueless cretins totally out of touch with the current progress of (so-called) culture in this country. Here's a clue for you, Katz: I'm 38, I remember all too well what high school was like, and I've managed to survive quite nicely, thanks. I was not a member of the oppressed fringe that you clearly identify so well with, and I do not think that that oppressed fringe is going to have any greater impact on our society than any previous oppressed fringe did. Which is to say that yes, some of the fringe elements have had enormous impact, some have eaten a bullet before they turned 21, and the vast majority will join the great consumer-base that is the foundation of American society and culture. I know, it ain't pretty, but there it is. Now get off your high-horse and recognize that your 'audience' here on Slashdot includes more than lamers who couldn't get past the fact that they were hazed in high school (like I was, but I grew up).
I am an Unbeliever, by nature. Tell me that a distro is easy to use, and I will ask you what your biases are that lead you to make such a statement.
SO I ordered a CD of Desktop/lx to run my own tests. I built a box from parts, just so I could have something to test it on. And then I ran my own little lab using Mandrake 8.1, Windows 2000 Professional, and Desktop/lx.
The machine is this: Abit SL6 motherboard, Intel Pentium 4 1GHz processor, NetGear FA310tx NIC, ATI Rage128 Pro AGP card, Maxtor DiamondMax 30GB HDD, a generic 1.44 floppy, HP cd12-series CD-RW. Total RAM: 384MB.
The first install was Mandrake.It installed, but didn't recognize the card on installation. I got it working, but only in 16 color, 640x480 resolution. It did not recognize the VIA onboard sound, nor the CD burner. As an out-of-the-box install, it wouldn't have won any prizes. I purposely did not spend any time on it, as I was testing the distro's ability on a clean, simple install.
Next, I tried Win2K, just to give myself a benchmark. After all, hardware manufacturers almost universally create their wares for the MS world. Surprisingly, the Win2K also did not handle the Rage128 correctly, leaving me with the job of downloading and installing the new driver. Same for the cd-burner. I have to say, I was pretty shocked. I expected the machine to install right away.
The Lycoris distro happened to arrive in the mail that same day, so I blew away the partition for a third time and popped the disk in.
Installation was a breeze. After answering a few questions, the file-copies started, leaving me with a Caldera-like configuration, answering network and user-creation questions. Having answered all those, I got to play solitaire for a bit. After the copying was finished, I started the X configuration. The card was recognized and configured on the first try with no input from me. After I rebooted the system, I was left with a KDE system which had been themed like Microsoft's XP. And here's where things got interesting.
On the desktop was a cute little Network Browser icon. I clicked on it, largely to see how much it failed in my work environment, where I have Win2K servers and workstations, Linux servers and workstations, and Win98 laptops. The Win2K servers are running an Active Directory tree. The browser not only found them all and displayed them, I received access under my normal user account to all resources on the network. On the first try.
All in all, I think this distro is one to watch...
An Anonymous Coward logs in to trash on two people whose profitable company was driven into the ground? And then has the nerve to tell us to take Eve's account with a grain of salt? That is cowardice, in its most purified form. C'mon, pal, if you're going to make comments like that and expect to be believed, put your name forward. Otherwise, how do we know you're not just some flunky from that VC coalition, trying to blunt the edge of some rather pointed commentary? Mind you, having your name on this message wouldn't prove that you weren't, but to anonymously make these kinds of comment shows a lack of guts that Eve, regardless of what you think of her, didn't exhibit.
MS Windows controls the desktop market with over 90% marketshare. This is a fact.
The word processor package most Windows workstations (home or office) use is Word. This is also a fact. Even systems built for the home market are being shipped with the Small Business edition of Office. University students here at UW-Madison (WI) have the opportunity (through a deal between the UW and MS) to purchase full-blown version of Office 2000 Professional for $26, which of course encourages students to use that package.
Now, an observation I've recently made is that people are much, much more reliant on the MS tools for grammar, spelling and word selection that I would have believed. We recently rolled out MS Exchange with Outlook, and I was planning on allowing my remote users to avoid the pain of setting up a VPN client and running the Outlook fat client by simply using the Outlook Web Agent. The plan was nixed shortly after roll-out. The primary reasons? No spellchecker, no access to the grammar and thesaurus tools. I was stunned to find that of the 30 people in the HQ, only I and one other person did not have to resort to those tools to craft a business-grade letter or email.
In short, more people than you would believe need those tools to express themselves. And thanks to Orwell's 1984, we do know what happens when you start removing definitions and /or associations from words: people lose the ability to communicate certain ideas. And after a time, people will lose the ability to formulate those ideas.
Microsoft's actions in this case are reprehensible, and they are rightly being taken to task for it.
The decision made to initiate this level of attack was made by someone else, who apparently never read the history books to learn what Americans do when someone attacks us in this fashion. We retaliate, in spades.
Yes, there will be a lot of people in danger in whatever other part of the world we have to go to, in order to get to those responsible. And yes, there will be innocent blood spilled. The kind of cowards who perpetrate these kinds of attacks will hide behind them, thinking themselves safe. But we'll have the memory of our own innocents in mind. And when we've finished, assuming our politicians don't cave in to those who think appeasement is the answer and stop us too soon, then anyone in the future who wants to try this will certainly think twice.
Barbaric? Perhaps. Sometimes, you have to meet the problem head on. And destroy it.
Oh, and for the record, I do have a daughter, so I can speak from experience.
You didn't state whether or not you had a daughter, but I'm going to emphatically state, that in my opinion, if a parent has a child, it is incumbent on them to make sure their child knows how to make a decision. And yes, they CAN make right decisions on their own, if they're taught to do so, and aren't laboring under constant oversight of someone who doesn't believe they can exercise judgement. I know that from experience too.
I also disagree with Rob's idea, but not because the WoD is good idea; far from it. We need to immediately legalize weed, as it's far less destructive than alcohol or tobacco, and start working on serious education programs to kill the demand for hard drugs. Unless we do that, the supply will always be there, no matter how hard you fight.
Statics show that the average American is exposed to dozens of acts of violence every night on television. Almost never is the perpetrator nor the victim a child. So when we hear of a man who shot a 14 year old, we may get angry. I say "may" because there were four incidents of such violence in the newspaper this morning, and none of them were front page news. On the contrary, if the police report section wasn't in the paper, we'd have heard nothing about it at all. Even those who read it shook their heads... and moved on to the comics.
But when a child kills, we sit up. The idea that a child is supposed to be this idyllic, wide-eyed and wondering being whose potential is unlimited and whose promise is still great, is embedded in the public psyche. And when that being turns out to be a murderer, and his or her victims are other children, well, our vision of reality just had a train wreck. And we react in horror. Hence the harsher justice.
But what if there were bigger profits to be had in other ways, licensing the concept and the how-to plans, for instance, rather than selling the software built on it? At that point, our target market gets a little bigger.
After the debacle in Florida, voting reform is a hot topic. There have been many who have called for electronic voting that would occur over the Internet. How much, I wonder, could be realized from licensing the 'online voting' concept to every governmental body in the US that required voting, from the municipal to the federal levels?
Of course, it might be a good idea for Novell to merge with someone... Caldera, maybe, since they're already related.
As an identical twin, how would the DNA database differentiate between my brother and I? Our DNA is identical... that's the definition of an identical twin.
Regardless of the claims of worker shortages, I know several IT people, those who are just starting out as well as those who've been employed for years and are now looking for other work, who aren't finding work as easily as they did two years ago. Or even last year. The jobs aren't paying as much, there isn't the sense that the company is desperate to find someone to do the work...
I'm in the Midwest (Wisconsin), so maybe the situation is different toward the coasts, but you no longer hear of newly graduated/newly certified people getting top-dollar jobs, as they did in the recent past.
So Chrysler has a specification for a new car, and they're sharing it with people from their industry. Only this time, they decide to make it available to the public as well, but requiring everyone to sign an NDA. But upon reading the spec sheet, several people from several industries realize that the spec is designed to make a car that almost everyone will drive, but has a special engine that will only work with Chrysler-brand oil and parts. They think this is just plain evil, and in an effort to expose this plan, many of them send their copies (or parts of it) to the Chicago Tribune. That paper, knowing news when it sees it, prints the story. Along come Chrysler's lawyers, informing the Tribune that the specification was under an NDA, and that they have to round up all copies of their paper in order to protect Chrysler's trade secret. (For the moment, let's pretend this is possible!)
The Tribune might (rightly) say, "Nuts to you!", because the Tribune itself never agreed to any such NDA, and if Chrysler wants to pursue legal recourse, it must pursue it with the parties that violated its NDA.
That's where Slashdot is, I believe. So Rob & Co., if you're listening: I say stand your ground. Refuse to censor, refuse to become part of anyone's goon squad, and refuse to allow the Internet to be clipped apart by those who think that linking to information is a problem in and of itself. Let the burden be on the accuser, as it should be.
For the record, I can't stand what RIAA has become: a cudgel used by non-human immortal entities (read that: corporations) who exist solely for the purpose of maximizing profits for their few shareholders at whatever cost. In my opinion, the recording industry has suffered at RIAA's hands, becoming linked with the heartless materialism at the core of big business. And the industry's insistance on holding back the use of digital channels to move entertainment to the people (both RIAA and MPAA are guilty here) will most assuredly backfire.
Frankly, the time has never been better for a company to spring up who will sponsor digital recording of smaller acts in exchange for the rights to give away one (1) song from each act on the Internet. Skip the pressing of CD's and the add campaigns. That same company should purchase and give away Rio players to radio stations to give their acts air time.
But that idea does not give people the right to steal, and that is what most of those who are complaining about the lawsuits, and RIAA's actions, are doing. This is not a revolution; it is plundering. Those who are suing have every right to do so; indeed they have a responsibility, if they're going to protect their copyright.
Mr. Katz, you strike me as someone who was always in "rebel" mode. I went to school with plenty of them, and I've worked with some. They always had an axe to grind against "the establishment". Often, they were right. But they were just as often wrong, and I believe you're wrong on this one. You shouldn't be glorifying theft as "revolution".
Incidentally, as a network admin, I also point out that the universities who've banned Napster are doing so for several reasons, one of which is due to the unprecedented load of network traffic the music-traders (or thieves, if you will) are generating. And I fully agree with their decision.
OK, I usually allow posts like these to roll off the monitor, but not this time. Seems like every time there's a story on certification, the anti-cert contingent rolls out of the woodwork. Fine. Now let's hear from the other side of the aisle.
I'm not employed by any vendor, nor am I employed to teach any vendor's curriculum, although I once was: I still hold CNI certification in addition to the other alphabet soup that I could staple at the end of my .signature file. I say that so that those who want to dismiss my viewpoint simply because I have a certification can do so immediately.
I do contribute occasionally to the LPI project.
Let me put this as delicately as I can: you have no idea what you're talking about, if you believe that a person can learn just as much about a system they've not worked with from a book and some play time, as they can from an instructor-led class. Now, I'm not saying that all instructors ran their classes as well as I did (and I have the trust of several companies in this town who continue to ask for me, even though I haven't worked the classroom for over a year), but I can say that if an instructor is worth a damn, and most of us are, then the only way you can use a self-study book to outstrip participation in my class is to ignore me and the curriculum, and sleep in the back row. If you do that, it's your own fault. The concept of certification isn't to blame here. It's shitty implementation on the part of some, not all.
Oh, yeah, right. That's why vendor certification programs are so popular among the best and brightest companies and people. They certify because they want to know that all those who are certified have taken exams demonstrating that they all have a certain minimum level of knowledge. Not "competence". The best test in the world won't prevent a well-trained bozo from screwing up your server. Competence isn't just knowledge, it's also judgement, and quite honestly: character. The best people I've worked with knew when to say "I don't know" from behind their multiple certifications. They were the smart ones. But the truth is, companies want to have the ability to say, "OK, our people will know at least as much as a CNE", and be able to learn that about their employees (and potential new-hires) by looking at a certificate. Does that guarantee competence? Of course not! But given all else equal... training, opportunity, experience... I'm more likely to give the nod to a certified engineer, because I know she's proven herself in testing. That isn't the only factor I'd apply, of course, but it carries weight. And I'm knowledgable, thank you.
Stop knocking certification. You want to knock the programs, go ahead. The instructors? Go ahead, but be ready to back yourself up with hard evidence. The companies who use certification as their only criterion? Please, feel free, and I'll join you! But to slam on the idea of certification itself shows lack of understanding, not only in the realm of corporate hiring practices, but in human pshycology as well.
No, you're not alone at all. I think that Katz' response WAS a flame. But no, I don't think it was flameBAIT... that was Q*Bert's message. Frankly, I'm not surprised that questions like Q*Bert posted got moderated up so high; Katz-bashing is apparently a sport on /. as well.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
Who's the "we" you're referring to? As Katz quite correctly pointed out, there are too many of us readers of Slashdot to easily categorize. Ergo, no one can claim to know us better or worse than any other.
Songs of Distant Earth. In addition to being a decent story, IMO, it's a little lighter than Dune, and introduces some advanced physics in a way that makes it seem more interesting and lively. The book has some sex in it, however, which may make it inappropriate for the very young.
To Linus Torvalds: Thank you, for spending the time to inform us as to the reasons for your recent actions, and for detailing the intricacies of your position as a trademark owner. Frankly, I had no idea that you would be required to go to such lengths; I had naively assumed that once you'd registered "Linux", it was done!
Second, it is my opinion that Linus' behavior here should be seen as an example to emulate. Rather than whine about the difficulties involved in enforcing his trademark, or blasting the people who expressed dismay at "lawyer-tactics" being used in Linux's name, he very clearly and politely explained himself, clarified the groundrules regarding the use of "Linux" in a URL, and even explained why he was using the term "nominal fee" (an expression I hate as much as he apparently does). I think we should be pleased that he chose to react in this manner, and resolve to behave likewise when confronted by disapproval and disagreement.
A whole 5 seconds.... You'll have to forgive me for a moment's sarcasm, but really... If all you're going to spare is 5 seconds (or frankly any amount of time that doesn't allow you to actually read the article), then why post a "response"? Your comments weren't about Katz article; they were a commentary on the blurb! That's like writing a book review based solely on the jacket text.
It doesn't seem hostile, it is hostile. Something I've been trying to teach my six-year-old daughter is that, most of the time, what you say isn't as important as how you say it. Say "I really appreciate your help" in a disgusted, sneering tone with a revolted expression on your face, and you'll see what I mean. The same holds true for the Net. Posters who claim that they're simply "exercising their freedom" are, in fact, abusing that freedom when they post a response full of vitriol. There's no call for it. A message delivered in such a way has failed to communicate to the intended recipient, and the fault lies solely with the sender.
Having concrete support for your points does not deter the sender of a "You suck"-message. Nor does it stop the hordes who, upon seeing John Katz' name on a story, immediately post a "response" decrying that the man has even been allowed to post on Slashdot. It doesn't matter how well he supports his argument; they simply want him to go, period. No, what he considers "being jerks" is more a symptom of a culture that doesn't encourage thoughtful, polite speech. The flamer is glorified, even when he (or she, let's be fair here) hides behind the AC curtain. Until that is addressed, and the flamers unmasked, there can be no "peer review" of their actions, and therefore, no consequation of their bad behavior.
I did not find Katz' article to be shameless self-promotion. Quite the contrary, I was reading an article about the hostile nature of the Net, a nature proven to any reasonable POV by this thread alone. After all, you've not asked that Katz improve. You've pointed out that he doesn't seem to join the forums on Slashdot (A point neither of us can confirm beyond doubt, as Katz could be posting anonymously in some threads. I don't read all of the stories on /., and I doubt you do either. For this argument, however, I'll concede that if Katz does post, he doesn't do it under his own name). But even though you "invited" him to enter into these discussions, it's clear from your tone that doing so will gain him nothing. It's not what Katz is saying that you don't like; you don't like him, and you want him to go away. That's hostile, period. And it's common on the Internet to have hostility in discussion threads.
That's the point I got from Katz article. I saw the comments he made regarding those who post negatively. I took those to be anecdotal evidence for his point, and personal experiences as such evidence is considered to be an excellent way to make such points. You'd learn that in any public speaking or argumentation class.