Step 1: Create a CA certificate (this can be done with OpenSSL) Step 2: Install the certificate as a trusted root CA in windows Step 3: Sign your drivers with your CA Step 4: Pro--(no, I would hate myself if I perpetuated that cliche)
As long as this is possible (and I imageine it will be), driver and code signing is a GOOD thing! Better security and better stability--exactly what windows needs.
I didn't say "I've never heard the term, therefore it must be con artistry." I merely stated that it made me suspicious of con artistry. If it were medically significant, it seems terribly odd to me that so few people test for it. If your doc publishes a paper "how to measure and treat shock," and it is peer reviewed and found to be useful, I bet everyone will be doing it soon. But... he has published no such paper. Why keep this to himself? If it could help the world, he is a royal jackass for doing so.
I don't buy the assertion that medicine treats symptoms and not causes. Medicine treats symptoms when there is no known way to treat the cause. This happens to be the case for many diseases, but it is not by intent.
I don't understand your story about your eyes. How did he determine they were the wrong prescription, and how did he reshape your eye? My optometrist never mentioned there was such a way to treat it, and his techniqe for mesuring my eyes was quite time consuming. People spend lots of money on lasic, and if your guy knows a way to fix eyes without lasers, he could open a chain of clinics and make a mint. He would have to do some research to show that his technique works, first, but surely he wouldn't be afraid of putting his system to the test!
"fix itself if the impediments to health are removed" is just wrong. There are many diseases where the body breaks itself with no impediments to health. Arthritis and colitis are two of these. They happen when the immune system attacks the rest of the body. Cancer is another one.
I'm not saying it was a comparably bad philosophy for the time. But modern medicine has moved way beyond that, now. We get it-there is such a thing as an immune system.
I do not believe that many physicians would forgoe recomending inexpensive treatment in favor of more expensive treatment simply because it is more profitable for their peers. I also do not believe that universities would refuse to study less expensive treatments for diseases simply because there are no patents to be had. I know both physicians and reasearchers personally.
Anecidotal evidence (such as you presented) means almost nothing to a scientist. Especially if this evidence comes from someone selling something (in this case, your D.O..) "Shock" is something I've never heard of. The word activates my mental "con artist" sensors.
Eyeglass prescriptions change periodically without treatment.
If tests say a man's heart is fine, then you give him snake oil, then he says he feels better, the change most likely happened in is head--not his heart.
My personal physican is a D.O., but he studied at a real medical school (Ohio State), and has never suggested any treatment for me that was not show to be useful in RESEARCH. When D.O.s first came around, their philosophy was based on pseudo-science and quackery. Look it up. Today, most of them are just as useful as regular physicians.
"Art" and "philosophy" could be great sources of new research topics. If they are as effective as you say they are, they will no doubt become mainstream soon. If, on the other hand, these techniques have been around a long time but were never shown to work in "research," either:
1) The people that practice them should be ashamed for not pushing for said research or 2) These people are better at sales pitches and psychological manipulation than medicine.
If you ever suspect yourself of having a life-threatening condition, please, as a personal favor to me, seek treatment at a real hospital from a licensed doctor who went to a real medical school.
Manipulation and homeopathic "medicine" often "work" because of the placebo effect.
If such treatments really worked (in double-blind, scientific tests) then they would just be called "medicine" without any qualifiers.
You're right: spending big money on treating people who are days from death may not be a good use of economic resources. But referring them to quacks is certainaly NOT the solution.
What you call "gold rushers" I call smart capitalists. Telling people to pick a career just because they like it is stupid. Better advice would be "among the careers you like, select the one with the best financial outlook."
We can't all be professional musicians or NBA stars or bikini inspectors.
It's remarkable to me that god never pointed out which portions of his book are to be taken literally, and which are metaphors. If he had done so, he probably could have prevented great amounts of conflict, and he would have many more believers.
As our understanding of science grows, the amount of the bible that is literal (according to most theologians) shrinks.
I have studied christian mythology enough to know that nearly everyone has a different idea of which is literal and which is not. If I were to follow a god, I would want one with better communication skills.
The pope knew that unless he said that, people would not take him seriously. Seven days? Riiiight. That jives really well with the slow process of evolution.
Allowing for the poetry of the language is one of the intellectual contortions I was referring to. Another is thinking "7 days" could be billions of years in "god time." What is that, like dog years? And when god and the prohpets condone slavery, you must contort your brain to think "it was just the culture."
It is remarkable how inelloquent god is that we have to take such liberties with "his word" in order to make it seem anything but absurd when confronted with modern scientific evidence.
You say you're a scientist. Which is more likely?
That here is one true god, who does a poor job revealing himself to current generations (despite his infinite power), and all other gods in the history of mankind are just silly halucinations and political scams?
OR
That some ancient dude halucinated due to poor nutrition, someone wrote down his trippy visions, and future scribes took even more liberty with these drug trips in order to further their agendas...
I know which one is more probable based on the universe I have observed... Though I would surely be a devout follower if I would witness just 1 simple supernatural act (such as god visiting and turning my coke into pepsi). I openly invite him to do such a thing. He doesn't. So he either doesn't want me to believe in him, or he doesn't exist.
Evolution is inconsistent with the Abrahamic (jew, muslim, christian) god. To convince onself otherwise requires increasingly painful mental contortion (as one learns more about science). Eventually, the pain becomes to great, and the sufferer either becomes an athiest or a fundamentalist.
Evolution is not necessarily inconsistent to the idea of alien intelligence (as a god would be, by definition).
Thy don't really give away VMWare Server. Only the beta version. And the beta will just quit running on you every so many days when the beta-test license runs out and needs to be renewed.
Also, the beta has many bugs, such as the bug that makes the clocks of VMs race way ahead of the host system's clock. Better set up NTP with a 5 second refresh time!
Someone with a good scientific mindset wouldn't expect things to ever really be 'prooven,' as you seem to do. Such a person also would question the previous study because it was not double-blind.
Suppose the risk of getting... heel cancer is very very small. So small, in fact, that you are more likely to drown while drinking kool-aid than you are to get this cancer. Then a study finds that walking TRIPPLES your risk of this cancer. So all of the walkers out there now have a 3*(very very small) == very very small risk. You are still more likely to die by kool-aid.
You seem to think that this very very small risk is something to worry about. I think that, if you aren't already worried about kool-aid and a million other more dangers things, it is silly for you to worry about the risk of heel cancer.
This article is poor (I would say unethical) coverage of a scientific study.
For example, to say something is associate with a 240% increase in risk can be technically accurate, but horribly misleading to most readers. If one in a billion people get a disease, a 240% increase makes your chance of getting it 2.4/1000000000. That is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Also, with this studay, they found out people who had tumors, then asked them if they used cell phones. The subjects probably had no doubt as to why this question was being asked, therefore this was not really a double blind experiment.
Has anyone ever been able to give a rat cancer by blasting it with amplified cellphone-type radiation? That would convince me of the possibility of cell phone risk much more than digging backward through statistical inormation does.
You have me interested. How is a 401k a scam? And why does being "inside" make it safe enough to put all of your eggs in one basket? Even if you understand an investment very well, there are still risks you can neither predict nor protect against...
Slashdot Mirror
It might... but in Windows 2003, you can install a CA for EVERYTHING, including code signing, email signing, etc. It's not just SSL.
Step 1: Create a CA certificate (this can be done with OpenSSL)
Step 2: Install the certificate as a trusted root CA in windows
Step 3: Sign your drivers with your CA
Step 4: Pro--(no, I would hate myself if I perpetuated that cliche)
As long as this is possible (and I imageine it will be), driver and code signing is a GOOD thing! Better security and better stability--exactly what windows needs.
I didn't say "I've never heard the term, therefore it must be con artistry." I merely stated that it made me suspicious of con artistry. If it were medically significant, it seems terribly odd to me that so few people test for it. If your doc publishes a paper "how to measure and treat shock," and it is peer reviewed and found to be useful, I bet everyone will be doing it soon. But... he has published no such paper. Why keep this to himself? If it could help the world, he is a royal jackass for doing so.
I don't buy the assertion that medicine treats symptoms and not causes. Medicine treats symptoms when there is no known way to treat the cause. This happens to be the case for many diseases, but it is not by intent.
I don't understand your story about your eyes. How did he determine they were the wrong prescription, and how did he reshape your eye? My optometrist never mentioned there was such a way to treat it, and his techniqe for mesuring my eyes was quite time consuming. People spend lots of money on lasic, and if your guy knows a way to fix eyes without lasers, he could open a chain of clinics and make a mint. He would have to do some research to show that his technique works, first, but surely he wouldn't be afraid of putting his system to the test!
"fix itself if the impediments to health are removed" is just wrong. There are many diseases where the body breaks itself with no impediments to health. Arthritis and colitis are two of these. They happen when the immune system attacks the rest of the body. Cancer is another one.
I'm not saying it was a comparably bad philosophy for the time. But modern medicine has moved way beyond that, now. We get it-there is such a thing as an immune system.
If the USA uses the energy to produce something that is then used by someone in another country, who REALLY uses the energy?
That's whay "headcount" doesn't matter so much. GDP might be better.
I do not believe that many physicians would forgoe recomending inexpensive treatment in favor of more expensive treatment simply because it is more profitable for their peers. I also do not believe that universities would refuse to study less expensive treatments for diseases simply because there are no patents to be had. I know both physicians and reasearchers personally.
Anecidotal evidence (such as you presented) means almost nothing to a scientist. Especially if this evidence comes from someone selling something (in this case, your D.O..) "Shock" is something I've never heard of. The word activates my mental "con artist" sensors.
Eyeglass prescriptions change periodically without treatment.
If tests say a man's heart is fine, then you give him snake oil, then he says he feels better, the change most likely happened in is head--not his heart.
My personal physican is a D.O., but he studied at a real medical school (Ohio State), and has never suggested any treatment for me that was not show to be useful in RESEARCH. When D.O.s first came around, their philosophy was based on pseudo-science and quackery. Look it up. Today, most of them are just as useful as regular physicians.
"Art" and "philosophy" could be great sources of new research topics. If they are as effective as you say they are, they will no doubt become mainstream soon. If, on the other hand, these techniques have been around a long time but were never shown to work in "research," either:
1) The people that practice them should be ashamed for not pushing for said research
or
2) These people are better at sales pitches and psychological manipulation than medicine.
If you ever suspect yourself of having a life-threatening condition, please, as a personal favor to me, seek treatment at a real hospital from a licensed doctor who went to a real medical school.
The Jeffersonian draeam of an agrarian economy? That's been gone since the combustion engine.
Manipulation and homeopathic "medicine" often "work" because of the placebo effect.
If such treatments really worked (in double-blind, scientific tests) then they would just be called "medicine" without any qualifiers.
You're right: spending big money on treating people who are days from death may not be a good use of economic resources. But referring them to quacks is certainaly NOT the solution.
A little Astroglide lubricant will clear that up.
What you call "gold rushers" I call smart capitalists. Telling people to pick a career just because they like it is stupid. Better advice would be "among the careers you like, select the one with the best financial outlook."
We can't all be professional musicians or NBA stars or bikini inspectors.
It's remarkable to me that god never pointed out which portions of his book are to be taken literally, and which are metaphors. If he had done so, he probably could have prevented great amounts of conflict, and he would have many more believers.
As our understanding of science grows, the amount of the bible that is literal (according to most theologians) shrinks.
I have studied christian mythology enough to know that nearly everyone has a different idea of which is literal and which is not. If I were to follow a god, I would want one with better communication skills.
There is a big difference between punishing dissenters and doing things that might be used to identify dissenters.
China does the former, we do the later.
Without a good way to prevent abuse, we should do neither, but they aren't exactly comparable acts.
The pope knew that unless he said that, people would not take him seriously. Seven days? Riiiight. That jives really well with the slow process of evolution.
Allowing for the poetry of the language is one of the intellectual contortions I was referring to. Another is thinking "7 days" could be billions of years in "god time." What is that, like dog years? And when god and the prohpets condone slavery, you must contort your brain to think "it was just the culture."
It is remarkable how inelloquent god is that we have to take such liberties with "his word" in order to make it seem anything but absurd when confronted with modern scientific evidence.
You say you're a scientist. Which is more likely?
That here is one true god, who does a poor job revealing himself to current generations (despite his infinite power), and all other gods in the history of mankind are just silly halucinations and political scams?
OR
That some ancient dude halucinated due to poor nutrition, someone wrote down his trippy visions, and future scribes took even more liberty with these drug trips in order to further their agendas...
I know which one is more probable based on the universe I have observed... Though I would surely be a devout follower if I would witness just 1 simple supernatural act (such as god visiting and turning my coke into pepsi). I openly invite him to do such a thing. He doesn't. So he either doesn't want me to believe in him, or he doesn't exist.
Picking and chosing what to take seriously and what to "interpret" is part of the intellectual contortion I was referring to.
Evolution is inconsistent with the Abrahamic (jew, muslim, christian) god. To convince onself otherwise requires increasingly painful mental contortion (as one learns more about science). Eventually, the pain becomes to great, and the sufferer either becomes an athiest or a fundamentalist.
Evolution is not necessarily inconsistent to the idea of alien intelligence (as a god would be, by definition).
All competitions should use the Drew Carey scoring method. Just like presidential elections.
What I said actually IS true. Present tense, and all that.
Thy don't really give away VMWare Server. Only the beta version. And the beta will just quit running on you every so many days when the beta-test license runs out and needs to be renewed.
Also, the beta has many bugs, such as the bug that makes the clocks of VMs race way ahead of the host system's clock. Better set up NTP with a 5 second refresh time!
Yeah, the pattern here is that some risks are so small, they are acceptable.
Someone with a good scientific mindset wouldn't expect things to ever really be 'prooven,' as you seem to do. Such a person also would question the previous study because it was not double-blind.
i may be drunk, but that's some funny, funny shit.
Suppose the risk of getting... heel cancer is very very small. So small, in fact, that you are more likely to drown while drinking kool-aid than you are to get this cancer. Then a study finds that walking TRIPPLES your risk of this cancer. So all of the walkers out there now have a 3*(very very small) == very very small risk. You are still more likely to die by kool-aid.
You seem to think that this very very small risk is something to worry about. I think that, if you aren't already worried about kool-aid and a million other more dangers things, it is silly for you to worry about the risk of heel cancer.
This article is poor (I would say unethical) coverage of a scientific study.
For example, to say something is associate with a 240% increase in risk can be technically accurate, but horribly misleading to most readers. If one in a billion people get a disease, a 240% increase makes your chance of getting it 2.4/1000000000. That is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Also, with this studay, they found out people who had tumors, then asked them if they used cell phones. The subjects probably had no doubt as to why this question was being asked, therefore this was not really a double blind experiment.
Has anyone ever been able to give a rat cancer by blasting it with amplified cellphone-type radiation? That would convince me of the possibility of cell phone risk much more than digging backward through statistical inormation does.
You have me interested. How is a 401k a scam? And why does being "inside" make it safe enough to put all of your eggs in one basket? Even if you understand an investment very well, there are still risks you can neither predict nor protect against...
Rule #1 of investing is: diversify.
I have very little sympathy for people who lost their "entire" 401ks through things like that.
Investing without knowing even the very first, most basic rule of investing, is about as smart as driving with your eyes closed.
Executives lying to investors is still a crime, and the liars should compensate the investors with their personal fortunes.
But please, tell your friends: buy a book or take a class on investing before you do something stupid like that with your 401k.