Anyone who expresses the belief that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans - or vice versa - is living in cloud cuckoo land. And wasting their time, thought and emotions.
Does AMD support ECC? Or any other manufacturer? I thought the prevailing view was that it is far better to suffer the occasional catastrophic crash or data corruption, rather than pay a few dollars more for reliable RAM.
A quick glance at the blog you cite shows that its author claims to debunk not only Nina Teicholz, but also Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe and Tom Naughton. From a heuristic point of view, that is more than enough to make me dismiss everything he says about nutrition.
There are two main schools of thought about dietary fats, meat-eating and vegetarianism. I have read enough - the three authors named above, and at least a dozen others - to be sure that they are right. In other words traditional human foods such as red meat and eggs are healthy and nourishing, and the artificial foodstuffs recommended by all the authorities since the 1960s - particularly highly-processed grains and sugar - are harmful in any but small quantities.
In some ways Keys was an American archetype. His overriding concern seems to have been to build up his reputation, glorify himself, and belittle anyone who dared to disagree with him.
True! Only Americans are like that.
I did not assert that all Americans are like Keys, or that only Americans have those characteristics. I said that Keys was typical, in some ways, of a certain type of American.
archetype n noun 1 a very typical example. 2 an original model. 3 Psychoanalysis (in Jungian theory) a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious. 4 a recurrent motif in literature or art.
Perhaps nowadays reputation is increasingly taking second place to money. Without money, reputation is not considered valuable. With money, who needs reputation?
Ancel Keys was a physiologist, not a psychologist. There is a difference.
In some ways Keys was an American archetype. His overriding concern seems to have been to build up his reputation, glorify himself, and belittle anyone who dared to disagree with him. The sad thing is that he was extremely clever and capable of conscientious work - until he got carried away by his cholesterol hypothesis. Then, when it was no longer possible to maintain that cholesterol in food was harmful, he switched to attacking saturated fat and red meat.
My favourite Keys episode concerns his "research" into the diets of Mediterranean peoples. His researchers inquired, rather perfunctorily, what people ate and drank in various countries.
They came to the conclusion that the people of Crete owed their good health and long lives to a diet low in meat; this was later developed into the "Mediterranean Diet". Unfortunately, one of the weeks during which the survey was carried out in Crete fell within Lent, when the local people fasted - avoiding meat among other foods.
Similar mistakes were made in countries such as Italy, France and Spain, whose people ate (and still do) far more meat than Keys admitted.
Publishing specifications and claiming adherence to standards is quite "good enough" for Microsoft from a business point of view - which of course is the only point of view it has ever had.
The number of people who notice that the software doesn't quite jibe with the specs, or doesn't quite implement the standard (or, usually, both) is small. And, by their very ability to understand software, they are wholly without influence in business circles.
The whole point of open source is that the software is already written. Just need to put it together like Lego blocks. CS Major won't help. Outsource the development and it will be done in no time.
Have you ever written any software?
If not, don't talk about what you don't understand.
If so, why don't you "put it together like Lego blocks" yourself and save the trouble and cost of outsourcing?
When you are at the very lowest point possible, any move upward - no matter how small - must be a sign of hope.
At present, as for the past 50 years, most political (and military) organizations are not only hopeless at security - they don't even seem to pay it any attention at all.
It's so much easier (and politically profitable) to take no action and then, when your computers are inevitably infiltrated, blame the scapegoat du jour. That way:
1. You save a lot of money and trouble by not bothering with security; 2. You cleverly get out from under; 3. You contrive to harm your political opponents by blaming them for what was entirely your own fault.
... if only the high frequency traders wouldn't collude with the rule makers...
You nailed it right there. No system is going to work very well (and certainly not fairly) in which money buys everything, including changes to the rules. It's like a game of Monopoly in which, whenever you accumulate $50,000, you are allowed to change the rules of the game in your favour.
timesync is the best tool because it barely does what you will settle for. Okay. Or are you trying to say that a more precise time will somehow harm your desktops?
Do you demand that your car is capable of half the speed of light? (Although you will never drive it at more than 70 mph because you are a law-abiding citizen).
Please provide a few references for your statement. I am not a troll of any kind, but a concerned British citizen pointing out massive and flagrant breaches of international law.
For a really funny treatment of this rather serious topic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... where it is alleged that, having run a biological weapons research program from 1918 until 1973, the Pentagon then decided to end it. Cold. Yeah, sure.
"A major U.S. government report warns that advances in synthetic biology now allow scientists to have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body".
Translation:
For many years the US government has been pursuing research into biological warfare, which it believes would help it to overcome adversaries (like Russia and China) that cannot be defeated by brute force. It is now achieving some success, and realizes that as volumes are ramped up and large-scale manufacture gets underway, some leakage is inevitable.
Therefore it makes sense to lay the basis for blaming any such leakage on "terrorists". Which is, of course, absurd as ISIS actually works for the US government. (They are cheap, expendable, and can commit atrocities without any risk of blowback against the USA).
Maybe everyone, say at primary school, should be compelled to sign a legal document saying, "I agree that I have been contaminated by exposure to the works of Nature, and therefore any derivative work that I ever create may be the property of Nature".
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who expresses the belief that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans - or vice versa - is living in cloud cuckoo land. And wasting their time, thought and emotions.
https://i0.wp.com/www.johnccar...
... the lengths they will go to in trying to make *someone* read their ads.
Does AMD support ECC? Or any other manufacturer? I thought the prevailing view was that it is far better to suffer the occasional catastrophic crash or data corruption, rather than pay a few dollars more for reliable RAM.
Sorry but Nina Teicholz is a fraudster, who has been successful in building an empire pushing dangerous nonsense. This site (thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com) provides excellent detailed exposures of her BS.
A quick glance at the blog you cite shows that its author claims to debunk not only Nina Teicholz, but also Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe and Tom Naughton. From a heuristic point of view, that is more than enough to make me dismiss everything he says about nutrition.
There are two main schools of thought about dietary fats, meat-eating and vegetarianism. I have read enough - the three authors named above, and at least a dozen others - to be sure that they are right. In other words traditional human foods such as red meat and eggs are healthy and nourishing, and the artificial foodstuffs recommended by all the authorities since the 1960s - particularly highly-processed grains and sugar - are harmful in any but small quantities.
In some ways Keys was an American archetype. His overriding concern seems to have been to build up his reputation, glorify himself, and belittle anyone who dared to disagree with him.
True! Only Americans are like that.
I did not assert that all Americans are like Keys, or that only Americans have those characteristics. I said that Keys was typical, in some ways, of a certain type of American.
archetype
n noun
1 a very typical example.
2 an original model.
3 Psychoanalysis (in Jungian theory) a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious.
4 a recurrent motif in literature or art.
DERIVATIVES
archetypal adjective
archetypally adverb
archetypical adjective
archetypically adverb
ORIGIN
C16: via Latin from Greek arkhetupon 'something moulded first as a model', from arkhe- 'primitive' + tupos 'a model'.
Perhaps nowadays reputation is increasingly taking second place to money. Without money, reputation is not considered valuable. With money, who needs reputation?
Ancel Keys was a physiologist, not a psychologist. There is a difference.
In some ways Keys was an American archetype. His overriding concern seems to have been to build up his reputation, glorify himself, and belittle anyone who dared to disagree with him. The sad thing is that he was extremely clever and capable of conscientious work - until he got carried away by his cholesterol hypothesis. Then, when it was no longer possible to maintain that cholesterol in food was harmful, he switched to attacking saturated fat and red meat.
My favourite Keys episode concerns his "research" into the diets of Mediterranean peoples. His researchers inquired, rather perfunctorily, what people ate and drank in various countries.
They came to the conclusion that the people of Crete owed their good health and long lives to a diet low in meat; this was later developed into the "Mediterranean Diet". Unfortunately, one of the weeks during which the survey was carried out in Crete fell within Lent, when the local people fasted - avoiding meat among other foods.
Similar mistakes were made in countries such as Italy, France and Spain, whose people ate (and still do) far more meat than Keys admitted.
See, for an introductory account, https://www.diabetes.co.uk/in-...
"One 11-year-old boy changed the voting results in 10 minutes. A 11 year-old-girl was also able to change the voting results in 30 minutes".
But is he Russian?
That's all that matters.
Publishing specifications and claiming adherence to standards is quite "good enough" for Microsoft from a business point of view - which of course is the only point of view it has ever had.
The number of people who notice that the software doesn't quite jibe with the specs, or doesn't quite implement the standard (or, usually, both) is small. And, by their very ability to understand software, they are wholly without influence in business circles.
So, from Microsoft's point of view, screw 'em.
The whole point of open source is that the software is already written. Just need to put it together like Lego blocks. CS Major won't help. Outsource the development and it will be done in no time.
Have you ever written any software?
If not, don't talk about what you don't understand.
If so, why don't you "put it together like Lego blocks" yourself and save the trouble and cost of outsourcing?
So where are your citations, if they are so vital?
What did they ever do for us?
And there you have it. Homo Sapiens does not deserve to survive. Not ethically, and certainly not because of their "intelligence".
So does this mean that Microsoft is deploying Linux or OpenBSD and using best security practices?
IFF that increases long-term profits, yes.
Actually that is the answer to all questions about Microsoft policies.
When you are at the very lowest point possible, any move upward - no matter how small - must be a sign of hope.
At present, as for the past 50 years, most political (and military) organizations are not only hopeless at security - they don't even seem to pay it any attention at all.
It's so much easier (and politically profitable) to take no action and then, when your computers are inevitably infiltrated, blame the scapegoat du jour. That way:
1. You save a lot of money and trouble by not bothering with security;
2. You cleverly get out from under;
3. You contrive to harm your political opponents by blaming them for what was entirely your own fault.
... if only the high frequency traders wouldn't collude with the rule makers...
You nailed it right there. No system is going to work very well (and certainly not fairly) in which money buys everything, including changes to the rules. It's like a game of Monopoly in which, whenever you accumulate $50,000, you are allowed to change the rules of the game in your favour.
timesync is the best tool because it barely does what you will settle for. Okay. Or are you trying to say that a more precise time will somehow harm your desktops?
Do you demand that your car is capable of half the speed of light? (Although you will never drive it at more than 70 mph because you are a law-abiding citizen).
Please provide a few references for your statement. I am not a troll of any kind, but a concerned British citizen pointing out massive and flagrant breaches of international law.
https://www.sott.net/article/3...
https://joninews.wordpress.com...
https://orientalreview.org/201...
For a really funny treatment of this rather serious topic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... where it is alleged that, having run a biological weapons research program from 1918 until 1973, the Pentagon then decided to end it. Cold. Yeah, sure.
"A major U.S. government report warns that advances in synthetic biology now allow scientists to have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body".
Translation:
For many years the US government has been pursuing research into biological warfare, which it believes would help it to overcome adversaries (like Russia and China) that cannot be defeated by brute force. It is now achieving some success, and realizes that as volumes are ramped up and large-scale manufacture gets underway, some leakage is inevitable.
Therefore it makes sense to lay the basis for blaming any such leakage on "terrorists". Which is, of course, absurd as ISIS actually works for the US government. (They are cheap, expendable, and can commit atrocities without any risk of blowback against the USA).
Hello, Adolf! Is that really you after all these years?
I like your thinking.
Maybe everyone, say at primary school, should be compelled to sign a legal document saying, "I agree that I have been contaminated by exposure to the works of Nature, and therefore any derivative work that I ever create may be the property of Nature".
I think the underlying legal principle is something like this:
"You can patent anything that you can make money from".
Because then you will have spare money to give to legislators, politicians, officials, judges, prosecutors, patent attorneys, etc.
And that's the whole ecosystem right there.
You need to know what it does.
Ah, that's interesting. Does it mean you need to know *everything* that it does - or only just one thing?
If the former, you can never be sure you do know everything it does.
And if the latter, that's such a trivial requirement it's meaningless. E.g "gene B keeps genes A and C apart".
'Even as Microsoft has "embraced" the open source community in the recent years...'
Well, you might beat Mangus, but you certainly wouldn't beat Magnus.