Two words: Code reviews. When you hire a hotshot newbie, you explain to him why it's done through prepared statements. If he understands and follows the secure programming guidelines, then he's gained knowledge and you've gained a better programmer. If you run a code review and find he hasn't learned,... hopefully his probation period isn't complete yet.
The select won't break unless, as you put it a select * is used. But an insert on the base table would break if your additional fld2 is non-nullable without a default value.
Bad choice of example. If somebody wants to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, The Scream, or Rodin's Thinker for their own enjoyment, there's no law against it. If they try to sell it to someone claiming that it's the original, then it's forgery/fraud.
Google's ranking algorithm isn't kept "secret" to prevent other from copying it. Google's ranking algorithm is kept secret to make it harder for people to do "SEO" and game the system to make crap pages reach the highest spots on given queries. What Google is protecting through secrecy of the ranking algorithm isn't the algorithm itself, it's the accuracy of the results.
For the most part I agree with what you say, certainly regarding insurance companies and OnStar. However law enforcement can get a court order to get OnStar to turn on the mic and monitor what's going on in your car, or shut down your engine, even if you haven't paid for the service. And, as has happened with systems like Carnivore, there's a history of surveillance being carried out in the US with minimal or no judicial review under the pretext of national security. So it's better to avoid making it easy for Big Brother (or a rogue law enforcement agent or industrial spy) to spy on you, just on general principle.
You think that a company that is going to hardcode the SSID/WPA password into firmware updates (instead of keeping your current settings) would go to the trouble of customizing a different firmware file for each user so that they can get a high security hardcoded default? Really?
He said George H.W. Bush who, prior to being president and vice president, was CIA director for just under a year in 1976. While this is probably prior to the involvement of CIA with death squads in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, and after the Phoenix Program in VietNam, it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads in Guatemala, Argentina, Chile (very likely), the Phillipines (also very likely) or another country with with one of the right-wing governments known to use death squads to silence political opposition during periods spanning the mid 70s.
While some of the death squad targets may have aguably been combatants like the Afghani and Pakistani targets of current Predator strikes, most were just citizens using speech to raise awareness of injustices perpetrated by the right wing governments and their cronies. You generally don't need death squads to kill combatants because the army can do that job. You use death squads to perform extra-legal killings of civilians in the middle of the night because they are being a political annoyance and you don't have (or can't be bothered to gather) evidence that they are involved in illegal activities.
All because of the fear that those countries would irreparably fall to communism like dominoes even though, when Nicaragua and El Salvador eventually fell, the eventual outcome wasn't as feared.
Yep. And at the same time it would cut down on speculation in the financial markets and high speed trading arbitrage, which is why the investment banks and brokers in Wall Street and London are so dead set against it. It would cut into a major source of revenue for them, oh and probably help stabilize markets by reducing flash trading.
Israel. They have developed techniques to make it work.
Yes, and those techniques involve irrigation using so much water taken from the Jordan River that the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea have shrunk dramatically. At this point unless something drastic is done, in another 40 years Palestinians on the "West Bank" will be able to drive to Jordan.
But yeah, those "techniques" are totally sustainable with no side effects, aren't they?
Well, if it's a widget that you use on your Android home page, it doesn't take up too much real estate and compresses multiple steps into one: open browser, open google bookmark or type URL, possibly scroll page to be able to select search entry field, enter search criteria. The Instant search results show up formatted for your phone better than using the Google home page. About the only drawback is that you don't get to see the funny custom google logos.
Shuttleworth was the second private astronaut and flew in April 2002. The last shuttle flight, STS-135, was in 2011. Even when NASA had a shuttle, it still didn't pimp it out (mostly). Teancum makes a good point about the Saudi Prince, however the Saudi in question apparently was payload specialist for deploying an Arab satellite. It's possible that pressure was applied within ARABSAT for him to be picked, especially since his background was a degree in mass communications. But if that's the case then, depending on your point of view, the price for his flight was either way lower or way higher than the ~$20 milion the Russians charged.
All of the seven private space tourists flew on Russian Soyouz. The Russian space program was pretty desperate for money for a few years. NASA don't pimp no shuttle.
We know it's caused by complex chemistry; we don't know that the complexity is what causes it, and I doubt that complexity is the reason.
When I say complexity, I am taking about the number of interconnections of neurons. The thing about that number of interconnections is that we can observe a continuum of neuronal complexity, from humans down to simple multi-celled organisms. The atomic unit of that structure is the neuron, with one input (axon) and multiple outputs (dendrite). The function governing the outputs based on the input is complex and changes as we learn, the chemical exchange between neurons at the synapse is controlled by regulators that affect neuro-transmitter availability and re-uptake (and therefore signal transmission and strength across the synaptic boundary). However from investigations based on simple neural networks, none of that seems to depend on quantum effects and those individual relationships can be modeled with simple equations. Complex behaviour arises from the complexity of the neural network with more nodes and connections allowing for more complex responses.
Now one thing which is harder to model is how change in the neuronal interconnections is performed. New research from observations of brain plasticity indicates that neurons establish new connections by growing new dendrites. So how the neurons actually determine which new connections and growth need to be created, allowing for major new changes and permanent learning, is still a big question and key to understanding how intelligence develops/refines itself in an individual, But the end result is still a function of the complexity of the neural network.
Yeah, apparently Vancouver BC recently got a poor rating from in some sort of fashionista worst-dressed list due to the preponderance of yoga pants in use around here. I kid you not. I just had to shake my head at that one. Not too many straight guys involved in making that decision.:-)
Turbolifts also move horizontally as well as vertically (I got the USS Enterprise plans as a birthday or Christmas gift in the 70's). They're actually closer in concept to a computer-controlled subway system using elevator-sized cars that can move individually, vertically, and horizontally. As you point out, the computer ensures that empty cars are always available for boarding by routing spare cars to replace occupied ones departing from stations. Since occupants don't appear to be affected by directional changes, the cars presumably have their own artificial gravity generator/inertial compensator, independent of the ones in the decks.
We would need to record the quantum state (spin, polarization, momentum, position) of every particle of matter in the thing being 'teleported' and then reproduce that state at the other end.
Only if you buy into the generally unsupported assertion by Roger Penrose that quantum state and uncertainty is a fundamental component of consciousness. If you use Occam's Razor to prefer the idea that consciousness arises from neuronal complexity, which is more consistent with comparisons of levels of consciousness in primates and animals, and with other aspects of cognitive and biological science, then there's not much reason to require identical quantum states in a copy, just rough relative position and chemical bonds. In a nerve (or other) cell with billions of molecules, it's very unlikely to matter whether the quantum spin and other quantum values of the shared electron in a particular covalent or ionic bond is up or down, as long as the bond exists. Most of the molecular machinery in the body may use quantum interactions, but do so to minimize quantum uncertainty and randomness: for example producing specific orientations on carbon chains in proteins or other organic molecules rather than the random orientation of an uncontrolled chemical reaction sequence. I believe that reactions which need the reactants to be in a particular quantum state would be very few and far between.
The only functional exception I can think of might be for magnetic senses such as in birds, sharks and migratory animals, which would effectively be based on magnetic spin. However it seems at likely that those senses would develop those capabilities through a more easily detectable and controllable summation effect at the atomic level via ferromagnetic ions, such that the aggregate effect also could be more easily reproduced in re-assembly.
When you refresh your product line once a year with only a single new model that has to appeal to everyone, it's hard to out-innovate multiple companies each with a variety of different models targeting different customer needs. The single new model approach is cheaper in terms of design, production, and maintenance costs so you get more profit, but a manufacturer that offers more options is going to have a better chance to match a given customer's preferred feature set at a price point the customer can afford. Competitors can take more risks by introducing features such as dual SIM support, LTE, photo flash, and limiting them to specific models in a product line. Apple doesn't have that alternative and therefore controls risks and costs by not trying options that initially would only have niche appeal, even if there's a chance they might breakout into mainstream appeal.
Apple used to make devices that Jobs wanted/liked [i.e. a target market of 1] with the expectation that the rest of the world will follow. Most of the time that worked because Steve was enough of a visionary and aesthete to make it work. The problem is that when you either a) have satisfied that man's core needs and/or b) no longer have that reference point or driving force, you can't just keep going on momentum. Apple still have amazingly talented people, but they've lost direction because their target market isn't around anymore to tell them what they need to make next. In the meantime other companies are doing real market research and moving forward by taking risks Apple no longer has the drive to make. Unless Apple can find a replacement visionary or learn to do market research and product differentiation again (with a worldwide view), it's likely this will be par for the course. Diversifying their product line and doing more market research is going to cut into profits however, and it will turn them into just another phone/PC company, with above average talent. It won't give them an advantage on bringing out revolutionary products again.
The problem with having someone as creative and dictatorial as Steve Jobs at the top of a company is that, while he may attract brilliant people that enjoy the challenge he offers them, he is unlikely to to attract people with the combination of creative vision and self confidence/leadership necessary to replace him because that type of person will tend to have a personality that will clash with Steve's. Under Jobs, there can be only one ultimate decider, so everyone else loses that skill and replaces it with making decisions they think Steve would approve of. That's extremely self-limiting for creativity.
Either someone in Apple is going to need to rediscover how to develop their own product vision and the confidence to promote it, or Apple is going to have to find a successful medium size hardware tech company that has a seasoned but still fairly young and visionary leader with the right qualities, to buy them out and place them in charge. Is there any company/CEO out there that fits the bill? Because of the patent landmine saturation in the cell and computing market these days, that kind of animal is getting mighty thin in the woods because they're more likely to look for a market where that isn't so much of an issue.
Don't most Android fanboys like to talk up the fact that Android has far more marketshare than the iPhone now? So can you really say that you're going against a "herd mentality" by buying a product that has the marketshare lead?
As the owner of an original Galaxy S, I prefer trendsetter. However I'll recognize precedence by original iPhone owners:-)
I suspect that your recollection of your doctor telling you, "You can't be right, because it conflicts with what I've been taught" is probably no more reliable than your recollection of what I told you just a couple of posts back
True enough. It was over 10 years ago and I was roughly paraphrasing. I'm quite certain of the first of the two parts, that I/my obervations could not be right. I can't remember for certain his exact phrasing for whether his rationale was whether it didn't match or correspond with what he had been taught/read/known. What I do remember is that it was a shocking dispay of close-mindedness that destroyed my trust in him. I had done repeatability tests to the best of my ability (you can't do double blind tests by yourself obviously) and he completely denied the observation and refused to follow up on it.
I don't know about you, but if I see data that I think is suspect and goes against what I believe, then I try to confirm/reproduce the measurement and analyze possible systemic/measurement errors, not just throw out the data point out of hand. He never questioned me further on my "evidence" or my testing methodology to see if I was out to lunch or suggest I perform more repetitions, he just dismissed my claim of causal relationship between ingestion of milk products and specific symptomatic consequences. That said, I can't completely blame him. During early phases of the disease/treatment, I had been massively sleep deprived as a result of the CFS and it had affected my ability effectively report my symptoms. So you could say the doctor-patient relationship had already been substantially weakened but that his action broke it completely.
Because I hadn't yet had a chance to find a new doctor, I later went back to see him about some skin problems that had developed with my left foot. I described that the symptoms primarily showed up after dancing or other exercise, and involved nodules forming that itched like crazy and contained a foul smelling liquid when punctured. I commented that it had started near the center of the plantar fascia and over months the affected area had spread outwardly in a vagely circular pattern until it affected most of the underside of the foot. I suggested perhaps it might be fungal since the spread reminded me somewhat of fairy rings. Again, he ignored and dismissed my observations. I don't remember his exact rationale or phrasing, but he didn't propose anything that would address the issue and I think he basically impled that nothing could be done and I would have to live with it. When I finally got a new doctor, I described the problem to her. She observed that it might be fungal with an atypical presentation (perhaps as a result of dysfunctional immune response due to CFS?) and prescribed an antifungal. I applied it as indicated, my foot burned for 2-3 days and the chronic problem disappeared. This anecdote was included as an example that my capabilities for symptomatic observation should not be too casually dismissed.
The plural of anecdote is not "data."
True enough. There's an anecdote, data for an individual, and data for a population. Since I was concerned about improving my condition, not that of CFS patients in general, I was concerned about identifying what worked to help my case. I looked at what theories were being proposed at the time (many from reports of the then-recent 2004 AACFS conference), and attempted to determine which matched best with my disease progression, symptoms, and response. My observations and treatment plan were consistent with the idea that the primary cause was some sort of immunological dysfunction and that immunological irritants needed to be identified and minimized. I agree that that cannot be a basis for a generalized statement about CFS and immunological causes. However it seems unlikely that my case is unique, particularly since a number of the steps I took with substantial p
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: Code reviews. When you hire a hotshot newbie, you explain to him why it's done through prepared statements. If he understands and follows the secure programming guidelines, then he's gained knowledge and you've gained a better programmer. If you run a code review and find he hasn't learned,... hopefully his probation period isn't complete yet.
The select won't break unless, as you put it a select * is used. But an insert on the base table would break if your additional fld2 is non-nullable without a default value.
Bad choice of example. If somebody wants to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, The Scream, or Rodin's Thinker for their own enjoyment, there's no law against it. If they try to sell it to someone claiming that it's the original, then it's forgery/fraud.
Google's ranking algorithm isn't kept "secret" to prevent other from copying it. Google's ranking algorithm is kept secret to make it harder for people to do "SEO" and game the system to make crap pages reach the highest spots on given queries. What Google is protecting through secrecy of the ranking algorithm isn't the algorithm itself, it's the accuracy of the results.
For the most part I agree with what you say, certainly regarding insurance companies and OnStar. However law enforcement can get a court order to get OnStar to turn on the mic and monitor what's going on in your car, or shut down your engine, even if you haven't paid for the service. And, as has happened with systems like Carnivore, there's a history of surveillance being carried out in the US with minimal or no judicial review under the pretext of national security. So it's better to avoid making it easy for Big Brother (or a rogue law enforcement agent or industrial spy) to spy on you, just on general principle.
You think that a company that is going to hardcode the SSID/WPA password into firmware updates (instead of keeping your current settings) would go to the trouble of customizing a different firmware file for each user so that they can get a high security hardcoded default? Really?
He said George H.W. Bush who, prior to being president and vice president, was CIA director for just under a year in 1976. While this is probably prior to the involvement of CIA with death squads in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, and after the Phoenix Program in VietNam, it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads in Guatemala, Argentina, Chile (very likely), the Phillipines (also very likely) or another country with with one of the right-wing governments known to use death squads to silence political opposition during periods spanning the mid 70s.
While some of the death squad targets may have aguably been combatants like the Afghani and Pakistani targets of current Predator strikes, most were just citizens using speech to raise awareness of injustices perpetrated by the right wing governments and their cronies. You generally don't need death squads to kill combatants because the army can do that job. You use death squads to perform extra-legal killings of civilians in the middle of the night because they are being a political annoyance and you don't have (or can't be bothered to gather) evidence that they are involved in illegal activities.
All because of the fear that those countries would irreparably fall to communism like dominoes even though, when Nicaragua and El Salvador eventually fell, the eventual outcome wasn't as feared.
Heck! Ralph Kramden offered trips for free in the 50s.
Iran claims to have already produced drones using info from the US drone they captured a while back .
That may be true now, but wasn't always the case when the church and state were more closely allied. See the wikipedia entries for tithing in Judaism, Islam, and 17th century France.
Yep. And at the same time it would cut down on speculation in the financial markets and high speed trading arbitrage, which is why the investment banks and brokers in Wall Street and London are so dead set against it. It would cut into a major source of revenue for them, oh and probably help stabilize markets by reducing flash trading.
Churches and tithing?
Yes, and those techniques involve irrigation using so much water taken from the Jordan River that the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea have shrunk dramatically. At this point unless something drastic is done, in another 40 years Palestinians on the "West Bank" will be able to drive to Jordan.
But yeah, those "techniques" are totally sustainable with no side effects, aren't they?
Well, if it's a widget that you use on your Android home page, it doesn't take up too much real estate and compresses multiple steps into one: open browser, open google bookmark or type URL, possibly scroll page to be able to select search entry field, enter search criteria. The Instant search results show up formatted for your phone better than using the Google home page. About the only drawback is that you don't get to see the funny custom google logos.
Shuttleworth was the second private astronaut and flew in April 2002. The last shuttle flight, STS-135, was in 2011. Even when NASA had a shuttle, it still didn't pimp it out (mostly). Teancum makes a good point about the Saudi Prince, however the Saudi in question apparently was payload specialist for deploying an Arab satellite. It's possible that pressure was applied within ARABSAT for him to be picked, especially since his background was a degree in mass communications. But if that's the case then, depending on your point of view, the price for his flight was either way lower or way higher than the ~$20 milion the Russians charged.
All of the seven private space tourists flew on Russian Soyouz. The Russian space program was pretty desperate for money for a few years. NASA don't pimp no shuttle.
When I say complexity, I am taking about the number of interconnections of neurons. The thing about that number of interconnections is that we can observe a continuum of neuronal complexity, from humans down to simple multi-celled organisms. The atomic unit of that structure is the neuron, with one input (axon) and multiple outputs (dendrite). The function governing the outputs based on the input is complex and changes as we learn, the chemical exchange between neurons at the synapse is controlled by regulators that affect neuro-transmitter availability and re-uptake (and therefore signal transmission and strength across the synaptic boundary). However from investigations based on simple neural networks, none of that seems to depend on quantum effects and those individual relationships can be modeled with simple equations. Complex behaviour arises from the complexity of the neural network with more nodes and connections allowing for more complex responses.
Now one thing which is harder to model is how change in the neuronal interconnections is performed. New research from observations of brain plasticity indicates that neurons establish new connections by growing new dendrites. So how the neurons actually determine which new connections and growth need to be created, allowing for major new changes and permanent learning, is still a big question and key to understanding how intelligence develops/refines itself in an individual, But the end result is still a function of the complexity of the neural network.
Oops. screwed up the link
Yeah, apparently Vancouver BC recently got a poor rating from in some sort of fashionista worst-dressed list due to the preponderance of yoga pants in use around here. I kid you not. I just had to shake my head at that one. Not too many straight guys involved in making that decision. :-)
Turbolifts also move horizontally as well as vertically (I got the USS Enterprise plans as a birthday or Christmas gift in the 70's). They're actually closer in concept to a computer-controlled subway system using elevator-sized cars that can move individually, vertically, and horizontally. As you point out, the computer ensures that empty cars are always available for boarding by routing spare cars to replace occupied ones departing from stations. Since occupants don't appear to be affected by directional changes, the cars presumably have their own artificial gravity generator/inertial compensator, independent of the ones in the decks.
Only if you buy into the generally unsupported assertion by Roger Penrose that quantum state and uncertainty is a fundamental component of consciousness. If you use Occam's Razor to prefer the idea that consciousness arises from neuronal complexity, which is more consistent with comparisons of levels of consciousness in primates and animals, and with other aspects of cognitive and biological science, then there's not much reason to require identical quantum states in a copy, just rough relative position and chemical bonds. In a nerve (or other) cell with billions of molecules, it's very unlikely to matter whether the quantum spin and other quantum values of the shared electron in a particular covalent or ionic bond is up or down, as long as the bond exists. Most of the molecular machinery in the body may use quantum interactions, but do so to minimize quantum uncertainty and randomness: for example producing specific orientations on carbon chains in proteins or other organic molecules rather than the random orientation of an uncontrolled chemical reaction sequence. I believe that reactions which need the reactants to be in a particular quantum state would be very few and far between.
The only functional exception I can think of might be for magnetic senses such as in birds, sharks and migratory animals, which would effectively be based on magnetic spin. However it seems at likely that those senses would develop those capabilities through a more easily detectable and controllable summation effect at the atomic level via ferromagnetic ions, such that the aggregate effect also could be more easily reproduced in re-assembly.
When you refresh your product line once a year with only a single new model that has to appeal to everyone, it's hard to out-innovate multiple companies each with a variety of different models targeting different customer needs. The single new model approach is cheaper in terms of design, production, and maintenance costs so you get more profit, but a manufacturer that offers more options is going to have a better chance to match a given customer's preferred feature set at a price point the customer can afford. Competitors can take more risks by introducing features such as dual SIM support, LTE, photo flash, and limiting them to specific models in a product line. Apple doesn't have that alternative and therefore controls risks and costs by not trying options that initially would only have niche appeal, even if there's a chance they might breakout into mainstream appeal.
Apple used to make devices that Jobs wanted/liked [i.e. a target market of 1] with the expectation that the rest of the world will follow. Most of the time that worked because Steve was enough of a visionary and aesthete to make it work. The problem is that when you either a) have satisfied that man's core needs and/or b) no longer have that reference point or driving force, you can't just keep going on momentum. Apple still have amazingly talented people, but they've lost direction because their target market isn't around anymore to tell them what they need to make next. In the meantime other companies are doing real market research and moving forward by taking risks Apple no longer has the drive to make. Unless Apple can find a replacement visionary or learn to do market research and product differentiation again (with a worldwide view), it's likely this will be par for the course. Diversifying their product line and doing more market research is going to cut into profits however, and it will turn them into just another phone/PC company, with above average talent. It won't give them an advantage on bringing out revolutionary products again.
The problem with having someone as creative and dictatorial as Steve Jobs at the top of a company is that, while he may attract brilliant people that enjoy the challenge he offers them, he is unlikely to to attract people with the combination of creative vision and self confidence/leadership necessary to replace him because that type of person will tend to have a personality that will clash with Steve's. Under Jobs, there can be only one ultimate decider, so everyone else loses that skill and replaces it with making decisions they think Steve would approve of. That's extremely self-limiting for creativity.
Either someone in Apple is going to need to rediscover how to develop their own product vision and the confidence to promote it, or Apple is going to have to find a successful medium size hardware tech company that has a seasoned but still fairly young and visionary leader with the right qualities, to buy them out and place them in charge. Is there any company/CEO out there that fits the bill? Because of the patent landmine saturation in the cell and computing market these days, that kind of animal is getting mighty thin in the woods because they're more likely to look for a market where that isn't so much of an issue.
As the owner of an original Galaxy S, I prefer trendsetter. However I'll recognize precedence by original iPhone owners :-)
Steve "Seldon" Jobs?
True enough. It was over 10 years ago and I was roughly paraphrasing. I'm quite certain of the first of the two parts, that I/my obervations could not be right. I can't remember for certain his exact phrasing for whether his rationale was whether it didn't match or correspond with what he had been taught/read/known. What I do remember is that it was a shocking dispay of close-mindedness that destroyed my trust in him. I had done repeatability tests to the best of my ability (you can't do double blind tests by yourself obviously) and he completely denied the observation and refused to follow up on it.
I don't know about you, but if I see data that I think is suspect and goes against what I believe, then I try to confirm/reproduce the measurement and analyze possible systemic/measurement errors, not just throw out the data point out of hand. He never questioned me further on my "evidence" or my testing methodology to see if I was out to lunch or suggest I perform more repetitions, he just dismissed my claim of causal relationship between ingestion of milk products and specific symptomatic consequences. That said, I can't completely blame him. During early phases of the disease/treatment, I had been massively sleep deprived as a result of the CFS and it had affected my ability effectively report my symptoms. So you could say the doctor-patient relationship had already been substantially weakened but that his action broke it completely.
Because I hadn't yet had a chance to find a new doctor, I later went back to see him about some skin problems that had developed with my left foot. I described that the symptoms primarily showed up after dancing or other exercise, and involved nodules forming that itched like crazy and contained a foul smelling liquid when punctured. I commented that it had started near the center of the plantar fascia and over months the affected area had spread outwardly in a vagely circular pattern until it affected most of the underside of the foot. I suggested perhaps it might be fungal since the spread reminded me somewhat of fairy rings. Again, he ignored and dismissed my observations. I don't remember his exact rationale or phrasing, but he didn't propose anything that would address the issue and I think he basically impled that nothing could be done and I would have to live with it. When I finally got a new doctor, I described the problem to her. She observed that it might be fungal with an atypical presentation (perhaps as a result of dysfunctional immune response due to CFS?) and prescribed an antifungal. I applied it as indicated, my foot burned for 2-3 days and the chronic problem disappeared. This anecdote was included as an example that my capabilities for symptomatic observation should not be too casually dismissed.
True enough. There's an anecdote, data for an individual, and data for a population. Since I was concerned about improving my condition, not that of CFS patients in general, I was concerned about identifying what worked to help my case. I looked at what theories were being proposed at the time (many from reports of the then-recent 2004 AACFS conference), and attempted to determine which matched best with my disease progression, symptoms, and response. My observations and treatment plan were consistent with the idea that the primary cause was some sort of immunological dysfunction and that immunological irritants needed to be identified and minimized. I agree that that cannot be a basis for a generalized statement about CFS and immunological causes. However it seems unlikely that my case is unique, particularly since a number of the steps I took with substantial p