Although IANAL, I am pretty sure that the burden of finding out if prior art exists rest with the person applying for a patent. This is part of the reason why, if you apply for a patent, you are advised to spend lots of money on patent lawyers and speacilists. The patent office only do quick searches to make sure you havent missed something obvious. If they were to do a full search, the costs would be ridiculous.
Nonetheless, a little common sense wouldnt go amiss.
Re:Prevailing market conditions...
on
No Solaris 9 for x86
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Yes, in terms of actual revenue Solaris on Intel is a complete failure. In fact, it is farcical. But I dont think Sun ever considered it to be a primary business venture - more of a 'loss leader'.
And it has done this admirably. I learnt Solaris largely by playing around on my x86. It was fun - I really learned it like I wouldnt have done with a production system - man, I mangled that f*cker no end. Not that I could really do anything hugely useful with Slowaris that I couldnt do better with BSD/linux, but that wasnt the point. I have taken my experience with x86 Solaris onto using a 4500 workstation, where it is a good option for what we are doing. Who knows, if I hadnt had that first hand experience with Solaris, Sun may have been a few hundred thousand worse off.
On the other hand, I doubt the experiment as a 'tester' was really worth the expenditure. The growing diversty in the x86 world was prolly the big killer, what with all these various chips and chipsets etc.
You have to remember that we are talking about colleges here.
No wonder they think linux technical support sucks. I rang the college computer helpdesk about a problem with NT networking. Three months later, someone strolled into the office and said they were here to fix an NT computer. I nearly died laughing. Of course, we had managed to fix it ourselves along time ago...
I can just imagine ringing up the Helpdesk:
Q:
"Hi, I need the IP address of the college DNS servers to configure my redhat networking?"
A:
"Wow! They have windows running on Hats now aswell? Jeez, these microsoft guys are smart."
Most posts I have just read are pretty critical of this guys suggestion. I have to agree with them. I dont see a great problem with the "filing cabinet/russian doll hybrid" paradigm of the filesystem. It seems pretty logical and inutuitive to me.
However, I think I should have a go at arguing for this guys idea, as nobody else is!
On my computer, I use multiple desktops. I have one for work stuff - star office, kpresenter etc. I have another desktop for multimedia - xmms, mplayer, realplayer etc, a 3rd desktop for gaming, and a 4th (spare!) desktop. Yes, I am a bit wierd and anal (see yesterdays discussion about autism!). Furthermore, I usually organise my linux consoles in a similar way - tty1-2 for root access, the rest for userland stuff, another one for tailing logs and a vt100 open at the end (comes in usefull on occasion).
I find this logical division of "desktops" enables me to better organise myself. I dont see why MS Windows couldnt enable this for Harry Homeowner. Somewhere on the taskbar is a shortcut for desktops. It is trivial to change/add/remove desktops. When you install a game, it is "installed" to the game desktop. There is a shortcut on the desktop/start bar for that desktop. The working directory for that game is on the desktop. For many users, who just need Office, Explorer, winamp and a few games this might work.
However, I can think of a number of problems that would need to be overcome. What about generic applications, which you may need on a number of desktops? What about applications which dont fit into any desktop category? What happens when the desktop starts getting to cluttered? What happens if you want to open Word and that RPG on the same desktop (i.e. so you could copy and paste the final text into word, to prove you had completed the game to an equally sad friend)? I'm sure most of these problems are trivial to overcome, but you will surely encounter further difficulties.
Finally, I dont think you can ever get rid of the Hard Drive icon. Yeah, just hide it away, so Harry doesnt get confused by it. But it still needs to be there for power users.
Seriously though, there is a beautiful ineffable quality in hiding something just below the surface. There is something fun about hiding thing's in your own creation, that perhaps the occasional observant individual ot jammy git will discover. There is also something fun in discovering them - that feeling of conspiracy between you and the author, that you share a secret that few others know about.
Anyway.... about cool game hacks. I have seen (or not seen, as the case may be) in Quake II, an "invisible" player:
"WTF? Why is the wall shooting me?"
Also, I see this guy who was running around at about 200mph.... like his game character was caffiened up to the eyeballs.
It's actually quite amusing at first, and a rather cool hack. Yes, it can be annoying. However, the really decent players have a tendency to hunt down and specifically annihilate/embarrass any cheats.
I could have my facts wrong here (help me out...), but I believe this used to be called "smurfing". There is also some unrelated cracking technique called smurfing I think. I remember hearing a story about one of the very first networked academic computers. They had this old vector-based dog-fighting game. One day, a few people were playing. Suddenly, the Enterprise appears from nowhere, and instantly destroys all the players with a photon torpedo. To this day, nobody knows who it was, or how it was achieved.
I am *really* trying hard not to flame these days.... but:
"Studies have shown that problems with inbreeding only occur after many generations of close relatives breeding together"
That is patently bullshit. Please would you point me to the references for these "studies" and I will tear them up along with your post.
OK, here goes. This is pointless, but I feel compelled to demolish you fallacy:
There are thousands of single-gene "monogenic" disorders. A Good example is Cystic Fibrosis, although you could replace this in the example for countless diseases. Cystic fibrosis is a recessive disease. This means that you have two copies of the gene (called CFTR), and if both are "damaged" or mutated, you will have the disease. However, if you have only one mutated copy, you are just fine. In this case you are a "carrier" for CF - but you will probably never know it.
Now let's take the example that you are a carrier for CF. About 1/20 people are carriers for a mutated CFTR gene, so this is not unlikely. Now, you have a 1/20 chance of marrying somebody who also is a carrier for CF. If you did marry someone who was a carrier, each child you give birth to will have a chance of having CF. Each child will have a 1/2 chance of inheriting your "bad" copy of the gene, and a 1/2 chance of inheriting your partners "bad" copy of the gene. 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4, so there would be a 1/4 chance of the child having full blown CF. So overall, you would have a 1/20 (chance of meeting somebody else with CF) x 1/4 chance of having a child with CF:
= 1/20 x 1/4 = 1/80 chance of giving birth to a single CF child, if you are a carrier and marry a random individual.
Now consider having a child with your sister [er... rather not - ed.]. She shares 50% of your genetic makeup. Therefore if you have a single mutated copy of the CF gene, she has a 1/2 chance of having that bad copy. Therefore:
= 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 chance of giving birth to a single CF child if you are a carrier and have a child with your sister
So, quite evidently, if you are a carrier for a "recessive monogenic" disorder, the chances of having an abnormal child are HUGELY increased with inbreeding - within a single generation. This same principal applies to other modes of inheritance and more complex traits - such as heart disease or diabetes. The maths is a little more complicated though. Furthermore, every person is a "carrier" for on average TWO inherited diseases. This seems like a lot, but just remember that the chances of meeting someone else who also happens to be a carrier for the same disease is very rare. Unless you happen to have sex with a relative. In which case, you are very likely to have an abnormal child.
Despite what the twat above said, I seriously advise you *NOT* to start going out and making bacon with your auntie.
Studies have been conducted on pheromones. Men actually wore shirts until they got all smelly. Then women smelled them. The ones they thought smelled good belonged to men with complimentary genes and immunities.
From The Real Life Markeup Language (RLML) standard, revision III, subsection 7f.d:
"Flag any sentence contianing the phrase "pheremone" as potential bullshit"
Interesting comment. I think you are quite right about the link between modern lifestyle (post industrial-revolution) and the rise in certain diseases.
However, despite the persuasive argument, I have to disagree with this:
It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding.
There is a compelling evolutionary argument that people subconciously select partners who are of a distinct genetic make-up. Alot of this debate has centered around "HLA haplotypes". These cell-surface antigens help the immune system distinguish between inate and foreign matter within the body. If everybody had the same HLA haplotype, it would be trivial for bacterial diseases to mimic the HLA type and thus sweep through the world population. Of course, diversity has evolved within HLA genes to stop this happening. Furthermore, the argument is that people purposefully mate with partners who have a different HLA haplotype and thus create new combinations of HLA genes. This will create a child much less susceptible to disease than an inbred child, who would have a HLA type similar to the rest of the family.
This is quite a compelliung argument and may operate at other levels than HLA. Before someone argues "But why arent there lots of inter-racial mariages?", it has to be said that this proposed phenomenon would be extremely complex with many confounding socio-economic confounding factors. Furthermore, the jury is still out. Much of the molecular evedince has been confusing and contradictory.
In summary, I think it is highly likely that mechanisms exist to stop exactly this type of "accidental inbreeding".
However, (...there always has to be a "however,".../tangent) I guess what I was trying to get across is that helping these people is not necessarily at the expense of their individuality. For example, I have (and still do, on occasion) suffered from depression. I would agree with you that this "flaw" is what makes me part of who I am. It has allowed my insights and perspectives I would never have otherwise. I consider myself pretty *special* or unique in my thinking (don't we all...). However, I am darn thankful for no longer suffering from serious depression. Not helping someone in this state is not fair (see my above post). Helping them is not necessarily at the expense of their unique abilities, and IMHO it can often enhance peoples gifts and allow their full expression
Dont compare someone with diabeties or cancer to someone with Autism.
If you actually read what I was saying, you would understand that I was comparing the genetic/environmental causes of these disorders, rather than comparing them at a medical/sociological level. Which is quite valid, because there are similarities between the causes.
Someone with a REAL disease which they can die from needs help.
Autism is a "REAL" disease, for fucks sake. Just because a disease is psychological and does not appear to be an immediate threat, it does not mean it isn't a problem.
Take your example of depression. A lot of depressed people commit suicide. Other than bringing to an end all the potential of their future life, it also has consequences for family, friends and colleagues. A lot of depressed people refuse treatment. A lot of idiots think depressed people should "pull their socks up", "knock it off", "stop attracting attention", etc. However, depression is a serious, medical disorder which should be treated by appropriate means - counselling, cognitive psychology, seratonin reuptake inhibitors, etc. Leaving them in a depressed state is not fair. Ever been depressed? It's not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a family member who is depressed? Its not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a work colleague with depression? They are not very productive. Ever seen someone for whom Prozac worked, without side affects? The change is profound and beautiful. You see the person come back to life.
Yes, maybe i am pushing my definition of social normality onto other people. But in certain cases it is hard to argue how not doing so is of benefit to that person. Sure, if somebody is a bit *special*, and is happy, fulfilled, and of no harm to themselves and others, then fine. If they could be helped in some way - help them. I don't see what the problem is here.
You're choice of depression was not a good one. It is a largely misunderstood disease. However, there is a deep philosophical point you were trying to make. At what point does someone need help? Where, on the scale from normality to disease, should we intervene? Should we help people who refuse treatment, even when the refusal is a consequence of this disease? Is the reason for treatment limited to the person involved, or should we take a wider stance, and consider the consequences of disease and subsequent treatment on society?
These are difficult questions. You and I cannot answer them. I am not even sure if society can answer them. I guess this is an example where democracy is an imperfect solution, but it's the best solution we've got. Opinions?
Mike Tyson, I'm sure he could use some anger management classes, but for a boxer, his anger is what made him champion of the world.
Um, maybe if he had taken anger management courses, he wouldn't have ended up in prison, and hurt those around him. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.
If thats true, why do people treat autism like its a disease, when its just genetics.
WTF does that mean? There are many inherited diseases. For example, Thallasemia - the most common monogenic (single gene) disorder in the world. Or sickle cell disease. Or Cyctic fibrosis. Or Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Or Prader-Willi Syndrome. Or DiGeorge syndrome. Or Angelmann syndrome. I could go on....
All these are considered "syndromes" or "Diseases", despite the fact thay are at least in part "genetic". In fact, many of the worlds most common diseases (including autism) are the result of a combination of environmental and inherited factors - so called "multifactorial" disorders. Such as diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.
Instead of focusing on labeling people and giving them drugs
Labelling people is actually pretty important step of helping them. For example:
Doctor1: "this man need's help"
Doctor2: "Whats wrong with him?"
Doctor1: "Er, he's got that thing, you know, the doobree, where they are, er, a bit shy. Talk funny, oh c'mon... you must know it!"
Who said we were just giving them drugs? From the article
"In the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in developing methods of behavioral training that help autistic children find ways to communicate. These techniques, however, require prodigious amounts of persistence, time, money, and love. Though more than half a century has passed since Kanner and Asperger first gave a name to autism, there is still no known cause, no miracle drug, and no cure. "
if they end up becoming the next einstiens is it worth it?
Yes. There's no point in being a genius if you are unable to communicate your idea's. Or if you are isolated, unhappy and socially inept. I would much rather be socially included in society, than be a genius outsider.
They've known that Nick was an unusual child for a long time. He's infatuated with fantasy novels...
[Asperger's patients are] children who lack basic social and motor skills, seem unable to decode body language and sense the feelings of others, avoid eye contact, and frequently launch into monologues about narrowly defined - and often highly technical - interests.
OMFG this is revolutionary:
There are Geeks in silicon valley!
And they knew about this since October. Sheesh.... this is just typical non-disclosure tactics. I bet they just couldnt be bothered to fix it, so they didnt tell anyone. This is an impingement on my basic freedom and right to fix security loopholes on my own box.
If you discover microsoft doing something that appears to go against the anti-trust case, how do you intend to enforce your decision? What powers will you be given to enforce that decision? Could this not just end up again with another almighty legal battle?
yeah, see my reply above as an AC about netscape being shitty. Its just that i am a browser junkie - ie, netscape, mozilla, opera, k-meleon (looking promising, very promising - but not there yet), konquerer, galeon (my favourite - truly next-gen user interface - IE will be stealing many of their idea's), whatever. I use them all. And my current flavour of the month is browsex - tiny footprint, liteweight, displays most things perfectly. Not all the bells and whistles, but that can be a good thing. Just a shame the name sounds like some perveted sexual fetish for men who can only achieve orgasm by having copulation with eye brows.
1. Unoriginal headlines!
2. Repeated Stories
3. VA Linux --> VA software
4. Editors dont even bother reading the homepage
5. Editors dont post anymore
6. Threats of subscription
7. Threats of more intrusive advertising
--and finally, the real killer--
8. The trolls are becoming really quite imaginitive, original and funny.
Seriously though, for every duplicate story i'm sure there is a real peach missed./. really need to sort this out pronto. Even if the editors dont bother reading there own website, the could at least have the decency to search the archives from the last couple of weeks for duplicates before posting.
Why has the Hobbit been ignored for so long, whilst they are making LOTR for the second time?
In contrast to LOTR, the Hobbit is ideal film material. Its short, nice tight storyline, gripping throughout, doesnt lag anywhere, get tired or have dull spots and is a kids classic.
I dont see why they didnt make the Hobbit first as a primer/tester for the LOTR.
As a LOTR enthusiast on slightly the wrong side of fanatical, what should I do?
[ ] Not go and see any of the films - it would corrupt my imagination
[ ] Wait until 2002, and see all three films in one 9 hour sitting.
[ ] Stop being a nincompoop and go and enjoy the film.
This may look like a joke, but I am serious. I will stand bye the/. majority. So go ahead, please cast votes 1, 2 or 3 as an AC.
Also, some more purist than me are apparantly a bit pissed off. They cook tomatoes in the film (gasp - a new world fruit!) and the elves have a penchant for polyurethane garden accessories. Furthermore, how come is it that I post all but one of the links given in the parent (about 12 hours ago), but my comment gets rejected?
Slashdot Mirror
Although IANAL, I am pretty sure that the burden of finding out if prior art exists rest with the person applying for a patent. This is part of the reason why, if you apply for a patent, you are advised to spend lots of money on patent lawyers and speacilists. The patent office only do quick searches to make sure you havent missed something obvious. If they were to do a full search, the costs would be ridiculous.
Nonetheless, a little common sense wouldnt go amiss.
eh yeah. ;-) in my dreams.
well spotted. my wrong.
Yes, in terms of actual revenue Solaris on Intel is a complete failure. In fact, it is farcical. But I dont think Sun ever considered it to be a primary business venture - more of a 'loss leader'.
And it has done this admirably. I learnt Solaris largely by playing around on my x86. It was fun - I really learned it like I wouldnt have done with a production system - man, I mangled that f*cker no end. Not that I could really do anything hugely useful with Slowaris that I couldnt do better with BSD/linux, but that wasnt the point. I have taken my experience with x86 Solaris onto using a 4500 workstation, where it is a good option for what we are doing. Who knows, if I hadnt had that first hand experience with Solaris, Sun may have been a few hundred thousand worse off.
On the other hand, I doubt the experiment as a 'tester' was really worth the expenditure. The growing diversty in the x86 world was prolly the big killer, what with all these various chips and chipsets etc.
No wonder they think linux technical support sucks. I rang the college computer helpdesk about a problem with NT networking. Three months later, someone strolled into the office and said they were here to fix an NT computer. I nearly died laughing. Of course, we had managed to fix it ourselves along time ago...
I can just imagine ringing up the Helpdesk:
Q:
"Hi, I need the IP address of the college DNS servers to configure my redhat networking?"
A:
"Wow! They have windows running on Hats now aswell? Jeez, these microsoft guys are smart."
Dont tell *anyone*.
The events of september the 11th have shown us that al Qaeda are very, very good at keeping secrets.
Therefore this is a hoax or deliberate scaremongering tactics.
Most posts I have just read are pretty critical of this guys suggestion. I have to agree with them. I dont see a great problem with the "filing cabinet/russian doll hybrid" paradigm of the filesystem. It seems pretty logical and inutuitive to me.
However, I think I should have a go at arguing for this guys idea, as nobody else is!
On my computer, I use multiple desktops. I have one for work stuff - star office, kpresenter etc. I have another desktop for multimedia - xmms, mplayer, realplayer etc, a 3rd desktop for gaming, and a 4th (spare!) desktop. Yes, I am a bit wierd and anal (see yesterdays discussion about autism!). Furthermore, I usually organise my linux consoles in a similar way - tty1-2 for root access, the rest for userland stuff, another one for tailing logs and a vt100 open at the end (comes in usefull on occasion).
I find this logical division of "desktops" enables me to better organise myself. I dont see why MS Windows couldnt enable this for Harry Homeowner. Somewhere on the taskbar is a shortcut for desktops. It is trivial to change/add/remove desktops. When you install a game, it is "installed" to the game desktop. There is a shortcut on the desktop/start bar for that desktop. The working directory for that game is on the desktop. For many users, who just need Office, Explorer, winamp and a few games this might work.
However, I can think of a number of problems that would need to be overcome. What about generic applications, which you may need on a number of desktops? What about applications which dont fit into any desktop category? What happens when the desktop starts getting to cluttered? What happens if you want to open Word and that RPG on the same desktop (i.e. so you could copy and paste the final text into word, to prove you had completed the game to an equally sad friend)? I'm sure most of these problems are trivial to overcome, but you will surely encounter further difficulties.
Finally, I dont think you can ever get rid of the Hard Drive icon. Yeah, just hide it away, so Harry doesnt get confused by it. But it still needs to be there for power users.
Because Easter Eggs Rulez!
. There is something fun about hiding thing's in your own creation, that perhaps the occasional observant individual ot jammy git will discover. There is also something fun in discovering them - that feeling of conspiracy between you and the author, that you share a secret that few others know about.
Seriously though, there is a beautiful ineffable quality in hiding something just below the surface
Anyway.... about cool game hacks. I have seen (or not seen, as the case may be) in Quake II, an "invisible" player:
"WTF? Why is the wall shooting me?"
Also, I see this guy who was running around at about 200mph.... like his game character was caffiened up to the eyeballs.
It's actually quite amusing at first, and a rather cool hack. Yes, it can be annoying. However, the really decent players have a tendency to hunt down and specifically annihilate/embarrass any cheats.
I could have my facts wrong here (help me out...), but I believe this used to be called "smurfing". There is also some unrelated cracking technique called smurfing I think. I remember hearing a story about one of the very first networked academic computers. They had this old vector-based dog-fighting game. One day, a few people were playing. Suddenly, the Enterprise appears from nowhere, and instantly destroys all the players with a photon torpedo. To this day, nobody knows who it was, or how it was achieved.
I am *really* trying hard not to flame these days.... but:
"Studies have shown that problems with inbreeding only occur after many generations of close relatives breeding together"
That is patently bullshit. Please would you point me to the references for these "studies" and I will tear them up along with your post.
OK, here goes. This is pointless, but I feel compelled to demolish you fallacy:
There are thousands of single-gene "monogenic" disorders. A Good example is Cystic Fibrosis, although you could replace this in the example for countless diseases. Cystic fibrosis is a recessive disease. This means that you have two copies of the gene (called CFTR), and if both are "damaged" or mutated, you will have the disease. However, if you have only one mutated copy, you are just fine. In this case you are a "carrier" for CF - but you will probably never know it.
Now let's take the example that you are a carrier for CF. About 1/20 people are carriers for a mutated CFTR gene, so this is not unlikely. Now, you have a 1/20 chance of marrying somebody who also is a carrier for CF. If you did marry someone who was a carrier, each child you give birth to will have a chance of having CF. Each child will have a 1/2 chance of inheriting your "bad" copy of the gene, and a 1/2 chance of inheriting your partners "bad" copy of the gene. 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4, so there would be a 1/4 chance of the child having full blown CF. So overall, you would have a 1/20 (chance of meeting somebody else with CF) x 1/4 chance of having a child with CF:
= 1/20 x 1/4 = 1/80 chance of giving birth to a single CF child, if you are a carrier and marry a random individual.
Now consider having a child with your sister [er... rather not - ed.]. She shares 50% of your genetic makeup. Therefore if you have a single mutated copy of the CF gene, she has a 1/2 chance of having that bad copy. Therefore:
= 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 chance of giving birth to a single CF child if you are a carrier and have a child with your sister
So, quite evidently, if you are a carrier for a "recessive monogenic" disorder, the chances of having an abnormal child are HUGELY increased with inbreeding - within a single generation. This same principal applies to other modes of inheritance and more complex traits - such as heart disease or diabetes. The maths is a little more complicated though. Furthermore, every person is a "carrier" for on average TWO inherited diseases. This seems like a lot, but just remember that the chances of meeting someone else who also happens to be a carrier for the same disease is very rare. Unless you happen to have sex with a relative. In which case, you are very likely to have an abnormal child.
Despite what the twat above said, I seriously advise you *NOT* to start going out and making bacon with your auntie.
You're right though. I was talking about this
"Now, you can have the sexual secret of European men"
ROFL - IAAEM
Soon, all slashdot post's will become reduced to a PGP signature
From The Real Life Markeup Language (RLML) standard, revision III, subsection 7f.d:
"Flag any sentence contianing the phrase "pheremone" as potential bullshit"
How do you make a hormone? Dont pay her!
Interesting comment. I think you are quite right about the link between modern lifestyle (post industrial-revolution) and the rise in certain diseases.
However, despite the persuasive argument, I have to disagree with this:
It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding.
There is a compelling evolutionary argument that people subconciously select partners who are of a distinct genetic make-up. Alot of this debate has centered around "HLA haplotypes". These cell-surface antigens help the immune system distinguish between inate and foreign matter within the body. If everybody had the same HLA haplotype, it would be trivial for bacterial diseases to mimic the HLA type and thus sweep through the world population. Of course, diversity has evolved within HLA genes to stop this happening. Furthermore, the argument is that people purposefully mate with partners who have a different HLA haplotype and thus create new combinations of HLA genes. This will create a child much less susceptible to disease than an inbred child, who would have a HLA type similar to the rest of the family.
This is quite a compelliung argument and may operate at other levels than HLA. Before someone argues "But why arent there lots of inter-racial mariages?", it has to be said that this proposed phenomenon would be extremely complex with many confounding socio-economic confounding factors. Furthermore, the jury is still out. Much of the molecular evedince has been confusing and contradictory.
In summary, I think it is highly likely that mechanisms exist to stop exactly this type of "accidental inbreeding".
A good point, well made - I concede.
However, (...there always has to be a "however,".../tangent) I guess what I was trying to get across is that helping these people is not necessarily at the expense of their individuality. For example, I have (and still do, on occasion) suffered from depression. I would agree with you that this "flaw" is what makes me part of who I am. It has allowed my insights and perspectives I would never have otherwise. I consider myself pretty *special* or unique in my thinking (don't we all...). However, I am darn thankful for no longer suffering from serious depression. Not helping someone in this state is not fair (see my above post). Helping them is not necessarily at the expense of their unique abilities, and IMHO it can often enhance peoples gifts and allow their full expression
Dont compare someone with diabeties or cancer to someone with Autism.
If you actually read what I was saying, you would understand that I was comparing the genetic/environmental causes of these disorders, rather than comparing them at a medical/sociological level. Which is quite valid, because there are similarities between the causes.
Someone with a REAL disease which they can die from needs help.
Autism is a "REAL" disease, for fucks sake. Just because a disease is psychological and does not appear to be an immediate threat, it does not mean it isn't a problem.
Take your example of depression. A lot of depressed people commit suicide. Other than bringing to an end all the potential of their future life, it also has consequences for family, friends and colleagues. A lot of depressed people refuse treatment. A lot of idiots think depressed people should "pull their socks up", "knock it off", "stop attracting attention", etc. However, depression is a serious, medical disorder which should be treated by appropriate means - counselling, cognitive psychology, seratonin reuptake inhibitors, etc. Leaving them in a depressed state is not fair. Ever been depressed? It's not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a family member who is depressed? Its not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a work colleague with depression? They are not very productive. Ever seen someone for whom Prozac worked, without side affects? The change is profound and beautiful. You see the person come back to life.
Yes, maybe i am pushing my definition of social normality onto other people. But in certain cases it is hard to argue how not doing so is of benefit to that person. Sure, if somebody is a bit *special*, and is happy, fulfilled, and of no harm to themselves and others, then fine. If they could be helped in some way - help them. I don't see what the problem is here.
You're choice of depression was not a good one. It is a largely misunderstood disease. However, there is a deep philosophical point you were trying to make. At what point does someone need help? Where, on the scale from normality to disease, should we intervene? Should we help people who refuse treatment, even when the refusal is a consequence of this disease? Is the reason for treatment limited to the person involved, or should we take a wider stance, and consider the consequences of disease and subsequent treatment on society?
These are difficult questions. You and I cannot answer them. I am not even sure if society can answer them. I guess this is an example where democracy is an imperfect solution, but it's the best solution we've got. Opinions?
Mike Tyson, I'm sure he could use some anger management classes, but for a boxer, his anger is what made him champion of the world.
Um, maybe if he had taken anger management courses, he wouldn't have ended up in prison, and hurt those around him. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.
If thats true, why do people treat autism like its a disease, when its just genetics.
WTF does that mean? There are many inherited diseases. For example, Thallasemia - the most common monogenic (single gene) disorder in the world. Or sickle cell disease. Or Cyctic fibrosis. Or Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Or Prader-Willi Syndrome. Or DiGeorge syndrome. Or Angelmann syndrome. I could go on....
All these are considered "syndromes" or "Diseases", despite the fact thay are at least in part "genetic". In fact, many of the worlds most common diseases (including autism) are the result of a combination of environmental and inherited factors - so called "multifactorial" disorders. Such as diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.
Instead of focusing on labeling people and giving them drugs
Labelling people is actually pretty important step of helping them. For example:
Doctor1: "this man need's help"
Doctor2: "Whats wrong with him?"
Doctor1: "Er, he's got that thing, you know, the doobree, where they are, er, a bit shy. Talk funny, oh c'mon... you must know it!"
Who said we were just giving them drugs? From the article
"In the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in developing methods of behavioral training that help autistic children find ways to communicate. These techniques, however, require prodigious amounts of persistence, time, money, and love. Though more than half a century has passed since Kanner and Asperger first gave a name to autism, there is still no known cause, no miracle drug, and no cure. "
if they end up becoming the next einstiens is it worth it?
Yes. There's no point in being a genius if you are unable to communicate your idea's. Or if you are isolated, unhappy and socially inept. I would much rather be socially included in society, than be a genius outsider.
They've known that Nick was an unusual child for a long time. He's infatuated with fantasy novels...
[Asperger's patients are] children who lack basic social and motor skills, seem unable to decode body language and sense the feelings of others, avoid eye contact, and frequently launch into monologues about narrowly defined - and often highly technical - interests.
OMFG this is revolutionary:
There are Geeks in silicon valley!
And they knew about this since October. Sheesh.... this is just typical non-disclosure tactics. I bet they just couldnt be bothered to fix it, so they didnt tell anyone. This is an impingement on my basic freedom and right to fix security loopholes on my own box.
If you discover microsoft doing something that appears to go against the anti-trust case, how do you intend to enforce your decision? What powers will you be given to enforce that decision? Could this not just end up again with another almighty legal battle?
yeah, see my reply above as an AC about netscape being shitty. Its just that i am a browser junkie - ie, netscape, mozilla, opera, k-meleon (looking promising, very promising - but not there yet), konquerer, galeon (my favourite - truly next-gen user interface - IE will be stealing many of their idea's), whatever. I use them all. And my current flavour of the month is browsex - tiny footprint, liteweight, displays most things perfectly. Not all the bells and whistles, but that can be a good thing. Just a shame the name sounds like some perveted sexual fetish for men who can only achieve orgasm by having copulation with eye brows.
--MB
"An interview with Miguel de Icaza on MSDN?"
-- I thought --
"Hey, maybe they arent such a bad bunch after all..."
Then, I clicked on the link, and my netscape browser promptly crashed.
The evidence:
/. really need to sort this out pronto. Even if the editors dont bother reading there own website, the could at least have the decency to search the archives from the last couple of weeks for duplicates before posting.
1. Unoriginal headlines!
2. Repeated Stories
3. VA Linux --> VA software
4. Editors dont even bother reading the homepage
5. Editors dont post anymore
6. Threats of subscription
7. Threats of more intrusive advertising
--and finally, the real killer--
8. The trolls are becoming really quite imaginitive, original and funny.
Seriously though, for every duplicate story i'm sure there is a real peach missed.
Thats not a Hobbit, thats a......
.....thats a muther fucking cabbage patch kid
looks more like a hobbit than Elijah Wood though!
The user ratings are already pouring in on imdb, by the way. And its looking good. Very good.
They don't own the movie rights to it.
Oh yes they do:
"New Line picked-up the rights to `Lord of the Rings` and Tolkien's other seminal classic `The Hobbit` from Miramax Films."
You may well be moderated as "Troll", but there is something sad but true about what you say.
Apparantly Tolkien himself sold the rights to the film, way back in the 1969. For £10,000.
From the BBC
Actually quite an insightful comment.
Why has the Hobbit been ignored for so long, whilst they are making LOTR for the second time?
In contrast to LOTR, the Hobbit is ideal film material. Its short, nice tight storyline, gripping throughout, doesnt lag anywhere, get tired or have dull spots and is a kids classic.
I dont see why they didnt make the Hobbit first as a primer/tester for the LOTR.
As a LOTR enthusiast on slightly the wrong side of fanatical, what should I do?
/. majority. So go ahead, please cast votes 1, 2 or 3 as an AC.
[ ] Not go and see any of the films - it would corrupt my imagination
[ ] Wait until 2002, and see all three films in one 9 hour sitting.
[ ] Stop being a nincompoop and go and enjoy the film.
This may look like a joke, but I am serious. I will stand bye the
Also, some more purist than me are apparantly a bit pissed off. They cook tomatoes in the film (gasp - a new world fruit!) and the elves have a penchant for polyurethane garden accessories. Furthermore, how come is it that I post all but one of the links given in the parent (about 12 hours ago), but my comment gets rejected?