Maybe it's different if you are making "arty" websites, but for websites that just want to present information in an attractive way (i.e. every website I can think of outside of graphic design), I really don't see any need.
The pages I have to code are artsy as all hell. Everyone on my team is a graphic designer. Perhaps you see no need becuase your experience is limited.
I agree. But I think exactly the same thing about table layouts. I think the only reason people call them "intuitive" is because they've been doing them for years.
Perhaps if there were a clear document explaining how commonly-used table-based designs would be rendered in CSS, then I would sympathize with this point. Since I have never seen any such document, and, furthermore, since three CSS experts found a common example of translating a common table-based design into CSS "kludgey" and "nonintutive", then you really don't have much to stand on here. Sometimes CSS just doesn't make the grade.
You can say that about any technology really (table layout bigot example), if you use that as a reason to avoid CSS, then you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I feel like you are proving my point by resorting to the argument that I must be stupid if I don't properly accept your favorite technology. It's not like children will be tortured to death if I don't immediately turn all of my tables into divs, so, please, try to relax. Will you please accept that my situation might be different from yours and CSS might be more trouble than it's worth in regards to solving my problems? Will you please concede that my choosing to not use "perfect" CSS in all instances (remember, I still use it, and frequently!) might have nothing to do with my stupidity or my lack of discipline?
Believe me, I still use CSS even despite all the harsh things I've said about it! I think my gripe comes in two forms:
1. For some layouts, CSS just can't cut it the same way that tables can. Not all layouts, just some layouts.
2. CSS syntax, behavior, and debugging are arcane and unintutive.
Well, let's add a third gripe:
3. CSS advocates are often times really snotty, mean, and religious about CSS. They treat me like I'm some kind of retarded hick because I dare name a class "OrangeBox" or use a table to lay out a site.
And this is why I think we need to re-evaluate our use of CSS. It is not *yet* the cure-all that we want it to be. Let's not put too much effort into rigorous adherence to standards as such efforts will ultimately be futile in one way or another. I mean, if three CSS experts can't lay out a two-column site without nonintuitive kludges, then what hope does a neophyte like myself have at achieving "CSS purity"?
I haven't read the book, but since you haven't provided any quotes, I can only assume you are misrepresenting what the book says, because two column websites are ten a penny and dead simple to create with CSS. You certainly don't need a team of experts.
We all know what assuming does. I searched the book for about 20 minutes by hand until I finally found the section, and I quote it here:
"When A List Apart magazine converting from HTML tables to CSS layout in February 2001, it took three designers, including this author, to figure out how to do it. The two others were experts Fahrner (who contributed to the CSS specifications) and Celik (who contributed to the CSS specifications and built the Tasman rendering engine in IE5/Mac). The original, table-based design was essentially a two-column layout with a liquid content area and a right-hand sidebar whose width was cast in stone. Between the three of us, we managed to achieve roughly the same effect in CSS using the nonintuitive method sketched in the preceding paragraph. The overall width is kludged with values that never add up to exactly 100%. It should not be that hard to create a two-column layout combining liquid and fixed elements." Jeffrey Zeldman, _Designing with Web Standards_, p. 281
Read a few of the choice quotes:
- "The other two were experts..." - "...using the nonintuitive method..." - "The over width is kluged..." - "It should not be that hard [to create what is otherwise a simple design using the inferior, table-based method]"
Honestly, Zeldman wrote a book that was intended to "convert" me to the CSS mindset, but, reading what he writes here, it seems that I'm destined to find at least some degree of failure or imperfection. It leads me to believe that "no, it's not just me" when CSS seems kludged and nonintuitive (if I may borrow a few of Zeldman's adjectives to describe CSS).
Client: We'd like to have a three column layout now please.
Result: P.I.T.A.
I suppose I should thank god such a thing has never happened to me. It seems to me that in the eyes of CSS adherents, 100% of web pages are wildly fluid things that change with the winds, and wildly. Maybe that can be said for some development projects, but, in my experience, it's just not that bad. My problem is not that my clients are as fickle as you make them out to be, but rather that CSS is near impossible to do correctly for some simple tasks. Solve the real problem, not the hypothetical one!
#wrap {background url(2_col_background.png) top left no-repeat;} #col_1 {width: 200px; float: left;} #col_1 {float: right;} #footer {clear: both;}
The trick is in the backgound image,
I described CSS as "arbitrary" and "arcane", and your code example is illustrative of my point. I suppose the "clear: both;" should have been obvious to me? Furthermore, why should such a simple layout require a "trick" (as in your background image)? I conclude that it is too early to try to adhere to CSS standards with any rigor.
The problem is not CSS itself, but the various implementations of it. A two column layout is piss-easy in theory, but getting it to look the same in mozilla/MSIE/Opera and friends is another matter altogether.
And then I get flamed because I'm using tables for layout instead of CSS. But it takes 3 CSS experts to code such a thing using CSS.
And don't get me wrong: it very well likely is the browsers that are to blame for much of this problem. This doesn't mean that using CSS to do what appears to be rather simple things is, at times, really difficult. Hence, we should re-evaluate whether or not we should be putting so much effort into coding "purely" as is desired by CSS advocates. It's just too early to be such strong devotees to a good idea.
I'm a programmer who has been thrust into the world of CSS and been on many occasions quite frustrated with it. It seems arbitrary, arcane, and particularly difficult to debug. On top of that, it seems to have a set of zealots who defend it (and demand it) with bitter viciousness.
I had concluded that CSS was "programmer-friendly" in the same way that a rusty jigsaw was "penis-friendly".
I recently picked up a book entitled _Designing with Web Standards_ by Jeffrey Zeldman. It's a good an honest resource, and he even claims to avoid zealotry. But, in the book, he examines a particular website, one with a plain-jane two-column appearance, which he said took "three CSS experts" to re-code from tables to CSS layout. Not three CSS advocates, three CSS *experts*. On top of that, their "solution" turned out to be a hack.
Honestly, what success am I supposed to expect in using CSS when recoding common layouts in CSS is a struggle for even CSS experts? I am forced to conclude that it is folly trying to adhere to any kind of CSS standards with any kind of rigor until CSS itself becomes more mature.
Now this is where I get flamed. I'm sorry, but I have to call it like I see it.
"We've been working on this for years, it almost feels like an eternity," quipped thompson while lighting a cigar. "It took us 665 iterations before we feel like we got it right. Now we think everyone should have it. Now."
It's too early for your side to claim victory, but it's right for you to rub your enemies' noses in your successes because they have been vast.
Scientists quite frequently regard Christians and other religious people as superstitious hicks (which often is accurate, but that's beside the point). The supernatural is not falsifiable, so they don't include it at the table with other scientific theories. (That's not to say that all of scientists' theories are scientific, but that, too, is beside the point. I'm establishing that scientists are biased against you.)
What scientists fail to realize is that they're not fighting ID proponents for space at the scientific table which scientists monopolize. The ID proponents have pulled the scientific table into the court of public opinion, and it is there that the ID proponents are mopping the floor with the scientists' self-righteous, elitist butts.
I'm so ashamed that the scientists have been so arrogant and short-sighted. They're allowing their scientific views to be squished and squashed in the court of public opinion, and they seem to think that such a thing is of no import. How could they be more wrong! The scientists' money comes largely from government, which is directed by legislators, which are elected by the "ignorant hicks" which hold views largely in line with those of the ID proponents. I wish some charismatic (that's important) scientists would start taking some public stances against ID, but apparently they stupidly fail to see the value in doing that.
Since I don't value the supernatural, I find ID along with all religion and all superstition to be immoral. But the intelligence of the tactics of the ID movement should be studied by all as a wily and awesome example of how to sneak under your opponents' radar and beat them at their own game!
That's not what I said. What I said was the following: Atheism is a way of getting out from under guilt.
I understand why that chafes you. Christianity is a guilt-based religion. If people are not susceptible to guilt, then they're less likely to care what Christians have to say, they're less likely to be Christians, and they're less likely to give money to Christian churches. Guilt is a powerful motivator, and Christians exploit it heavily to their advantage.
Thank you very little for opening up with the most trite and least respectful opening on Slashdot. I am fully capable of debating and discussing every bit of your ideology and value system provided that you are able to maintain at least a base level of politeness.
Capitalism rewards the lazy and stupid, too. What world do you live in where this isn't painfully obvious?
If capitalism rewards the lazy and the stupid, then why are so many poor people lazy and stupid? Perhaps this ugly truth is too painful for you to bear, so you pretend that it isn't true. My sister, a Leftist, steadfastly refuses to believe that some people don't want to work. Do you share that belief?
This is where you start arguing that any results you don't like are because people aren't practising "real" capitalism. I love how both sides resort to that.
You exhibit your black-and-white thinking with your "both sides" comment (as if there were only two sides to this issue).
Your accusation of "no true Scotsman" is false because I never define the taking of property by force as capitalism. The two are mutually exclusive. Whether others share my view is immaterial. We are debating *my* philosophy, after all. (And we'll debate your nasty philosophy, too.)
Some other points about your painfully cliche libertarian post. "Seized taxpayer income"?!? Ever heard of the social contract? If you don't like paying taxes go live in a cave and don't use any of the things that my tax dollars paid for, you cheapskate. Or move out of the country and go found your own.
That's actually one point, not plural "points," to which you raised an objection. Perhaps you were in a rush when you typed this. It doesn't appear that you tried very hard, that's for sure.
The phrase you're looking for is "ugly truth," not "cliche." If taxes weren't seized then why is there an IRS (yes, I'm a USian)? If taxes weren't seized, then what happens to me if I don't want to pay for pork? And if you find me one person who actually likes paying taxes, then I'll show you a person who's actually paying tithes to his God (the State) to be managed by the Priests (his Leftist represenatives) and stands testament to my belief that Leftism, for some, is more of a religion than it is a philosophy.
As to your "social contract" point, yes I've heard many such garbage from many such Leftists and I reject quite a bit of it. The way that I understand social contract is the means by which all humans understand morality. Social contract used to forbid interracial marriages, used to promote lynchings, and currently maintains me and my family as second-class citizens because we're gay, so I don't choose to follow it blindly, much less use it as an excuse for you to denigrate me as you do. Are you going to argue, "That's not 'true' social contract!" now?
The Free Market isn't perfect. Communism isn't perfect. Hell, even Democracy isn't perfect.
First, we don't live in a Democracy. In fact, no governments in the world are Democracies. My country (the USA) is a Constitutional Republic. And yes, Democracy sucks as a form of government. I know it's probably "uncool" to quote the founding fathers of the USA to you, but the government was set up in many cases to usurp the "Tyranny of the Majority," which, of course, is the deciding factor of the ugly government known as Democracy.
Second, I never argued that that Capitalism was "perfect" or that Communisim was "imperfect." Instead, I offer that Communism is immoral and Capitalism is moral (according to my values of course). That you somehow equate Capitalism with Communism by labeling them both "not perfect" is shallow. Are the sins of Capitalism equivalent to the sins of Communism? That's a value judgement, of course, and I probably think your values suck as badly as you think mine do.
Fighting against communism today is form of propaganda.
Likewise, supporting or defending communism is also propaganda. For that matter, any type of advocating any kind of value judgment will be called "propaganda" by those with different values. If you share the values, then it's called "education."
If we call China and North Korea communist countries and communism as something we are against, we can safely be friends with totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia.
The subject of diplomacy is, of course, quite a bit more complex than what you're stating here. Is it a good choice or a bad choice to be friendly with the Saudi regime? Well, they are highly influenced by the violent jihadist Wahabbi sect of Islam (and, in fact, export that evil religion to the US), but they also let the US put its troops there and sell the US a lot of oil which is the lifeblood of the US economy. Our situation with North Korea and China are markedly different in myriad ways. China has threatened to nuke Los Angeles, for instance. Suffice it to say that I don't trust the black-and-white thinking of a communist apologist to be enlightening on the subject. I imagine that your goal is the destruction of capitalism which is the source of all evil according to your values.
Interestingly Karl Marx is nowadays subject of study of many great economists. If you study economics in Ivy League you might have to reed Marx.
Since when has Marx not been read in the Ivory tower? Quite frankly, I'm not impressed by the elitist, self-indulgent musings of disconnected, smug professors safely protected from the vagaries of the market (you know, where regular people work for a living) by their comfortable cocoons of tenure and supported by the donations of hyper-rich leftists and seized taxpayer income. I don't regard them as intelligent, helpful, or productive. In fact, I regard them as anything but those adjectives.
Reason why the father of communism is so hip is because Marx had very good understanding of capitalism.
And therein lies the essence of Marx's appeal. He's not as intelligent or helpful or insightful as he is hip. Reading and quoting Marx is cool, as in, socially acceptable to your college-age peers and holier-than-thou professors.
And yes, Marx has a good understanding of captitalism, but he understands it only according to his values. I don't share Marx's values, so I find his analysis immoral. You quoted that elitist Harvard professor saying, "[Marx] also warns of the divisions that capitalism's spread would bring, of the social orders destroyed." Yes, capitalism doesn't do a good job at rewarding the lazy, the stupid, and the thuggish. In that sense, I would agree that capitalism brings divisions. People who would rather live off of someone else's charity solely out of sloth and self-importance do not deserve to live in society.
This is where you start arguing, "What do you mean capitalism doesn't reward the thuggish? Haven't you heard of Enron and Halliburton?"
Dont make the mistake of placing china=communism. China is not a communist state. Its got a capitalistic system running.
This is one of many statements that communist apologist make that really irritate me. "China is not a true communist country." Or, "Pol Pot was not a true communist." Or "The Soviet Union was not a true communist country."
This is, of course, the No True Scotsman fallacy, but that's beside the point.
What really disgusts me is the fact that so many communist apologists have spared no expense in their excoriating criticism of the United States, Capitalism, and property rights and even defended the heinous regimes in Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia (Noam Chomsky). Yet when anyone happens to point out the atrocities committed by these regimes, the retort is, "Oh, but that's not true communism."
It is highly reminiscent of the Christians who claim that the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were not committed by true Christians.
And in response to your claim that it's got a "capitalistic system running," well, just how "capitalistic" is it? If a country doesn't magically fall into Marx's fantasy of how a country might work if everyone obeyed his every whim, then is the country "in no way communist"? It seems like that's your out.
Re:that's true of a lot of legal things
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 1
The person who encrypts his email, refuses to submit to warrantless searches, or keeps his blinds closed is also more suspicious than a person who uses a computer.
I agree! Do any (or all) those things amount to the same level of "suspiciousness" in the eyes of law enforcement as being an active member of Freenet? When it is known that Freenet is an active hangout of terrorists and pedophiles, I think the answer is "no." I think that Freenet is a magnet of law enforcement's scrutiny.
Indeed, one of the very points of liberty is to protect citizens from an oppressive government: It is a requirement of a free society that the government not be omnipotent and omnipresent when it comes to enforcing its laws, or else it would be impossible to subvert or overthrow a tyrranical one.
I agree with you. I'm of the opinion that we live in a state of tyrrany right now (in the USA), but the citizenry does not care enough about liberty to do anything about it. They prefer security and government guarantees. (What a joke!) That said, I'd rather avoid the things that will invoke the deadly force of government, and avoiding Freenet, no matter how much I like having my communication private, seems like a good way of doing that.
I vote Libertarian always. And what you say is true in theory, but not in reality.
The government has the right to steal any property from you that they think is connected to the distribution of controlled substances. It sucks and I hate it, but the citizenry has allowed the government that right.
This is a quite a good point and underscores the importance of the system being designed without vulnerabilities to ever work how they intend it to. Of course that goal is nearly impossible and we see now that freenet perhaps has some serious problems in that regard.
Agreed! Designing a system that is "uncrackable by design" (such as necessitating an inordinate amount of processing power) is ultimately the same thing as security through obscurity, as it depends on the cracker not knowing *how* to garner that much processing power.
The same arguement can be made about anonymous remailers. Or PGP, or any encryption software for that matter. None of them are doing anything to stop so are they making a value judgement to support them?
I think each of those technologies will be judged independently as to their "bad-guy-friendliness." I have the opinion that Freenet's is high, whereas PGP's is low. PGP is an encryption technology, whereas Freenet is a network. Perhaps you'll argue that the distinction is unimportant, but I don't think law enforcement thinks that way. To them, Freenet is a "network" and is thus a "haven" for bad activity. Do you agree that they think this way?
Depends. If nobody else is doing it you stand out like a sore thumb. If it picks up steam and a significant number of people use it then perhaps you have gained quite a lot of security. I would venture that enough people encrypt (PGP or S/MIME) email that the feds do not follow up on EVERYONE who uses it, that would be impossible.
I wonder. Did you ever read _Digital Fortress_ by Dan Brown? In it, he claims that the NSA builds a super-super-super computer called TRNSLATR which can crack any PGP in a matter of seconds. Fiction, of course, but what, exactly, does the NSA do? Brown claims that the NSA wants the public to think that PGP is secure -- even from the NSA. I can see why such a lie would be in the NSA's interest to perpetuate. (No, I have no interest in conspiracy theories.)
I work at a University which has a significant number of exchange students as well as US students of middle eastern descent in a "post PATRIOT ACT" world. Nothing will stun me:)
I have a big problem with the government inconveniencing innocent citizens in the name of the "war on terror," but I also have no problem with the government putting extra scrutiny on foreign, male, muslim students coming from the Middle East. Israel's head of security made a telling quote when he said something like, "The Americans are so stupid. They look for weapons while we look for terrorists." (Let me state here that I think all funding to Israel should be cut immediately.) I have long wished that the government would come right out and say that this "war on terror" nonsense is really a war on Jihadist Muslims, and that's exactly what it should be. Perhaps that actually *is* happening, but the government is being sage by not being public about it. It's hard to tell. Getting evidence on many of these subjects is extremely difficult.
Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 1
That's odd, because PGP is then "terrorist-friendly" and "pedophile-friendly," yet an awful lot of people support it (you included, I'm guessing from the bit about keeping your communications private).
"That's odd" -- you guessed wrong!
But being willing to make that tradeoff for PGP but not Freenet seems... hypocritical.
Assign your "hypocrite" label to someone else, please. I stopped using PGP/GPG a few years ago. Not because I was afraid of being lumped in with "terrorists and pedophiles," but because managing the keys was more of a pain in the ass than it was worth to me. Yes, I want my communications to be private. The question is, "How badly do I want that?" Not that much, apparently.
This is completely ridiculous reasoning. If you really believe this
Actually, I don't believe it at all, but it really doesn't matter. Perception is reality to law enforcement (as it is to most humans). Freenet is perceived as a network where terrorists and pedophiles can exchange information with impunity. Law enforcement does NOT have the same perception about computers and doors. Law enforcement probably uses lots of doors and computers but has little idea about Freenet other than it being a place where pedophiles can go to swap pictures and not get caught. My claim: To law enforcement, a person who uses Freenet is more suspicious than a person who uses a computer.
I'll bet terrorists and pedophiles feel EXACTLY the same way. So how do you create a system that instinctivly knows where the line is drawn, especially when as a society we do not even know where the line is drawn.
It's impossible, just like it's impossible to use Freenet without immediately lumping yourself into the "terrorist and pedophile" camp. I never argued that we should create a filtered system. I argue that Freenet, by its nature, draws the eyes of law enforcement and, hence, I can't use it. I believe it may have the *reverse* effect of increasing privacy by increasing scrutiny.
Freenet seems to have taken the only POSSIBLE approach, which is to say it does not try to make value judgements.
There's no way to avoid the value judgement in this case. By saying, "We don't care what you send over our encrypted network," they say, "terrorists and pedophiles are at home here," and that is a value judgement. We may quibble over the definition of "terrorist" and "pedophile," but that's not going to change the fact that Freenet welcomes terrorists and pedophiles and that's going to draw the police like flies to shit. And, for that reason, I think that Freenet is a flawed concept.
All forms of encryption are, ultimately, perceived as a thumb at the nose of law enforcement and a childish dare. "Bet you can't crack this, coppers!" I don't feel that way about it, but I don't have to. Hiding in the open draws scrutiny. What privacy have I gained if I start encrypting all of my messages and the FBI responds by putting a surveillance team on my house? This happened to a friend of mine (not for using encryption, and he was acquitted of all charges, stupid FBI agents). You'd be stunned at what the FBI has the right to photograph or videotape without "invading your privacy" (as defined by law).
Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The problem I've had in using Freenet is that they are open to any content. What this says to me is, "If you want to share terrorist information or child porn, you are welcome here."
Before you jump down my throat, please keep in mind that I know that the term "terrorist" is highly subjective. Also, I *like* the idea of being able to have my communications remain private. My relationships are my business, and I don't have to subject them to any other *human's* supervision because I don't trust that the supervisor is any more virtuous than I am.
But to create a Freenet that is completely agnostic toward content is entirely the same thing as creating a terrorist-friendly and pedophile-friendly network. That may not be the intent, but it is certainly the outcome.
And it's for that reason that I don't use Freenet. I want completely private communication, but I don't want to be lumped in with vicious creeps, either. How can Freenet or any network provide me with that? I have doubts that it's possible at all.
Gadh believes consumers would be interested in purchasing specialized early releases of DVDs, as well as the specialized DVD players needed to play them
"Specialized" DVD players that play "Specialized" disks to go along with the other 9, big, ugly boxes collecting dust on top of your TV (along with the other "normal" DVD player which plays only "normal" DVDs).
It won't work. History says so. Gadh believes consumers will be interested in purchasing this moronic system because it's in his interest to believe it. He's paid to believe it.
Don't try and change the subject. Let's stay focused on HIV and AIDS.
And no, I won't tell you any more. Some things require hands-on learning. Once you have isolated your first virus and grown it in culture, you'll understand. It's interesting, and a lot of fun
I'm sorry, I don't have enough money to do that. In its stead, will you please tell me the procedure that was used to isolate the HIV virus? (Mind you, I'm working on assumption that "isolation" is the key word that means "we know that a particular virus exists.")
I'm really serious about this, Axel.
I know you think I'm stupid, corrupt, and evil, and I don't care. I'm deliberately ignoring all of that because I think I'm finally getting down to the part of this discussion that's either going to convert me back to believing in the HIV dogma or is going to solidify my position as an apostate. I'm not doing this to beat you up or get beat up by you. I want to get to the bottom of it.
If you can tell me the lab procedures that were used to isolate HIV, then I can examine those procedures and their results and then determine whether or not thay seem logical. This is the core of my problem with the HIV dogma. If it can be explained to me, then I will change my mind. Please help.
I have to assume that these are rhetorical questions
No, they are not.
If you are genuinely interested however
I am genuinely interested, but you seem unable to come up with an answer. Let me get you on the right track.
We know HIV exists because:
(Here is where you fill in the scientific procedure which indicates how we know HIV exists)
Just answer the question. Stop trying to change the subject. Stop all the ad hominems. Stop trying to make this an issue of my character. Just answer the question and tell me the scientific procedure.
Do you know the scientific procedure they use? Please tell me you do.
Like I said before, I have no interest in changing your deeply held beliefs. If you're honest, you know as well as I do that nothing I could possibly say would change your mind.
This is false. If you give me sound evidence and sound reasoning, then I will change my mind.
Case in point: I used to maintain that AZT was a cause of AIDS symptoms. Then I examined the results of the "Concorde Trial," which is the one and only long-term mortality test of AZT. What did it show? Two things: First, that AZT did NOT decrease mortality in AIDS patients. Second, that AIDS patients in both camps had the same mortality. Because of this, I no longer maintain that AZT is a cause of AIDS.
The reason you claim that "nothing will change my mind" is because you want to paint me as closed-minded which makes it easier for you to dismiss me and thus excuse you from providing me with the evidence that I desire.
In a world where 90% of people believe in a god and almost as many believe in astrology and alien abductions, I can live with a couple half percent believing in a world-wide HIV-AIDS conspiracy that encompasses the medical profession, the governments, the drug companies and the insurance companies.
I have no interest whatsoever in conspiracy theories of any type, but I can see how you would want me to paint me as a conspiracy-theory peddler because it would make me easier to dismiss and thus excuse you from providing the evidence that I desire.
Though I find it a bit sad that, given your established half-education, you believe to be in a position to give important medical advice to your loved ones.
I already called you on this ad hominem and I can see you're pushing it again. It makes sense that you would want to paint me as deliberately ignorant or uneducated because it makes me easier to dismiss and thus excuse you from having to provide me with the evidence I desire.
Now, what did you accomplish with your most recent post, Axel?
Did you tell me how you know that HIV exists? No, of course not! Instead, you careened on a series of character attacks. Most telling, Axel. I claim that the reason you won't tell me how you know that HIV exists is because you take it on faith. You have no evidence to support your belief.
Did you tell me how you know that the HIV causes AIDS? No, of course not! Instead, you thought that you could weasel out of it by making this debate an issue of my character. Again, most telling Axel. I claim that the reason you won't tell me how HIV causes AIDS is because you take it on faith. You have no evidence to support your belief.
I also noticed that you made no effort to counter my claims that the HIV test is meaningless. Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not?
Why don't you try just answering my god damned questions and stop attacking me?
I am confused now. Are you saying that people deemed as "low-risk" will never be given a positive test result by the tester? This doesn't quite accord with the fact that only "low-risk" people are allowed to donate blood, and the standard screening tests find plenty of positive results every day.
I'm not surprised, since the positive results are meaningless. I claim that people in "low-risk" groups that have positive results are interpreted as "false positives" whereas people in "high-risk" groups that have positive results are interpreted as "legitimate positives."
how about if, as a result of a needle accident in a hospital, an HIV test of you or a loved one is ordered, and the result is judged as "positive". What is your advice?
I would avise them to ignore the positive result because it is meaningless. I would strongly advise them not to take any AIDS drugs, as they are toxic. Did you think you were going to get any traction with this? I notice you're still trying to change the subject.
What you wrote is, of course, not as important as what you didn't write. How do you know that HIV exists? How do you know that HIV causes AIDS outside of correlation?
The reason you don't give me the answers despite my repeated attempts to elicit them from you is because you have no evidence. Otherwise, pony it up, AIDS apologist!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's different if you are making "arty" websites, but for websites that just want to present information in an attractive way (i.e. every website I can think of outside of graphic design), I really don't see any need.
The pages I have to code are artsy as all hell. Everyone on my team is a graphic designer. Perhaps you see no need becuase your experience is limited.
I agree. But I think exactly the same thing about table layouts. I think the only reason people call them "intuitive" is because they've been doing them for years.
Perhaps if there were a clear document explaining how commonly-used table-based designs would be rendered in CSS, then I would sympathize with this point. Since I have never seen any such document, and, furthermore, since three CSS experts found a common example of translating a common table-based design into CSS "kludgey" and "nonintutive", then you really don't have much to stand on here. Sometimes CSS just doesn't make the grade.
You can say that about any technology really (table layout bigot example), if you use that as a reason to avoid CSS, then you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I feel like you are proving my point by resorting to the argument that I must be stupid if I don't properly accept your favorite technology. It's not like children will be tortured to death if I don't immediately turn all of my tables into divs, so, please, try to relax. Will you please accept that my situation might be different from yours and CSS might be more trouble than it's worth in regards to solving my problems? Will you please concede that my choosing to not use "perfect" CSS in all instances (remember, I still use it, and frequently!) might have nothing to do with my stupidity or my lack of discipline?
Believe me, I still use CSS even despite all the harsh things I've said about it! I think my gripe comes in two forms:
1. For some layouts, CSS just can't cut it the same way that tables can. Not all layouts, just some layouts.
2. CSS syntax, behavior, and debugging are arcane and unintutive.
Well, let's add a third gripe:
3. CSS advocates are often times really snotty, mean, and religious about CSS. They treat me like I'm some kind of retarded hick because I dare name a class "OrangeBox" or use a table to lay out a site.
And this is why I think we need to re-evaluate our use of CSS. It is not *yet* the cure-all that we want it to be. Let's not put too much effort into rigorous adherence to standards as such efforts will ultimately be futile in one way or another. I mean, if three CSS experts can't lay out a two-column site without nonintuitive kludges, then what hope does a neophyte like myself have at achieving "CSS purity"?
I haven't read the book, but since you haven't provided any quotes, I can only assume you are misrepresenting what the book says, because two column websites are ten a penny and dead simple to create with CSS. You certainly don't need a team of experts.
We all know what assuming does. I searched the book for about 20 minutes by hand until I finally found the section, and I quote it here:
"When A List Apart magazine converting from HTML tables to CSS layout in February 2001, it took three designers, including this author, to figure out how to do it. The two others were experts Fahrner (who contributed to the CSS specifications) and Celik (who contributed to the CSS specifications and built the Tasman rendering engine in IE5/Mac). The original, table-based design was essentially a two-column layout with a liquid content area and a right-hand sidebar whose width was cast in stone. Between the three of us, we managed to achieve roughly the same effect in CSS using the nonintuitive method sketched in the preceding paragraph. The overall width is kludged with values that never add up to exactly 100%. It should not be that hard to create a two-column layout combining liquid and fixed elements." Jeffrey Zeldman, _Designing with Web Standards_, p. 281
Read a few of the choice quotes:
- "The other two were experts..."
- "...using the nonintuitive method..."
- "The over width is kluged..."
- "It should not be that hard [to create what is otherwise a simple design using the inferior, table-based method]"
Honestly, Zeldman wrote a book that was intended to "convert" me to the CSS mindset, but, reading what he writes here, it seems that I'm destined to find at least some degree of failure or imperfection. It leads me to believe that "no, it's not just me" when CSS seems kludged and nonintuitive (if I may borrow a few of Zeldman's adjectives to describe CSS).
Client: We'd like to have a three column layout now please.
Result: P.I.T.A.
I suppose I should thank god such a thing has never happened to me. It seems to me that in the eyes of CSS adherents, 100% of web pages are wildly fluid things that change with the winds, and wildly. Maybe that can be said for some development projects, but, in my experience, it's just not that bad. My problem is not that my clients are as fickle as you make them out to be, but rather that CSS is near impossible to do correctly for some simple tasks. Solve the real problem, not the hypothetical one!
#wrap {background url(2_col_background.png) top left no-repeat;}
#col_1 {width: 200px; float: left;}
#col_1 {float: right;}
#footer {clear: both;}
The trick is in the backgound image,
I described CSS as "arbitrary" and "arcane", and your code example is illustrative of my point. I suppose the "clear: both;" should have been obvious to me? Furthermore, why should such a simple layout require a "trick" (as in your background image)? I conclude that it is too early to try to adhere to CSS standards with any rigor.
How about this:And then I get flamed because I'm using tables for layout instead of CSS. But it takes 3 CSS experts to code such a thing using CSS.
And don't get me wrong: it very well likely is the browsers that are to blame for much of this problem. This doesn't mean that using CSS to do what appears to be rather simple things is, at times, really difficult. Hence, we should re-evaluate whether or not we should be putting so much effort into coding "purely" as is desired by CSS advocates. It's just too early to be such strong devotees to a good idea.
I'm a programmer who has been thrust into the world of CSS and been on many occasions quite frustrated with it. It seems arbitrary, arcane, and particularly difficult to debug. On top of that, it seems to have a set of zealots who defend it (and demand it) with bitter viciousness.
I had concluded that CSS was "programmer-friendly" in the same way that a rusty jigsaw was "penis-friendly".
I recently picked up a book entitled _Designing with Web Standards_ by Jeffrey Zeldman. It's a good an honest resource, and he even claims to avoid zealotry. But, in the book, he examines a particular website, one with a plain-jane two-column appearance, which he said took "three CSS experts" to re-code from tables to CSS layout. Not three CSS advocates, three CSS *experts*. On top of that, their "solution" turned out to be a hack.
Honestly, what success am I supposed to expect in using CSS when recoding common layouts in CSS is a struggle for even CSS experts? I am forced to conclude that it is folly trying to adhere to any kind of CSS standards with any kind of rigor until CSS itself becomes more mature.
Now this is where I get flamed. I'm sorry, but I have to call it like I see it.
"We've been working on this for years, it almost feels like an eternity," quipped thompson while lighting a cigar. "It took us 665 iterations before we feel like we got it right. Now we think everyone should have it. Now."
It's too early for your side to claim victory, but it's right for you to rub your enemies' noses in your successes because they have been vast.
Scientists quite frequently regard Christians and other religious people as superstitious hicks (which often is accurate, but that's beside the point). The supernatural is not falsifiable, so they don't include it at the table with other scientific theories. (That's not to say that all of scientists' theories are scientific, but that, too, is beside the point. I'm establishing that scientists are biased against you.)
What scientists fail to realize is that they're not fighting ID proponents for space at the scientific table which scientists monopolize. The ID proponents have pulled the scientific table into the court of public opinion, and it is there that the ID proponents are mopping the floor with the scientists' self-righteous, elitist butts.
I'm so ashamed that the scientists have been so arrogant and short-sighted. They're allowing their scientific views to be squished and squashed in the court of public opinion, and they seem to think that such a thing is of no import. How could they be more wrong! The scientists' money comes largely from government, which is directed by legislators, which are elected by the "ignorant hicks" which hold views largely in line with those of the ID proponents. I wish some charismatic (that's important) scientists would start taking some public stances against ID, but apparently they stupidly fail to see the value in doing that.
Since I don't value the supernatural, I find ID along with all religion and all superstition to be immoral. But the intelligence of the tactics of the ID movement should be studied by all as a wily and awesome example of how to sneak under your opponents' radar and beat them at their own game!
That's not what I said. What I said was the following: Atheism is a way of getting out from under guilt.
I understand why that chafes you. Christianity is a guilt-based religion. If people are not susceptible to guilt, then they're less likely to care what Christians have to say, they're less likely to be Christians, and they're less likely to give money to Christian churches. Guilt is a powerful motivator, and Christians exploit it heavily to their advantage.
Okay, I'll bite.
Thank you very little for opening up with the most trite and least respectful opening on Slashdot. I am fully capable of debating and discussing every bit of your ideology and value system provided that you are able to maintain at least a base level of politeness.
Capitalism rewards the lazy and stupid, too. What world do you live in where this isn't painfully obvious?
If capitalism rewards the lazy and the stupid, then why are so many poor people lazy and stupid? Perhaps this ugly truth is too painful for you to bear, so you pretend that it isn't true. My sister, a Leftist, steadfastly refuses to believe that some people don't want to work. Do you share that belief?
This is where you start arguing that any results you don't like are because people aren't practising "real" capitalism. I love how both sides resort to that.
You exhibit your black-and-white thinking with your "both sides" comment (as if there were only two sides to this issue).
Your accusation of "no true Scotsman" is false because I never define the taking of property by force as capitalism. The two are mutually exclusive. Whether others share my view is immaterial. We are debating *my* philosophy, after all. (And we'll debate your nasty philosophy, too.)
Some other points about your painfully cliche libertarian post. "Seized taxpayer income"?!? Ever heard of the social contract? If you don't like paying taxes go live in a cave and don't use any of the things that my tax dollars paid for, you cheapskate. Or move out of the country and go found your own.
That's actually one point, not plural "points," to which you raised an objection. Perhaps you were in a rush when you typed this. It doesn't appear that you tried very hard, that's for sure.
The phrase you're looking for is "ugly truth," not "cliche." If taxes weren't seized then why is there an IRS (yes, I'm a USian)? If taxes weren't seized, then what happens to me if I don't want to pay for pork? And if you find me one person who actually likes paying taxes, then I'll show you a person who's actually paying tithes to his God (the State) to be managed by the Priests (his Leftist represenatives) and stands testament to my belief that Leftism, for some, is more of a religion than it is a philosophy.
As to your "social contract" point, yes I've heard many such garbage from many such Leftists and I reject quite a bit of it. The way that I understand social contract is the means by which all humans understand morality. Social contract used to forbid interracial marriages, used to promote lynchings, and currently maintains me and my family as second-class citizens because we're gay, so I don't choose to follow it blindly, much less use it as an excuse for you to denigrate me as you do. Are you going to argue, "That's not 'true' social contract!" now?
The Free Market isn't perfect. Communism isn't perfect. Hell, even Democracy isn't perfect.
First, we don't live in a Democracy. In fact, no governments in the world are Democracies. My country (the USA) is a Constitutional Republic. And yes, Democracy sucks as a form of government. I know it's probably "uncool" to quote the founding fathers of the USA to you, but the government was set up in many cases to usurp the "Tyranny of the Majority," which, of course, is the deciding factor of the ugly government known as Democracy.
Second, I never argued that that Capitalism was "perfect" or that Communisim was "imperfect." Instead, I offer that Communism is immoral and Capitalism is moral (according to my values of course). That you somehow equate Capitalism with Communism by labeling them both "not perfect" is shallow. Are the sins of Capitalism equivalent to the sins of Communism? That's a value judgement, of course, and I probably think your values suck as badly as you think mine do.
We would
Fighting against communism today is form of propaganda.
Likewise, supporting or defending communism is also propaganda. For that matter, any type of advocating any kind of value judgment will be called "propaganda" by those with different values. If you share the values, then it's called "education."
If we call China and North Korea communist countries and communism as something we are against, we can safely be friends with totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia.
The subject of diplomacy is, of course, quite a bit more complex than what you're stating here. Is it a good choice or a bad choice to be friendly with the Saudi regime? Well, they are highly influenced by the violent jihadist Wahabbi sect of Islam (and, in fact, export that evil religion to the US), but they also let the US put its troops there and sell the US a lot of oil which is the lifeblood of the US economy. Our situation with North Korea and China are markedly different in myriad ways. China has threatened to nuke Los Angeles, for instance. Suffice it to say that I don't trust the black-and-white thinking of a communist apologist to be enlightening on the subject. I imagine that your goal is the destruction of capitalism which is the source of all evil according to your values.
Interestingly Karl Marx is nowadays subject of study of many great economists. If you study economics in Ivy League you might have to reed Marx.
Since when has Marx not been read in the Ivory tower? Quite frankly, I'm not impressed by the elitist, self-indulgent musings of disconnected, smug professors safely protected from the vagaries of the market (you know, where regular people work for a living) by their comfortable cocoons of tenure and supported by the donations of hyper-rich leftists and seized taxpayer income. I don't regard them as intelligent, helpful, or productive. In fact, I regard them as anything but those adjectives.
Reason why the father of communism is so hip is because Marx had very good understanding of capitalism.
And therein lies the essence of Marx's appeal. He's not as intelligent or helpful or insightful as he is hip. Reading and quoting Marx is cool, as in, socially acceptable to your college-age peers and holier-than-thou professors.
And yes, Marx has a good understanding of captitalism, but he understands it only according to his values. I don't share Marx's values, so I find his analysis immoral. You quoted that elitist Harvard professor saying, "[Marx] also warns of the divisions that capitalism's spread would bring, of the social orders destroyed." Yes, capitalism doesn't do a good job at rewarding the lazy, the stupid, and the thuggish. In that sense, I would agree that capitalism brings divisions. People who would rather live off of someone else's charity solely out of sloth and self-importance do not deserve to live in society.
This is where you start arguing, "What do you mean capitalism doesn't reward the thuggish? Haven't you heard of Enron and Halliburton?"
Dont make the mistake of placing china=communism. China is not a communist state.
Its got a capitalistic system running.
This is one of many statements that communist apologist make that really irritate me. "China is not a true communist country." Or, "Pol Pot was not a true communist." Or "The Soviet Union was not a true communist country."
This is, of course, the No True Scotsman fallacy, but that's beside the point.
What really disgusts me is the fact that so many communist apologists have spared no expense in their excoriating criticism of the United States, Capitalism, and property rights and even defended the heinous regimes in Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia (Noam Chomsky). Yet when anyone happens to point out the atrocities committed by these regimes, the retort is, "Oh, but that's not true communism."
It is highly reminiscent of the Christians who claim that the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were not committed by true Christians.
And in response to your claim that it's got a "capitalistic system running," well, just how "capitalistic" is it? If a country doesn't magically fall into Marx's fantasy of how a country might work if everyone obeyed his every whim, then is the country "in no way communist"? It seems like that's your out.
The person who encrypts his email, refuses to submit to warrantless searches, or keeps his blinds closed is also more suspicious than a person who uses a computer.
I agree! Do any (or all) those things amount to the same level of "suspiciousness" in the eyes of law enforcement as being an active member of Freenet? When it is known that Freenet is an active hangout of terrorists and pedophiles, I think the answer is "no." I think that Freenet is a magnet of law enforcement's scrutiny.
Indeed, one of the very points of liberty is to protect citizens from an oppressive government: It is a requirement of a free society that the government not be omnipotent and omnipresent when it comes to enforcing its laws, or else it would be impossible to subvert or overthrow a tyrranical one.
I agree with you. I'm of the opinion that we live in a state of tyrrany right now (in the USA), but the citizenry does not care enough about liberty to do anything about it. They prefer security and government guarantees. (What a joke!) That said, I'd rather avoid the things that will invoke the deadly force of government, and avoiding Freenet, no matter how much I like having my communication private, seems like a good way of doing that.
I vote Libertarian always. And what you say is true in theory, but not in reality.
The government has the right to steal any property from you that they think is connected to the distribution of controlled substances. It sucks and I hate it, but the citizenry has allowed the government that right.
This is a quite a good point and underscores the importance of the system being designed without vulnerabilities to ever work how they intend it to. Of course that goal is nearly impossible and we see now that freenet perhaps has some serious problems in that regard.
:)
Agreed! Designing a system that is "uncrackable by design" (such as necessitating an inordinate amount of processing power) is ultimately the same thing as security through obscurity, as it depends on the cracker not knowing *how* to garner that much processing power.
The same arguement can be made about anonymous remailers. Or PGP, or any encryption software for that matter. None of them are doing anything to stop so are they making a value judgement to support them?
I think each of those technologies will be judged independently as to their "bad-guy-friendliness." I have the opinion that Freenet's is high, whereas PGP's is low. PGP is an encryption technology, whereas Freenet is a network. Perhaps you'll argue that the distinction is unimportant, but I don't think law enforcement thinks that way. To them, Freenet is a "network" and is thus a "haven" for bad activity. Do you agree that they think this way?
Depends. If nobody else is doing it you stand out like a sore thumb. If it picks up steam and a significant number of people use it then perhaps you have gained quite a lot of security. I would venture that enough people encrypt (PGP or S/MIME) email that the feds do not follow up on EVERYONE who uses it, that would be impossible.
I wonder. Did you ever read _Digital Fortress_ by Dan Brown? In it, he claims that the NSA builds a super-super-super computer called TRNSLATR which can crack any PGP in a matter of seconds. Fiction, of course, but what, exactly, does the NSA do? Brown claims that the NSA wants the public to think that PGP is secure -- even from the NSA. I can see why such a lie would be in the NSA's interest to perpetuate. (No, I have no interest in conspiracy theories.)
I work at a University which has a significant number of exchange students as well as US students of middle eastern descent in a "post PATRIOT ACT" world. Nothing will stun me
I have a big problem with the government inconveniencing innocent citizens in the name of the "war on terror," but I also have no problem with the government putting extra scrutiny on foreign, male, muslim students coming from the Middle East. Israel's head of security made a telling quote when he said something like, "The Americans are so stupid. They look for weapons while we look for terrorists." (Let me state here that I think all funding to Israel should be cut immediately.) I have long wished that the government would come right out and say that this "war on terror" nonsense is really a war on Jihadist Muslims, and that's exactly what it should be. Perhaps that actually *is* happening, but the government is being sage by not being public about it. It's hard to tell. Getting evidence on many of these subjects is extremely difficult.
That's odd, because PGP is then "terrorist-friendly" and "pedophile-friendly," yet an awful lot of people support it (you included, I'm guessing from the bit about keeping your communications private).
"That's odd" -- you guessed wrong!
But being willing to make that tradeoff for PGP but not Freenet seems... hypocritical.
Assign your "hypocrite" label to someone else, please. I stopped using PGP/GPG a few years ago. Not because I was afraid of being lumped in with "terrorists and pedophiles," but because managing the keys was more of a pain in the ass than it was worth to me. Yes, I want my communications to be private. The question is, "How badly do I want that?" Not that much, apparently.
This is completely ridiculous reasoning. If you really believe this
Actually, I don't believe it at all, but it really doesn't matter. Perception is reality to law enforcement (as it is to most humans). Freenet is perceived as a network where terrorists and pedophiles can exchange information with impunity. Law enforcement does NOT have the same perception about computers and doors. Law enforcement probably uses lots of doors and computers but has little idea about Freenet other than it being a place where pedophiles can go to swap pictures and not get caught. My claim: To law enforcement, a person who uses Freenet is more suspicious than a person who uses a computer.
I'll bet terrorists and pedophiles feel EXACTLY the same way. So how do you create a system that instinctivly knows where the line is drawn, especially when as a society we do not even know where the line is drawn.
It's impossible, just like it's impossible to use Freenet without immediately lumping yourself into the "terrorist and pedophile" camp. I never argued that we should create a filtered system. I argue that Freenet, by its nature, draws the eyes of law enforcement and, hence, I can't use it. I believe it may have the *reverse* effect of increasing privacy by increasing scrutiny.
Freenet seems to have taken the only POSSIBLE approach, which is to say it does not try to make value judgements.
There's no way to avoid the value judgement in this case. By saying, "We don't care what you send over our encrypted network," they say, "terrorists and pedophiles are at home here," and that is a value judgement. We may quibble over the definition of "terrorist" and "pedophile," but that's not going to change the fact that Freenet welcomes terrorists and pedophiles and that's going to draw the police like flies to shit. And, for that reason, I think that Freenet is a flawed concept.
All forms of encryption are, ultimately, perceived as a thumb at the nose of law enforcement and a childish dare. "Bet you can't crack this, coppers!" I don't feel that way about it, but I don't have to. Hiding in the open draws scrutiny. What privacy have I gained if I start encrypting all of my messages and the FBI responds by putting a surveillance team on my house? This happened to a friend of mine (not for using encryption, and he was acquitted of all charges, stupid FBI agents). You'd be stunned at what the FBI has the right to photograph or videotape without "invading your privacy" (as defined by law).
The problem I've had in using Freenet is that they are open to any content. What this says to me is, "If you want to share terrorist information or child porn, you are welcome here."
Before you jump down my throat, please keep in mind that I know that the term "terrorist" is highly subjective. Also, I *like* the idea of being able to have my communications remain private. My relationships are my business, and I don't have to subject them to any other *human's* supervision because I don't trust that the supervisor is any more virtuous than I am.
But to create a Freenet that is completely agnostic toward content is entirely the same thing as creating a terrorist-friendly and pedophile-friendly network. That may not be the intent, but it is certainly the outcome.
And it's for that reason that I don't use Freenet. I want completely private communication, but I don't want to be lumped in with vicious creeps, either. How can Freenet or any network provide me with that? I have doubts that it's possible at all.
Gadh believes consumers would be interested in purchasing specialized early releases of DVDs, as well as the specialized DVD players needed to play them
"Specialized" DVD players that play "Specialized" disks to go along with the other 9, big, ugly boxes collecting dust on top of your TV (along with the other "normal" DVD player which plays only "normal" DVDs).
It won't work. History says so. Gadh believes consumers will be interested in purchasing this moronic system because it's in his interest to believe it. He's paid to believe it.
Yes I do. How do they know that the Hep--
Don't try and change the subject. Let's stay focused on HIV and AIDS.
And no, I won't tell you any more. Some things require hands-on learning. Once you have isolated your first virus and grown it in culture, you'll understand. It's interesting, and a lot of fun
I'm sorry, I don't have enough money to do that. In its stead, will you please tell me the procedure that was used to isolate the HIV virus? (Mind you, I'm working on assumption that "isolation" is the key word that means "we know that a particular virus exists.")
I'm really serious about this, Axel.
I know you think I'm stupid, corrupt, and evil, and I don't care. I'm deliberately ignoring all of that because I think I'm finally getting down to the part of this discussion that's either going to convert me back to believing in the HIV dogma or is going to solidify my position as an apostate. I'm not doing this to beat you up or get beat up by you. I want to get to the bottom of it.
If you can tell me the lab procedures that were used to isolate HIV, then I can examine those procedures and their results and then determine whether or not thay seem logical. This is the core of my problem with the HIV dogma. If it can be explained to me, then I will change my mind. Please help.
I have to assume that these are rhetorical questions
No, they are not.
If you are genuinely interested however
I am genuinely interested, but you seem unable to come up with an answer. Let me get you on the right track.
We know HIV exists because:
(Here is where you fill in the scientific procedure which indicates how we know HIV exists)
Just answer the question. Stop trying to change the subject. Stop all the ad hominems. Stop trying to make this an issue of my character. Just answer the question and tell me the scientific procedure.
Do you know the scientific procedure they use? Please tell me you do.
Ok, if it's not a conspiracy, i.e. a willful and coordinated distortion of the facts, then we must be dealing with--
How do we know that HIV exists?
How do we know that HIV causes AIDS?
Like I said before, I have no interest in changing your deeply held beliefs. If you're honest, you know as well as I do that nothing I could possibly say would change your mind.
This is false. If you give me sound evidence and sound reasoning, then I will change my mind.
Case in point: I used to maintain that AZT was a cause of AIDS symptoms. Then I examined the results of the "Concorde Trial," which is the one and only long-term mortality test of AZT. What did it show? Two things: First, that AZT did NOT decrease mortality in AIDS patients. Second, that AIDS patients in both camps had the same mortality. Because of this, I no longer maintain that AZT is a cause of AIDS.
The reason you claim that "nothing will change my mind" is because you want to paint me as closed-minded which makes it easier for you to dismiss me and thus excuse you from providing me with the evidence that I desire.
In a world where 90% of people believe in a god and almost as many believe in astrology and alien abductions, I can live with a couple half percent believing in a world-wide HIV-AIDS conspiracy that encompasses the medical profession, the governments, the drug companies and the insurance companies.
I have no interest whatsoever in conspiracy theories of any type, but I can see how you would want me to paint me as a conspiracy-theory peddler because it would make me easier to dismiss and thus excuse you from providing the evidence that I desire.
Though I find it a bit sad that, given your established half-education, you believe to be in a position to give important medical advice to your loved ones.
I already called you on this ad hominem and I can see you're pushing it again. It makes sense that you would want to paint me as deliberately ignorant or uneducated because it makes me easier to dismiss and thus excuse you from having to provide me with the evidence I desire.
Now, what did you accomplish with your most recent post, Axel?
Did you tell me how you know that HIV exists? No, of course not! Instead, you careened on a series of character attacks. Most telling, Axel. I claim that the reason you won't tell me how you know that HIV exists is because you take it on faith. You have no evidence to support your belief.
Did you tell me how you know that the HIV causes AIDS? No, of course not! Instead, you thought that you could weasel out of it by making this debate an issue of my character. Again, most telling Axel. I claim that the reason you won't tell me how HIV causes AIDS is because you take it on faith. You have no evidence to support your belief.
I also noticed that you made no effort to counter my claims that the HIV test is meaningless. Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not?
Why don't you try just answering my god damned questions and stop attacking me?
I am confused now. Are you saying that people deemed as "low-risk" will never be given a positive test result by the tester? This doesn't quite accord with the fact that only "low-risk" people are allowed to donate blood, and the standard screening tests find plenty of positive results every day.
I'm not surprised, since the positive results are meaningless. I claim that people in "low-risk" groups that have positive results are interpreted as "false positives" whereas people in "high-risk" groups that have positive results are interpreted as "legitimate positives."
how about if, as a result of a needle accident in a hospital, an HIV test of you or a loved one is ordered, and the result is judged as "positive". What is your advice?
I would avise them to ignore the positive result because it is meaningless. I would strongly advise them not to take any AIDS drugs, as they are toxic. Did you think you were going to get any traction with this? I notice you're still trying to change the subject.
What you wrote is, of course, not as important as what you didn't write. How do you know that HIV exists? How do you know that HIV causes AIDS outside of correlation?
The reason you don't give me the answers despite my repeated attempts to elicit them from you is because you have no evidence. Otherwise, pony it up, AIDS apologist!