While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
I agree that there are some lenders who do things that I find unethical, such as what you describe. It does not justify a law which does what it's currently doing in Georgia!
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
Your sarcasm hurts your argument.
Now, let's talk about what you didn't reply to. Because of how poorly this so-called "anti predatory lending" law was written, no lending institution will finance a mortgage in Georgia for less than $350,000. How does this affect all of the apartment dwellers who have dreams of home ownership? It says to them, "Sorry, but you're not rich enough to deserve a house of your own. Pay your rent and be satisfied with it!" Thanks, government!
So I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. You seem to disregard facts in the name of protecting the poorest and weakest segments of society.
But I know what my friends were like, the little hellions, and they desperately needed more guidance.
What children need is limits, and it's up to the children's parents to decide what limits are appropriate on a child-by-child basis. Children of almost every age will test their limits and complain about them, but those who live without them wish they had them. So I disagree with almost all attempts of government to impose limits on children. Do we really want the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd telling us what's best for our kids?
I'm writing this as a parent, and I now understand why parents always start their soapboxes with "As a parent...." Being a parent has changed my perspective on just about everything.
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Childish rants like that hurt your credibility.
The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society.
This is generally where the Leftist starts to equate "society" with The State. Have you read Also Sprach Zarathustra?
Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish.
This assumes that all the laws that the government creates allow the economic system to flourish. This is false. Many of the laws hinder our economic system. Consider what was passed just recently in my great state of Georgia: a so-called "anti predatory lending" law. What it allows is for a mortgagee to sue the mortgagor if some predatory lending laws were violated. The effect of this is that mortgagors do not want to finance any mortgages under $350,000 becuase of the potential liability. Well, so much for *that* market segment, right?
Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function.
This assumes that infrastructure is always superior with increased government meddling.
Without the military to protect the system.
This assumes that what the military is doing is "protecting the system." Believe me, they have other priorities, such as fighting the ridiculous War on Some Drugs (intervention in what should be a free market -- so much for *that* market segment, right?) and bullying around other countries.
People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Suppose I buy a run-down house in a mid-range neighborhood. I put in some money to clean it up, get the car off the front lawn, repaint it, kick out the crack dealers, and then I sell it for profit. The neighbors love me for cleaning up the neighborhood dump, and I made some money. Win-win, right? Not exactly. The Imperial Federal Government takes HALF of my profits. Tell me, what work did the government do to help me clean up and repair the house? Nothing! If anything, the government is a hindrance to that business. The "underlying structures" give me no confidence whatsoever in this investment. Do you think this is the only example?
You might try to respond with "but the federal government provided all of the services for that neighborhood to exist!" Sorry, I don't buy that. What the federal government does specifically for particular neighborhoods is dwarfed by the cut they take from my profit, and is also dwarfed by the positive change that I make in that neighborhood by refurbishing the neighborhood dump.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that!
Kicker, schmicker. Taxes pay for a fraction of what goes on in the economy, and pay for all sorts of things they shouldn't. For example, the War on Some Drugs, support for Israel, interest on the federal debt for the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, Antisocial Insecurity, promotion of the Christian religion, the list goes on and on.
The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
The government is not the structure. They are, in fact, a hindrance and an annoyance to the structure in many cases. They infringe on my rights, they deprive me of my liberties.
What you have written is the first article in the Leftist book of faith: people are great because of government, not because of anything they did through hard work or sound decision making. You've kind of drawn from the second article of faith as well: all wealth is owned by the government to be distributed to the people at its whim.
Of course, there are children out there who deserve adoption - regardless of whether the adoptive parents are fertile or not.
Yes, those children deserve adoption, and you've said to them, "You don't deserve my love because you don't share my genetic material."
But as the proud father of happy, healthy twins that are the result of a successful in-vitro fertilization, I can only say &*%! you very much.
I do not intend to slander your beautiful and innocent children or your ability to parent them. My criticism lies elsewhere:
There are thousands of helpless children around the world who need loving parents. When you were faced with infertility, you told them that they weren't worthy of a parent like you because they did not share your genetic material. I'm not offended by your "&*%! you very much" which you gave me; instead, I am saddened. The ones who truly deserve to be offended are the children that you passed up so you could have "one of your own." I think you have chosen the most self-indulgent path to parenthood that you could afford.
I understand your angry reaction. I'm telling you that you've done an unethical thing, and people tend to have hurt feelings when they are told that. The feelings of adults are usually the first casuality when I start discussing the welfare of children.
My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian?
Becuase you'll miss out on pork chops, prime rib, butter, clarified butter, foie gras, duck, cream, bacon, proscuitto, and all sorts of other things that are delicious.
Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters.
They're also missing out on a good deal of cuisine. "They seem to be doing okay" could hardly be more nebulous.
We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.
Saturated fat isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Furthermore, carbohydrates (permitted in the allegedly-healthy vegetarian lifestyle) are much worse than people make them out to be.
My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway.
Of course you have that reaction! You probably believe that everyone should be vegetarians, much like Christians believe that everyone should be Christians. A friend on mine attended a vegetarian rally, and he overheard a vegetarian say in his malice-laden voice, "Things would be better if all the meat-eaters just died!"
Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat will want your space station comrades to stick with the rice and lentils and a side of naan.
I've never known any feces from any baby that smelled "interestingly aromatic," though I have gotten used to the smell of my 2-year-old's poop. Vegetarians, like Christians, often distort or invent facts (such as, "rabbits eat a lot of carrots") to support their philisophical beliefs. I'm reminded of the phrase, "You use facts like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination."
I really like Southern Indian cooking, though. Food doesn't have to have meat to be yummy.
And whose fault is it that those pilots didn't take a few minutes every once in a while to wonder if their employer's finances were healthy and if they were going to be around for a while? Whose fault is it that they put all their savings and investment eggs in one basket?
First, you're arguing that the pilots deserve to lose their retirement for being so shortsighted. Second, many companies pressure their employees to invest heavily in the company stock. Saying, "If you don't like it, quit!" is too simplistic. Many people's lives and priorities are more complicated than yours is.
Your failure to plan for your future is not my responsibility.
I was never intending to argue otherwise. I'm sorry that I came off that way. I believe in personal responsibility as much as you do. I should; I'm in business for myself.
As far as the environment goes, it's not that difficult to be somewhat conscious of the consequences of your actions, even without a lot of available cash.
So you agree with me: the notion of "destroying the environment" is subjective.
Tell that to the several hundred thousand Americans who are currently out of a job due to the poor economic conditions in the US. Tell that to the pilots of United who have just seen their entire retirement go up in smoke with the bankruptcy of that company.
The current generation has no right to fuck the environment, potentially for the rest of the life of the planet, just to maintain your fucked up vision of a properly run economy.
First, you can't even define what "fucking up the evironment" means: it's subjective. Second, the planet does not have a life. It's all matter that changes form over time. Third, what you see as "fucked up" is totally sane to another. Who's right? Using such qualifiers, there is no clear answer.
Burning fossil fuels adds to greenhouse gases which screws with the environment in ways which we can't undo.
I have not seen the evidence that shows this. I do recognize that it's been a goal of the left to get people of out cars and into mass transportation. But not privately-run mass transportation -- government-run mass transportation.
So we have to stop burning fossil fuels. Simple as that.
If it really was so simple then you wouldn't need to label it as such -- its simplicity would be obvious to all.
And if there are other things contributing to global warming, then we have to do something about them too.
If the average temperature of the earth cools and heats on its own accord (i.e., shy of human intervention), then why do we have to do something about them? Just saying, "We have to do something!" doesn't cut it.
And fuck the economic cost. Or there'll be no-one left in 500 years to count your precious pennies.
There is no way that you could know that.
Everyone else (except for Israel) is quite happy left to their own devices, and only has weapons to protect themselves from the inevidable invasion from the US military / economy.
One-third of all US aid goes to Israel. Where do you think the other two-thirds goes? So much for your claim that "everone else is quite happy left to their own devices." And your claim that the "only" reason other countries has weapons is to defend themselves from the US is false.
Unless you've been through the struggle of working through these issues, I wouldn't casually toss out the recommendation of adoption. That's a slap in the face to those who want a child of their own flesh and blood more than anything.
It's a "slap in the face" to suggest adoption to an infertile couple? Consider this: There are currently thousands of healthy children around the world who need loving parents. An infertile couple who chooses not to adopt (but instead invests the thousands of dollars usually required to come up with a way for them to have "one of their own") is a couple that says to these children, "I won't love you as my child unless you share my genetic material." Does that sound like any less a "slap in the face" to those children who need and deserve loving parents? Parents' need for children is dwarfed by an parentless child's need for parents. In my opinion, those infertile couples who would actively forego adopting a child so that they can have "one of their own" don't even deserve to have children.
And I don't care what you say about capitalism's evil business practices.
It's the humans, not capitalism, who have evil business practices. Let's place the blame where it is due. There are lots of honest and ethical business owners and employers who are overshadowed by the crummy ones. I pride myself in being honest, fair, and compassionate to my employees and my customers who, without which, my business and livliehood would fail.
Legally, the Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That definitely includes the Internet.
That really depends on the legal definition of "commerce." If I host a web page that contains some information and I make no money off the web page, and someone in another state views the information on the web page, is that commerce? No money changed hands.
If two people communicate, using walkie-talkies, over state lines then is that also interstate commerce?
I'm trying to stimulate discussion. I'm not trying to be confrontational.
NOBODY WAS INSULTING OR BEING HOSTILE TOWARDS YOU IN ANY WAY.
You suggest that I need medication, and then you yell at me. Your scream carries your claim that you weren't being insulting (even though your suggestion that I need medication implies that I am mentally ill) or hostile. I don't know how you can garner less credibility than you do now.
What did I do to get you so worked up? Certainly you have more important things to get excited about.
And it's a stain on your character that you regard that as an insult.
What you're saying here (and I've heard it from many different assholes I've come across in my short life) is this: "What I said was not insulting. You are either stupid or hypersensitive for regarding it as much." To call me stupid in this regard is to tell me how to think, and to call me hypersensitive is to tell me how to feel.
You can't tell me how to think, and you can't tell me how to feel. Just like I can't tell you how to think or how to feel. Your attempts to indimidate me will fail.
Get your panties out of a bunch! If it was an insult I would have said that you were too stupid to understand.
You seem to be getting increasingly defensive and excited with your exclamation points, increasingly hostile tenor, and boldface characters. If I'm such a loser (and the way you're treating me seems to indicate that you feel that way toward me), then why are you wasting so much energy on me? You must have better things to spend your time on.
It is also quite revealing that because one person has experience somewhat different than yours that the only thing you could think to write in your original post was an insult to that person's employer.
I wasn't making fun of the person's employer (well, maybe about the red, candylike switch I was a little bit). The person's employer was Home Depot, not IBM. I called him the "IBM guy" becuase he was one of the many people who worked on the IBM at Home Depot.
And this is relevant how?
Any sentence of the form "And this is adjective how?" carries its own built-in sneer. You're not going to win any points or friends with that kind of attitude.
To answer your question, it's relevant because it blows holes in your condescending and false assertion that I am clueless (about OS/390). I can say that calling me clueless was much more accurate before I had the conversation with the "IBM guy" in which he revealed that he had no concept of what a directory was. After that I learned what the cataloger was, how some of the "permissions" worked, what a GDG was, and other such IBM stuff that I needed to know to perform my job.
The point is, IBM big iron is a very different beast than the rest of the computing world.
I knew this long before I read anything you wrote. I'm sorry that you weren't able to ascertain this from what I wrote. I'm not sure if I need to be more clear or you need to be less hostile. Perhaps a little of both.
Why then would the admin need to know what a directory was?
I didn't explain myself well enough in my original post. You must have read it as if I were making fun of the IBM guy. I wasn't. I was merely showing that I was stunned by my introduction to the fact that the IBM world of computing is huge and completely different from the UNIX/Windows world of computing. UNIX and Windows are similar to each other once OS/390 is brought into the picture.
I think I probably understand IBM mainframes than 90% of the slashdot readers. That does not by any stretch of the imagination make me skilled at using such a machine, but it does not make me clueless, either.
It's a smudge on your character that the only thing you could think to write in your reply was an insult.
The other day, I had a look at a new looking terminal in the Lowes. It was some kind of IBM box, running X. The main aplication seemed to be.... a 3270 emulator.
It's the killer app of the IBM mainframe: it doesn't crash.
The IBM mainframe had a bright, red, candylike switch on the front of it that practically screams "SWITCH ME!!!" yet doing so would be catastrophic for the machine. I found that hilariously ironic.
And I'll never forget the first support call I did for one of the "IBM people." I was a UNIX engineer. I told the guy, "Ok, just look in the directory/blah/blah/blah...."
And he asked me back, "What's a directory?" Keep in mind that he was a person who was very skilled in computing and programming.
Home Depot will never be a leader in the industry if it continues to view IT as an expense rather than an investment.
Agreed! To view IT as a cost center only is to blind oneself to the advances that we can make to "mere retail."
In fact, Wal-Mart and Home Depot are even compared here
You have no idea! The Home Depot concept IS the Wal-Mart concept (mostly). The common managerial question at HD upon considering a new idea was, "Has Wal-Mart done it?" The Home Depot cheer was a carbon copy of the Wal-Mart cheer. Giving stock to all company employees was an idea HD copied from Wal-Mart as well. So was the "Inverted Pyramid" idea (read: lie).
The differences between Home Depot and Wal-Mart are why HD will shrink and Wal-Mart will grow. 1. Home Depot has a service element which is much, much more difficult to quality and inventory control. 2. HD is much more limited in what they can sell than Wal-Mart is. Many Wal-Marts now have grocery stores.
If what you're saying really is true of Home Depot, expect Wal-Mart to keep swallowing Home Depot's business.
It's inevitable. Wal-Mart and Home Depot will eventually be competitors, and HD will lose that battle.
I expect that Wal-mart will remain a leader for some time to come in the retail space.
I expect that Wal-Mart will be the defining force behind retail until the retail concept becomes obsolete.
Cheaper, yes. And also deadly to a key element of Home Depot's concept. Home Depot is as much a service company as it is a retail company. If you want to do a diy home project, say, tiling your kitchen walls (which I have done), then you can expect to go into Home Depot and talk to a subject matter expert on tiling. Making 50% of the store employees part-timers greatly weakens the number and effectiveness of providing this crucial service.
I agree in cutting costs, and I think changing (and, in this case, weakening) the core concept of the company is a bad idea.
I'm an ex-employee of Home Depot. I worked in the IT department.
Yes, the registers, and practically all of the store systems, are connected to one of many different types of HP-UX boxes, depending on how old the store is. I heard tales of SSC (store support center, the HD headquarters just outside of Atlanta, GA) IT employees opening up those boxes and finding them totally packed with dust. As in, no more dust could fit in the case of the HP-UX box. But it still worked!
When I worked there, Java was all the rage and HD had lots of employees churning out millions of lines of shitty Java code that did a whole lot of nothing. Much of the real work was still done on MVS (that the IBM mainframe) in JCL, assembly, and whatnot. The UNIX work was in HP-(S)UX in, of all things, Informix 4GL.
When I was leaving, HD was seriously flirting with Linux. They had lots of cool linux machines running in one of the labs. I felt bad about leaving, but not really, since I was leaving to go work at a Linux shop doing Perl. HD hated Perl, or anything else that was "unsupported."
HD IT managers actually did a purge of all rouge Linux machines they found on the network maybe about a year or so before I was hired.
In my opinion, any flirting that HD has done with MSFT is due to the new CEO, Bob Nardelli. Talking to my old HD friends has revealed that he's making all sorts of really stupid changes, such as trying to turn 50% of all store employees into part-timers. (What? How are you supposed to have SMEs with so many part-timers?)
But before anyone forms any real opinions about HD, remember: HD is a retail shop, not a technology shop. People in IT there were, every few months or so, demanded that they "prove their worth." As far as the head retailers were concerned, IT was nothing more than a "cost center." If you want to work in technology, don't choose retail. You're going to be disappointed.
First, let me say that I think all ST sucks...
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 2
Careful. DS9 was probably the best series of all of them....but wasn't that the series that revolved around the premise where the so-called space heroes were sitting still in space, waiting for something to come along and kick their asses?
In most companies they are clutching obsolete applications like life preservers, when in reality they are anchors.
God knows you're right! When I worked at very-large-retailer-to-be-unnamed in the IT department I was floored by how much crappy software they had built on top of their hardware. I can't remember how many times I thought, "Why not just use CVS?" or "Why do we have to use this thing?"
First, if you replace something that's working, even if it's working extremely ineffeciently, it might break. The perception of something breaking is about one trillion times worse to the PHBs and the execs than the perception of something working extremely ineffeciently, especially in a retail management mindset.
Second, especially if you have legions of data-entry people trained to use the extremely ineffecient software, then the cost to replace and retrain is higher in the short-term than to stay with the extremely inefficient system. PHBs and execs, especially in a retail mindset, can't thing about long-term cost savings in IT becuase IT is already a "cost center," not a "profit center."
In short, two reasons for bone-headed software in the enterprise: perception and cost. Mainly perception.
I'll tell you one thing -- if you're stupid, you're going to suck at Vice City.
So if you don't suck at some meaningless video game like Vice City, then does that mean you will also be good at becoming an entrepreneur? How about at employing people? Or at coming up with vaccines to dangerous diseases? Or at finding ways to eliminate government waste? Or at developing new products that help people?
There are many ways to evaluate intelligence (mind you, I think that humans have a very poor understanding of what intelligence is), and I don't think that video-game playing skill is a good way to do so.
Despite the unflinching moral declarations of the FSF, most users of so-called "Free Software" care about the gratis a heck of a lot more than the libre...
Don't try to relegate this type of thinking to only users of so-called "Free Software." I think that most computer users... hell, why not just say most people care much more about gratis than they do libre. To care about libre takes a lot more intelligence than to care about gratis. Everyone has to eat. Lots of stupid people want to buy all that pop culture crap and play Vice City. They're not going to make time to think about why software should be free (libre). God, our own crappy language has a hard time expressing these concepts!
In the real world, every Linux-user I know has or wants to have a Mac--and they're not putting PPC Linux on them, they're leaving OSX as-is, save for adding a few utilities.
So what? Your world is not the real world. It's viewed through your own subjective, rose-colored lenses. In other words, your anecdotal evidence isn't meaningful.
I'm a programmer affiliated with the med school of a very large private university, doing computational biology (I was a molecular bio major). I do not work on anything remotely AIDS-related
I'll keep this in mind.
It says so on that page you quoted, fairly close to the top- Duesberg tried to claim the award....And you didn't read the page before posting it, either. Shame.
Touche!
This is one of the things that bugs me; the HIV-is-bogus lobby can't even agree on this.
You raise a valid point here. Chalk one up to the "problems with the HIV-is-bogus skeptics' positions" scoreboard to match against the many chalkmarks on the "problems with the HIV==AIDS theory" scoreboard.
As for the genome, protein structures, etc., you could always do a Google search, but that would require an open mind.
Does the fact that I don't accept your opinions automatically make me closed-minded? How do you know it is not you who is closed-minded for not accepting mine? I hate it when people say, "Just go look it up, doofus." Why should I? Isn't it your ilk which puts forth the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
A few of the many, many structures are this
Snip. Forgive me for being so ignorant, but these pictures mean nothing to me. What should I make of them?
I don't see how that's clouding the language; you're making a big deal about the side effects but you don't appear to know much about pharmaceuticals or molecular biology.
Do I need to mention again that your attempts to intimidate me will fail?
I don't know anything about the actual external side effects, only the molecular ones, but I seem to recall it involves some sort of anemia.
If I may quote John Lauritsen, "It is a drug whose basic action is to terminate DNA synthesis, all of it. It is a random terminator of DNA synthesis, which is nothing less than the life process itself. Such a drug cannot possibly be beneficial. And so it is not surprising that AZT has many terrible toxicities-it causes the muscles to waste away, it causes excruciating muscular pain, it attacks the nervous system, it especially attacks the blood, it causes life-threatening anemia, violent headaches. And all of these are merely the short-term toxicities." (Emphasis mine.) Isn't it true that "wasting" was called one of the symptoms of "full-blown AIDS"? Wouldn't it be a tragedy if the wasting (as well as other so-called "AIDS symptoms") were caused by AZT instead of AIDS? Are you open-minded enough to consider this possibility? Isn't it also true that AIDS patients started getting better when they started taking the so-called "AIDS cocktail" (and STOPPED taking AZT)?
You can find the paper in which he wrote that here. You can find lots more articles about AZT here. AZT was shelved for being too toxic, then it was revived as the one and only treatment for the "epidemic" of "AIDS." Since you obviously know a lot more about molecular biology than I do, I'm interested in your take on these things.
I'll agree AZT is a nasty drug. But you didn't answer my question: what about other therapies that do appear to be successful?
You are assuming the point in dispute. What is the relation between amyl nitrate and KS? Lots of gay men with KS were assumed to have AIDS and given AZT. It turns out that KS may be caused by amyl nitrate ("poppers") which were extremely popular among gay men having promiscuous sex.
I would argue that "AIDS is (usually) cause by HIV", which is a good bit different, and I don't have an answer for what happened to those children. There are plenty of weird examples like that involving AIDS, but they don't mean existing hypotheses about the role of HIV are wrong, only that disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated.
Sometimes I debate people who believe that the Bible is the word of God. When I point out a theological problem contained in scripture, a common answer from them is, "The ways of the Lord are mysterious." This is what you have done here with your, "disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated."
The definition of AIDS used to include by necessity HIV infection. Now, apparently, it doesn't, and it seems like there is not agreement among the "HIV adherents" on this issue either! Nonetheless, many people were given AZT as the "only means to treat their fatal illness" and made to pay for it with their money and their lives.
And we knew that already. You can't use anecdotal evidence as proof of a broad generalization; it's just not statistically valid.
Agreed, and it still blows holes in the "HIV==AIDS" theory. Something has to give.
As a counter-example, how do you explain the 2.2 million Africans who died from AIDS last year, where they can't afford AZT and certainly aren't doing many poppers?
Where are the bodies? The web site shows images of children. Where are the 2.2 million corpses which should result from this "epidemic"? The header of the web page read, "AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity." "Charity" means "we get money from the HIV==AIDS hypothesis." Not exactly an objective source. And I believe AIDS is much more about money than it is about science or health.
A counter question to you is, "Why are the cases of KS (an 'AIDS disease') relegated only to a particular target group of HIV-infected persons?"
Did they have HIV and not get AIDS- either because of weird biology (my argument) or HIV's harmlessness (Duesberg's argument)- or did they not have HIV in the first place?
I believe they did not have HIV. I do not believe there is such a virus. Perhaps you will be the one to convince me of such. It will take more than you spouting off about how much more you know about molecular biology than I do.
If the latter, does this mean everyone who's tested positive for HIV does not have any such virus in them?
Would you like to talk about the so-called "99.9% accurate" HIV test?
So, the first problem here is that all you're able to do is nitpick.
My position of skepticism is not nitpicking.
The second problem is that your hypotheses, to be correct, require that there be a vast conspiracy on the part of the news media, the medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical companies to fabricate AIDS so that GlaxoSmithKline can boost its revenues.
It's Burroghs-Wellcome, not GlaxoSmithKline, and I seriously doubt that they're the only ones on the benefiting end of the gravy train. I think you grossly underestimate the power of money. All three of the news media, pharm companies, and medical researchers have much money to gain of the so-called "AIDS scare." Do you remember when Liberace died? Do you remember the news helicopter which followed the van carrying Liberace's corpse?
It's one thing to claim that Gallo acted inappropriately, but to extend this to accuse a vast number of AIDS researchers of falsifying data is sort of absurd.
I disagree.
You clearly haven't even bothered to do the most cursory sort of investigation, and you seem to have virtually no knowledge of biology beyond what you've read on the Virus Myth web page.
(As a quick note, your pointing out that my knowledge comes from the virusmyth web page is an attempt to paint me as getting my knowledge from a single source. The web page is actually a collection of articles from many different sources. You'll have to do better than this.)
I'll write it one more time. Maybe this time you'll start believing it: YOUR ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE ME WILL FAIL. My knowledge or lack thereof of biology is not relevant. Consider the following questions:
1. Is it true that AIDS is called an "epidemic" despite the fact that it did not follow an epidemic pattern? 2. Is it true that many of the symptons of AIDS can be attributed to the use of AZT? 3. Is it true that amyl nitrate can be responsible for KS? 4. Is it true that AIDS research receives easily half as much funding as does cancer research even though the rate of AIDS cases is much, much less than one half the rate of cancer cases?
Now, tell me, how much knowledge of molecular biology do I need to ask those questions? How much do I need to understand the answers? How much do you need, for that matter, to attempt an answer? These are the reasons that cause me to have serious doubts about the whole "HIV==AIDS" (which, by your admission, is not always true) hypothesis specifically and the HIV industry (yes, it's an industry) in general.
Furthermore, if I am as slow and ignorant as you seem to be constantly apt to point out, then what good is it for you to post links to biology information that I'm sure not to understand? I have no way of knowing if it's bogus or not. Do you think that I should just take your word for it? My questions are not hard to answer. I don't believe you're too ingorant to answer them. Don't you think we'll find better dialog on a playing field where we can both play?
You seem like a smart person who has a lot of knowledge about things that I don't. Do my questions not interest you even slightly? Are you so loyal to your friends down the hall that you won't even stop to consider that they might be wrong?
Your condescending "You're just so ignorant" attitude stops now. Your attempts to intimidate me are more apt to make me distrust you than to doubt my own position of skepticism.
And I'm a bit peeved that you keep accusing everyone of working for pharmaceutical companies- heck, the assholes didn't even read my resume when I sent it to them last spring.
Hey we have something in common, we both think that pharm companies are assholes!;) I propose that we try and find bridges instead of walls in our discussion. I think I may have a lot to learn from you. Perhaps you'd prefer email -- this has gotten really long.
I find this dubious, and the NIH spends vastly more on cancer research: see their official funding page
You win points for actually linking to data, and what you say about the NIH is partly true. I wouldn't call twice the amount on cancer research to be "vastly more." I would call it twice as much. If it were one hundred times greater then I might accept "vastly more." Then again, consider the rate of AIDS cases verses the rate of cancer cases and the story changes. Also consider that you've only linked to funding done by NIH. Are they the only group funding AIDS research? So I don't think my statement is as dubious as you claim it to be.
Even Duesberg contends that HIV exists. The genome has been sequenced, the structures of the protease and reverse transcriptase have beeen solved.
I notice that you do not claim that the virus has been isolated. You claim it exists and attempt a sort-of ad verecundiam by sticking Duesberg onto it (even though you don't provide any evidence that Duesberg believes such a thing, so you could be making it up), but who cares what Duesberg thinks anyway? Either the virus has been isolated or it hasn't been. You could very well be making up your statements about protease structures and reverse transcriptase since you post no links to your claims.
There is a one-thousand pound reward offered to anyone who can isolate the alleged HIV virus. Are you prepared to claim it?
You people are more interested in dogma than science- just as bad as the creationists.
Not only is this a cheap-ass "you people" ad hominem, but it's really ironic that you'd accuse me of being "like a creationist" when all I am asking for is evidence and also in light of the the language coming out of the mouths of the HIV==AIDS adherents. Consider:
"Dr. Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called 'HIV deniers' (his explicit analogy to "Holocaust deniers').
"Said Wainberg: 'If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up, I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly.'"
As for AZT, everyone with more than a basic knowledge of biology and chemistry understands how dangerous it is- a brute force attack on reverse transcription (and, unfortunately, normal DNA replication). It's a particularly poor example, because the nasty side effects are obvious; why don't you try arguing against the therapeutic power of, say, Crixivan or d4t instead?
"Basic knowledge of biology." "Pretty poor example." "Crixivan." "d4t." You know what? Your efforts to indimidate me will fail. If you can spout off these condescending phrases and big words then you can also muster up the chutzpah to actually answer my questions. As is, your own words condemn you. Do you work for a big pharm company?
My bringing up AZT is certianly NOT a "particularly poor example." AZT was the AIDS therapy for years. It was a veritable gold mine for Burroughs-Wellcome during those years. Yes, the nasty side-effects are obvious, but trying to cloud them with language such as "brute force attack on reverse transcription" only makes your argument more suspicious, particularly in light of the questions that you've failed to answer. What, exactly, are the side effects of AZT? When and why was AZT shelved?
Here's a side story which helps my position and hurts yours. A while back, a major network aired a special about gay adoption. (As a gay adoptive parent, I was particularly interested.) They highlighted a gay couple who had taken in five foster children, four of which had HIV. A bit later in the show, the narrator explained that the HIV in these children "went away," a phenomenon that has "only been observed in children."
Under my (lack of) belief (specifically, that there is no such thing as HIV and it certainly does not cause the disease-with-the-ever-changing-definition "AIDS") this is easy to explain: the children were never given the poisons used to treat "AIDS" and thus never suffered from this alleged "epidemic."
How do you explain it under your belief system, you know, the one that dictates that HIV==AIDS?
Slashdot Mirror
While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
I agree that there are some lenders who do things that I find unethical, such as what you describe. It does not justify a law which does what it's currently doing in Georgia!
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
Your sarcasm hurts your argument.
Now, let's talk about what you didn't reply to. Because of how poorly this so-called "anti predatory lending" law was written, no lending institution will finance a mortgage in Georgia for less than $350,000. How does this affect all of the apartment dwellers who have dreams of home ownership? It says to them, "Sorry, but you're not rich enough to deserve a house of your own. Pay your rent and be satisfied with it!" Thanks, government!
So I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. You seem to disregard facts in the name of protecting the poorest and weakest segments of society.
Good job, and I have one comment:
But I know what my friends were like, the little hellions, and they desperately needed more guidance.
What children need is limits, and it's up to the children's parents to decide what limits are appropriate on a child-by-child basis. Children of almost every age will test their limits and complain about them, but those who live without them wish they had them. So I disagree with almost all attempts of government to impose limits on children. Do we really want the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd telling us what's best for our kids?
I'm writing this as a parent, and I now understand why parents always start their soapboxes with "As a parent...." Being a parent has changed my perspective on just about everything.
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Childish rants like that hurt your credibility.
The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society.
This is generally where the Leftist starts to equate "society" with The State. Have you read Also Sprach Zarathustra?
Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish.
This assumes that all the laws that the government creates allow the economic system to flourish. This is false. Many of the laws hinder our economic system. Consider what was passed just recently in my great state of Georgia: a so-called "anti predatory lending" law. What it allows is for a mortgagee to sue the mortgagor if some predatory lending laws were violated. The effect of this is that mortgagors do not want to finance any mortgages under $350,000 becuase of the potential liability. Well, so much for *that* market segment, right?
Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function.
This assumes that infrastructure is always superior with increased government meddling.
Without the military to protect the system.
This assumes that what the military is doing is "protecting the system." Believe me, they have other priorities, such as fighting the ridiculous War on Some Drugs (intervention in what should be a free market -- so much for *that* market segment, right?) and bullying around other countries.
People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Suppose I buy a run-down house in a mid-range neighborhood. I put in some money to clean it up, get the car off the front lawn, repaint it, kick out the crack dealers, and then I sell it for profit. The neighbors love me for cleaning up the neighborhood dump, and I made some money. Win-win, right? Not exactly. The Imperial Federal Government takes HALF of my profits. Tell me, what work did the government do to help me clean up and repair the house? Nothing! If anything, the government is a hindrance to that business. The "underlying structures" give me no confidence whatsoever in this investment. Do you think this is the only example?
You might try to respond with "but the federal government provided all of the services for that neighborhood to exist!" Sorry, I don't buy that. What the federal government does specifically for particular neighborhoods is dwarfed by the cut they take from my profit, and is also dwarfed by the positive change that I make in that neighborhood by refurbishing the neighborhood dump.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that!
Kicker, schmicker. Taxes pay for a fraction of what goes on in the economy, and pay for all sorts of things they shouldn't. For example, the War on Some Drugs, support for Israel, interest on the federal debt for the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, Antisocial Insecurity, promotion of the Christian religion, the list goes on and on.
The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
The government is not the structure. They are, in fact, a hindrance and an annoyance to the structure in many cases. They infringe on my rights, they deprive me of my liberties.
What you have written is the first article in the Leftist book of faith: people are great because of government, not because of anything they did through hard work or sound decision making. You've kind of drawn from the second article of faith as well: all wealth is owned by the government to be distributed to the people at its whim.
Of course, there are children out there who deserve adoption - regardless of whether the adoptive parents are fertile or not.
Yes, those children deserve adoption, and you've said to them, "You don't deserve my love because you don't share my genetic material."
But as the proud father of happy, healthy twins that are the result of a successful in-vitro fertilization, I can only say &*%! you very much.
I do not intend to slander your beautiful and innocent children or your ability to parent them. My criticism lies elsewhere:
There are thousands of helpless children around the world who need loving parents. When you were faced with infertility, you told them that they weren't worthy of a parent like you because they did not share your genetic material. I'm not offended by your "&*%! you very much" which you gave me; instead, I am saddened. The ones who truly deserve to be offended are the children that you passed up so you could have "one of your own." I think you have chosen the most self-indulgent path to parenthood that you could afford.
I understand your angry reaction. I'm telling you that you've done an unethical thing, and people tend to have hurt feelings when they are told that. The feelings of adults are usually the first casuality when I start discussing the welfare of children.
My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian?
Becuase you'll miss out on pork chops, prime rib, butter, clarified butter, foie gras, duck, cream, bacon, proscuitto, and all sorts of other things that are delicious.
Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters.
They're also missing out on a good deal of cuisine. "They seem to be doing okay" could hardly be more nebulous.
We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.
Saturated fat isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Furthermore, carbohydrates (permitted in the allegedly-healthy vegetarian lifestyle) are much worse than people make them out to be.
My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway.
Of course you have that reaction! You probably believe that everyone should be vegetarians, much like Christians believe that everyone should be Christians. A friend on mine attended a vegetarian rally, and he overheard a vegetarian say in his malice-laden voice, "Things would be better if all the meat-eaters just died!"
Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat will want your space station comrades to stick with the rice and lentils and a side of naan.
I've never known any feces from any baby that smelled "interestingly aromatic," though I have gotten used to the smell of my 2-year-old's poop. Vegetarians, like Christians, often distort or invent facts (such as, "rabbits eat a lot of carrots") to support their philisophical beliefs. I'm reminded of the phrase, "You use facts like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination."
I really like Southern Indian cooking, though. Food doesn't have to have meat to be yummy.
And whose fault is it that those pilots didn't take a few minutes every once in a while to wonder if their employer's finances were healthy and if they were going to be around for a while? Whose fault is it that they put all their savings and investment eggs in one basket?
First, you're arguing that the pilots deserve to lose their retirement for being so shortsighted. Second, many companies pressure their employees to invest heavily in the company stock. Saying, "If you don't like it, quit!" is too simplistic. Many people's lives and priorities are more complicated than yours is.
Your failure to plan for your future is not my responsibility.
I was never intending to argue otherwise. I'm sorry that I came off that way. I believe in personal responsibility as much as you do. I should; I'm in business for myself.
As far as the environment goes, it's not that difficult to be somewhat conscious of the consequences of your actions, even without a lot of available cash.
So you agree with me: the notion of "destroying the environment" is subjective.
Fuck the economic consequences.
Tell that to the several hundred thousand Americans who are currently out of a job due to the poor economic conditions in the US. Tell that to the pilots of United who have just seen their entire retirement go up in smoke with the bankruptcy of that company.
The current generation has no right to fuck the environment, potentially for the rest of the life of the planet, just to maintain your fucked up vision of a properly run economy.
First, you can't even define what "fucking up the evironment" means: it's subjective. Second, the planet does not have a life. It's all matter that changes form over time. Third, what you see as "fucked up" is totally sane to another. Who's right? Using such qualifiers, there is no clear answer.
Burning fossil fuels adds to greenhouse gases which screws with the environment in ways which we can't undo.
I have not seen the evidence that shows this. I do recognize that it's been a goal of the left to get people of out cars and into mass transportation. But not privately-run mass transportation -- government-run mass transportation.
So we have to stop burning fossil fuels. Simple as that.
If it really was so simple then you wouldn't need to label it as such -- its simplicity would be obvious to all.
And if there are other things contributing to global warming, then we have to do something about them too.
If the average temperature of the earth cools and heats on its own accord (i.e., shy of human intervention), then why do we have to do something about them? Just saying, "We have to do something!" doesn't cut it.
And fuck the economic cost. Or there'll be no-one left in 500 years to count your precious pennies.
There is no way that you could know that.
Everyone else (except for Israel) is quite happy left to their own devices, and only has weapons to protect themselves from the inevidable invasion from the US military / economy.
One-third of all US aid goes to Israel. Where do you think the other two-thirds goes? So much for your claim that "everone else is quite happy left to their own devices." And your claim that the "only" reason other countries has weapons is to defend themselves from the US is false.
Unless you've been through the struggle of working through these issues, I wouldn't casually toss out the recommendation of adoption. That's a slap in the face to those who want a child of their own flesh and blood more than anything.
It's a "slap in the face" to suggest adoption to an infertile couple? Consider this: There are currently thousands of healthy children around the world who need loving parents. An infertile couple who chooses not to adopt (but instead invests the thousands of dollars usually required to come up with a way for them to have "one of their own") is a couple that says to these children, "I won't love you as my child unless you share my genetic material." Does that sound like any less a "slap in the face" to those children who need and deserve loving parents? Parents' need for children is dwarfed by an parentless child's need for parents. In my opinion, those infertile couples who would actively forego adopting a child so that they can have "one of their own" don't even deserve to have children.
I am an adoptive parent, by the way.
And I don't care what you say about capitalism's evil business practices.
It's the humans, not capitalism, who have evil business practices. Let's place the blame where it is due. There are lots of honest and ethical business owners and employers who are overshadowed by the crummy ones. I pride myself in being honest, fair, and compassionate to my employees and my customers who, without which, my business and livliehood would fail.
Legally, the Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That definitely includes the Internet.
That really depends on the legal definition of "commerce." If I host a web page that contains some information and I make no money off the web page, and someone in another state views the information on the web page, is that commerce? No money changed hands.
If two people communicate, using walkie-talkies, over state lines then is that also interstate commerce?
I'm trying to stimulate discussion. I'm not trying to be confrontational.
NOBODY WAS INSULTING OR BEING HOSTILE TOWARDS YOU IN ANY WAY.
You suggest that I need medication, and then you yell at me. Your scream carries your claim that you weren't being insulting (even though your suggestion that I need medication implies that I am mentally ill) or hostile. I don't know how you can garner less credibility than you do now.
What did I do to get you so worked up? Certainly you have more important things to get excited about.
Damn. Lay off the medication.
I did that years ago.
You are imagining any hostility here.
You can't tell me what to think. I know it's going to take some time for that one to sink in.
And it's a stain on your character that you regard that as an insult.
What you're saying here (and I've heard it from many different assholes I've come across in my short life) is this: "What I said was not insulting. You are either stupid or hypersensitive for regarding it as much." To call me stupid in this regard is to tell me how to think, and to call me hypersensitive is to tell me how to feel.
You can't tell me how to think, and you can't tell me how to feel. Just like I can't tell you how to think or how to feel. Your attempts to indimidate me will fail.
Get your panties out of a bunch! If it was an insult I would have said that you were too stupid to understand.
You seem to be getting increasingly defensive and excited with your exclamation points, increasingly hostile tenor, and boldface characters. If I'm such a loser (and the way you're treating me seems to indicate that you feel that way toward me), then why are you wasting so much energy on me? You must have better things to spend your time on.
It is also quite revealing that because one person has experience somewhat different than yours that the only thing you could think to write in your original post was an insult to that person's employer.
I wasn't making fun of the person's employer (well, maybe about the red, candylike switch I was a little bit). The person's employer was Home Depot, not IBM. I called him the "IBM guy" becuase he was one of the many people who worked on the IBM at Home Depot.
And this is relevant how?
Any sentence of the form "And this is adjective how?" carries its own built-in sneer. You're not going to win any points or friends with that kind of attitude.
To answer your question, it's relevant because it blows holes in your condescending and false assertion that I am clueless (about OS/390). I can say that calling me clueless was much more accurate before I had the conversation with the "IBM guy" in which he revealed that he had no concept of what a directory was. After that I learned what the cataloger was, how some of the "permissions" worked, what a GDG was, and other such IBM stuff that I needed to know to perform my job.
The point is, IBM big iron is a very different beast than the rest of the computing world.
I knew this long before I read anything you wrote. I'm sorry that you weren't able to ascertain this from what I wrote. I'm not sure if I need to be more clear or you need to be less hostile. Perhaps a little of both.
Why then would the admin need to know what a directory was?
I didn't explain myself well enough in my original post. You must have read it as if I were making fun of the IBM guy. I wasn't. I was merely showing that I was stunned by my introduction to the fact that the IBM world of computing is huge and completely different from the UNIX/Windows world of computing. UNIX and Windows are similar to each other once OS/390 is brought into the picture.
I think I probably understand IBM mainframes than 90% of the slashdot readers. That does not by any stretch of the imagination make me skilled at using such a machine, but it does not make me clueless, either.
It's a smudge on your character that the only thing you could think to write in your reply was an insult.
The other day, I had a look at a new looking terminal in the Lowes. It was some kind of IBM box, running X. The main aplication seemed to be .... a 3270 emulator.
/blah/blah/blah...."
:)
It's the killer app of the IBM mainframe: it doesn't crash.
The IBM mainframe had a bright, red, candylike switch on the front of it that practically screams "SWITCH ME!!!" yet doing so would be catastrophic for the machine. I found that hilariously ironic.
And I'll never forget the first support call I did for one of the "IBM people." I was a UNIX engineer. I told the guy, "Ok, just look in the directory
And he asked me back, "What's a directory?" Keep in mind that he was a person who was very skilled in computing and programming.
A defining moment of my life.
Home Depot will never be a leader in the industry if it continues to view IT as an expense rather than an investment.
Agreed! To view IT as a cost center only is to blind oneself to the advances that we can make to "mere retail."
In fact, Wal-Mart and Home Depot are even compared here
You have no idea! The Home Depot concept IS the Wal-Mart concept (mostly). The common managerial question at HD upon considering a new idea was, "Has Wal-Mart done it?" The Home Depot cheer was a carbon copy of the Wal-Mart cheer. Giving stock to all company employees was an idea HD copied from Wal-Mart as well. So was the "Inverted Pyramid" idea (read: lie).
The differences between Home Depot and Wal-Mart are why HD will shrink and Wal-Mart will grow. 1. Home Depot has a service element which is much, much more difficult to quality and inventory control. 2. HD is much more limited in what they can sell than Wal-Mart is. Many Wal-Marts now have grocery stores.
If what you're saying really is true of Home Depot, expect Wal-Mart to keep swallowing Home Depot's business.
It's inevitable. Wal-Mart and Home Depot will eventually be competitors, and HD will lose that battle.
I expect that Wal-mart will remain a leader for some time to come in the retail space.
I expect that Wal-Mart will be the defining force behind retail until the retail concept becomes obsolete.
From strictly a cost point of view, it's cheaper.
Cheaper, yes. And also deadly to a key element of Home Depot's concept. Home Depot is as much a service company as it is a retail company. If you want to do a diy home project, say, tiling your kitchen walls (which I have done), then you can expect to go into Home Depot and talk to a subject matter expert on tiling. Making 50% of the store employees part-timers greatly weakens the number and effectiveness of providing this crucial service.
I agree in cutting costs, and I think changing (and, in this case, weakening) the core concept of the company is a bad idea.
It's rouge as in jaune and vert, not rouge as in lipstick and eyeliner!
:)
Good post, made me laugh.
I'm an ex-employee of Home Depot. I worked in the IT department.
Yes, the registers, and practically all of the store systems, are connected to one of many different types of HP-UX boxes, depending on how old the store is. I heard tales of SSC (store support center, the HD headquarters just outside of Atlanta, GA) IT employees opening up those boxes and finding them totally packed with dust. As in, no more dust could fit in the case of the HP-UX box. But it still worked!
When I worked there, Java was all the rage and HD had lots of employees churning out millions of lines of shitty Java code that did a whole lot of nothing. Much of the real work was still done on MVS (that the IBM mainframe) in JCL, assembly, and whatnot. The UNIX work was in HP-(S)UX in, of all things, Informix 4GL.
When I was leaving, HD was seriously flirting with Linux. They had lots of cool linux machines running in one of the labs. I felt bad about leaving, but not really, since I was leaving to go work at a Linux shop doing Perl. HD hated Perl, or anything else that was "unsupported."
HD IT managers actually did a purge of all rouge Linux machines they found on the network maybe about a year or so before I was hired.
In my opinion, any flirting that HD has done with MSFT is due to the new CEO, Bob Nardelli. Talking to my old HD friends has revealed that he's making all sorts of really stupid changes, such as trying to turn 50% of all store employees into part-timers. (What? How are you supposed to have SMEs with so many part-timers?)
But before anyone forms any real opinions about HD, remember: HD is a retail shop, not a technology shop. People in IT there were, every few months or so, demanded that they "prove their worth." As far as the head retailers were concerned, IT was nothing more than a "cost center." If you want to work in technology, don't choose retail. You're going to be disappointed.
Careful. DS9 was probably the best series of all of them. ...but wasn't that the series that revolved around the premise where the so-called space heroes were sitting still in space, waiting for something to come along and kick their asses?
In most companies they are clutching obsolete applications like life preservers, when in reality they are anchors.
God knows you're right! When I worked at very-large-retailer-to-be-unnamed in the IT department I was floored by how much crappy software they had built on top of their hardware. I can't remember how many times I thought, "Why not just use CVS?" or "Why do we have to use this thing?"
First, if you replace something that's working, even if it's working extremely ineffeciently, it might break. The perception of something breaking is about one trillion times worse to the PHBs and the execs than the perception of something working extremely ineffeciently, especially in a retail management mindset.
Second, especially if you have legions of data-entry people trained to use the extremely ineffecient software, then the cost to replace and retrain is higher in the short-term than to stay with the extremely inefficient system. PHBs and execs, especially in a retail mindset, can't thing about long-term cost savings in IT becuase IT is already a "cost center," not a "profit center."
In short, two reasons for bone-headed software in the enterprise: perception and cost. Mainly perception.
I'll tell you one thing -- if you're stupid, you're going to suck at Vice City.
So if you don't suck at some meaningless video game like Vice City, then does that mean you will also be good at becoming an entrepreneur? How about at employing people? Or at coming up with vaccines to dangerous diseases? Or at finding ways to eliminate government waste? Or at developing new products that help people?
There are many ways to evaluate intelligence (mind you, I think that humans have a very poor understanding of what intelligence is), and I don't think that video-game playing skill is a good way to do so.
Despite the unflinching moral declarations of the FSF, most users of so-called "Free Software" care about the gratis a heck of a lot more than the libre...
... hell, why not just say most people care much more about gratis than they do libre. To care about libre takes a lot more intelligence than to care about gratis. Everyone has to eat. Lots of stupid people want to buy all that pop culture crap and play Vice City. They're not going to make time to think about why software should be free (libre). God, our own crappy language has a hard time expressing these concepts!
Don't try to relegate this type of thinking to only users of so-called "Free Software." I think that most computer users
In the real world, every Linux-user I know has or wants to have a Mac--and they're not putting PPC Linux on them, they're leaving OSX as-is, save for adding a few utilities.
So what? Your world is not the real world. It's viewed through your own subjective, rose-colored lenses. In other words, your anecdotal evidence isn't meaningful.
I'm a programmer affiliated with the med school of a very large private university, doing computational biology (I was a molecular bio major). I do not work on anything remotely AIDS-related
;) I propose that we try and find bridges instead of walls in our discussion. I think I may have a lot to learn from you. Perhaps you'd prefer email -- this has gotten really long.
I'll keep this in mind.
It says so on that page you quoted, fairly close to the top- Duesberg tried to claim the award....And you didn't read the page before posting it, either. Shame.
Touche!
This is one of the things that bugs me; the HIV-is-bogus lobby can't even agree on this.
You raise a valid point here. Chalk one up to the "problems with the HIV-is-bogus skeptics' positions" scoreboard to match against the many chalkmarks on the "problems with the HIV==AIDS theory" scoreboard.
As for the genome, protein structures, etc., you could always do a Google search, but that would require an open mind.
Does the fact that I don't accept your opinions automatically make me closed-minded? How do you know it is not you who is closed-minded for not accepting mine? I hate it when people say, "Just go look it up, doofus." Why should I? Isn't it your ilk which puts forth the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
A few of the many, many structures are this
Snip. Forgive me for being so ignorant, but these pictures mean nothing to me. What should I make of them?
I don't see how that's clouding the language; you're making a big deal about the side effects but you don't appear to know much about pharmaceuticals or molecular biology.
Do I need to mention again that your attempts to intimidate me will fail?
I don't know anything about the actual external side effects, only the molecular ones, but I seem to recall it involves some sort of anemia.
If I may quote John Lauritsen, "It is a drug whose basic action is to terminate DNA synthesis, all of it. It is a random terminator of DNA synthesis, which is nothing less than the life process itself. Such a drug cannot possibly be beneficial. And so it is not surprising that AZT has many terrible toxicities-it causes the muscles to waste away, it causes excruciating muscular pain, it attacks the nervous system, it especially attacks the blood, it causes life-threatening anemia, violent headaches. And all of these are merely the short-term toxicities." (Emphasis mine.) Isn't it true that "wasting" was called one of the symptoms of "full-blown AIDS"? Wouldn't it be a tragedy if the wasting (as well as other so-called "AIDS symptoms") were caused by AZT instead of AIDS? Are you open-minded enough to consider this possibility? Isn't it also true that AIDS patients started getting better when they started taking the so-called "AIDS cocktail" (and STOPPED taking AZT)?
You can find the paper in which he wrote that here. You can find lots more articles about AZT here. AZT was shelved for being too toxic, then it was revived as the one and only treatment for the "epidemic" of "AIDS." Since you obviously know a lot more about molecular biology than I do, I'm interested in your take on these things.
I'll agree AZT is a nasty drug. But you didn't answer my question: what about other therapies that do appear to be successful?
You are assuming the point in dispute. What is the relation between amyl nitrate and KS? Lots of gay men with KS were assumed to have AIDS and given AZT. It turns out that KS may be caused by amyl nitrate ("poppers") which were extremely popular among gay men having promiscuous sex.
I would argue that "AIDS is (usually) cause by HIV", which is a good bit different, and I don't have an answer for what happened to those children. There are plenty of weird examples like that involving AIDS, but they don't mean existing hypotheses about the role of HIV are wrong, only that disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated.
Sometimes I debate people who believe that the Bible is the word of God. When I point out a theological problem contained in scripture, a common answer from them is, "The ways of the Lord are mysterious." This is what you have done here with your, "disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated."
The definition of AIDS used to include by necessity HIV infection. Now, apparently, it doesn't, and it seems like there is not agreement among the "HIV adherents" on this issue either! Nonetheless, many people were given AZT as the "only means to treat their fatal illness" and made to pay for it with their money and their lives.
And we knew that already. You can't use anecdotal evidence as proof of a broad generalization; it's just not statistically valid.
Agreed, and it still blows holes in the "HIV==AIDS" theory. Something has to give.
As a counter-example, how do you explain the 2.2 million Africans who died from AIDS last year, where they can't afford AZT and certainly aren't doing many poppers?
Where are the bodies? The web site shows images of children. Where are the 2.2 million corpses which should result from this "epidemic"? The header of the web page read, "AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity." "Charity" means "we get money from the HIV==AIDS hypothesis." Not exactly an objective source. And I believe AIDS is much more about money than it is about science or health.
A counter question to you is, "Why are the cases of KS (an 'AIDS disease') relegated only to a particular target group of HIV-infected persons?"
Did they have HIV and not get AIDS- either because of weird biology (my argument) or HIV's harmlessness (Duesberg's argument)- or did they not have HIV in the first place?
I believe they did not have HIV. I do not believe there is such a virus. Perhaps you will be the one to convince me of such. It will take more than you spouting off about how much more you know about molecular biology than I do.
If the latter, does this mean everyone who's tested positive for HIV does not have any such virus in them?
Would you like to talk about the so-called "99.9% accurate" HIV test?
So, the first problem here is that all you're able to do is nitpick.
My position of skepticism is not nitpicking.
The second problem is that your hypotheses, to be correct, require that there be a vast conspiracy on the part of the news media, the medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical companies to fabricate AIDS so that GlaxoSmithKline can boost its revenues.
It's Burroghs-Wellcome, not GlaxoSmithKline, and I seriously doubt that they're the only ones on the benefiting end of the gravy train. I think you grossly underestimate the power of money. All three of the news media, pharm companies, and medical researchers have much money to gain of the so-called "AIDS scare." Do you remember when Liberace died? Do you remember the news helicopter which followed the van carrying Liberace's corpse?
It's one thing to claim that Gallo acted inappropriately, but to extend this to accuse a vast number of AIDS researchers of falsifying data is sort of absurd.
I disagree.
You clearly haven't even bothered to do the most cursory sort of investigation, and you seem to have virtually no knowledge of biology beyond what you've read on the Virus Myth web page.
(As a quick note, your pointing out that my knowledge comes from the virusmyth web page is an attempt to paint me as getting my knowledge from a single source. The web page is actually a collection of articles from many different sources. You'll have to do better than this.)
I'll write it one more time. Maybe this time you'll start believing it: YOUR ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE ME WILL FAIL. My knowledge or lack thereof of biology is not relevant. Consider the following questions:
1. Is it true that AIDS is called an "epidemic" despite the fact that it did not follow an epidemic pattern?
2. Is it true that many of the symptons of AIDS can be attributed to the use of AZT?
3. Is it true that amyl nitrate can be responsible for KS?
4. Is it true that AIDS research receives easily half as much funding as does cancer research even though the rate of AIDS cases is much, much less than one half the rate of cancer cases?
Now, tell me, how much knowledge of molecular biology do I need to ask those questions? How much do I need to understand the answers? How much do you need, for that matter, to attempt an answer? These are the reasons that cause me to have serious doubts about the whole "HIV==AIDS" (which, by your admission, is not always true) hypothesis specifically and the HIV industry (yes, it's an industry) in general.
Furthermore, if I am as slow and ignorant as you seem to be constantly apt to point out, then what good is it for you to post links to biology information that I'm sure not to understand? I have no way of knowing if it's bogus or not. Do you think that I should just take your word for it? My questions are not hard to answer. I don't believe you're too ingorant to answer them. Don't you think we'll find better dialog on a playing field where we can both play?
You seem like a smart person who has a lot of knowledge about things that I don't. Do my questions not interest you even slightly? Are you so loyal to your friends down the hall that you won't even stop to consider that they might be wrong?
Your condescending "You're just so ignorant" attitude stops now. Your attempts to intimidate me are more apt to make me distrust you than to doubt my own position of skepticism.
And I'm a bit peeved that you keep accusing everyone of working for pharmaceutical companies- heck, the assholes didn't even read my resume when I sent it to them last spring.
Hey we have something in common, we both think that pharm companies are assholes!
I find this dubious, and the NIH spends vastly more on cancer research: see their official funding page
You win points for actually linking to data, and what you say about the NIH is partly true. I wouldn't call twice the amount on cancer research to be "vastly more." I would call it twice as much. If it were one hundred times greater then I might accept "vastly more." Then again, consider the rate of AIDS cases verses the rate of cancer cases and the story changes. Also consider that you've only linked to funding done by NIH. Are they the only group funding AIDS research? So I don't think my statement is as dubious as you claim it to be.
Even Duesberg contends that HIV exists. The genome has been sequenced, the structures of the protease and reverse transcriptase have beeen solved.
I notice that you do not claim that the virus has been isolated. You claim it exists and attempt a sort-of ad verecundiam by sticking Duesberg onto it (even though you don't provide any evidence that Duesberg believes such a thing, so you could be making it up), but who cares what Duesberg thinks anyway? Either the virus has been isolated or it hasn't been. You could very well be making up your statements about protease structures and reverse transcriptase since you post no links to your claims.
There is a one-thousand pound reward offered to anyone who can isolate the alleged HIV virus. Are you prepared to claim it?
You people are more interested in dogma than science- just as bad as the creationists.
Not only is this a cheap-ass "you people" ad hominem, but it's really ironic that you'd accuse me of being "like a creationist" when all I am asking for is evidence and also in light of the the language coming out of the mouths of the HIV==AIDS adherents. Consider:
"Dr. Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called 'HIV deniers' (his explicit analogy to "Holocaust deniers').
"Said Wainberg: 'If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up, I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly.'"
--John Lauritsen in AIDS REALISM VERSUS THE HIV HYPOTHESIS
As for AZT, everyone with more than a basic knowledge of biology and chemistry understands how dangerous it is- a brute force attack on reverse transcription (and, unfortunately, normal DNA replication). It's a particularly poor example, because the nasty side effects are obvious; why don't you try arguing against the therapeutic power of, say, Crixivan or d4t instead?
"Basic knowledge of biology." "Pretty poor example." "Crixivan." "d4t." You know what? Your efforts to indimidate me will fail. If you can spout off these condescending phrases and big words then you can also muster up the chutzpah to actually answer my questions. As is, your own words condemn you. Do you work for a big pharm company?
My bringing up AZT is certianly NOT a "particularly poor example." AZT was the AIDS therapy for years. It was a veritable gold mine for Burroughs-Wellcome during those years. Yes, the nasty side-effects are obvious, but trying to cloud them with language such as "brute force attack on reverse transcription" only makes your argument more suspicious, particularly in light of the questions that you've failed to answer. What, exactly, are the side effects of AZT? When and why was AZT shelved?
Here's a side story which helps my position and hurts yours. A while back, a major network aired a special about gay adoption. (As a gay adoptive parent, I was particularly interested.) They highlighted a gay couple who had taken in five foster children, four of which had HIV. A bit later in the show, the narrator explained that the HIV in these children "went away," a phenomenon that has "only been observed in children."
Under my (lack of) belief (specifically, that there is no such thing as HIV and it certainly does not cause the disease-with-the-ever-changing-definition "AIDS") this is easy to explain: the children were never given the poisons used to treat "AIDS" and thus never suffered from this alleged "epidemic."
How do you explain it under your belief system, you know, the one that dictates that HIV==AIDS?