I thought relative lack of sunlight and subsequent low temperatures were responsible for the ice?
It is. But ice caps are far more stable when based on a land mass, which the North Pole (currently) isn't, and hasn't been for quite some time. And we're seeing the effects today; while it appears that the north polar ice cap is melting rapidly and may be completey gone before century's end, the south polar ice cap is in no such danger. Although it too seems (and I do stress 'seems') to be melting somewhat, the pace is orders of magnitude smaller because the ice cap itself rests on the Antarctic land mass.
So, any significant warming of the Earth will melt the north pole, but not the south pole. The reverse would be true if the south pole cap was ocean ice and the north pole cap was sitting on a land mass.
No matter the overall climatic changes, OUR activites have made it much worse and much faster.
We *still* don't know what the human contribution has done to the cycle - if anything. Most scientists agree that humans are having an impact on the speed of global warming, but no one - not any person, anywhere on the planet - can make an authoritative claim on the degree of this impact. It could be large, it could be small, it could be entirely unnoticeable compared to natural processes.
And that includes you. Neither you nor anyone else can make the claim that humans have made it "much worse" and "much faster" than it would've been without human contribution. You don't have a clue any more than anyone else does.
Ice is melting everywhere. Glaciers are going, Siberia is melting, releasing methane in a vicious cycle, villages in Alaska are disappearing in the meltoff of the land, we're getting four times the normal number of hurricanes in a year -- and they are stronger, for the waters are warmer than they have been in centuries. The Northwest Passage over the arctic ocean is opening up as the ice floes melt.
This is evidence of the events, not the cause. All of these things are true (except for the hurricane bit, which you got wrong); blaming them on humans as the major cause is a crock of shit. It could very well be true that these things would be happening if humans were still stuck in the Stone Age, albeit at (possibly) a somewhat slower pace. Only a massive infusion of cash and personnel into various related sciences (e.g., geology, climatology) will ever be able to answer this question; divine relevation via alarmist propaganda isn't a good subsitute for actual empirical evidence.
The only choice we have, in the short run, is whether we wish to mitigate the changes by cutting down greenhouse gases -- immediately.
You have no evidence whatsoever that this would slow down global warming. Best guess at this point is that *if* humans are having a major impact on global warming it's probably far too late to mitigate the effects. And forget about reversing them, we have no clue how to do that.
Even if it were true, the obvious answer is to replace coal-fired plants with nuclear breeder reactors, and IC engine-driven cars with hydrogen (as inefficient as that is). Think that's going to happen with extremist greenie fuckers pissing their shorts every time someone says the word "nuclear"?
Of course, the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown.
Ah, I see. Your whole argument devolves down to a pseudo-socialist rant that amounts to "It's the fault of the EEEEEVILLL corporations!". Please, get a fucking clue; if humans are to blame then it isn't the corporations at fault - it's YOU, asshole. YOU are the one to blame. So suck it up and take it like a man, rather than trying to pass the buck to someone else.
One of the few uses of having a lot of karma is the ability to piss off fanatics, like the RMS-worshipping clowns who modded this down to 0:
"Nobody but RMS fans gives a shit about the "ambiguity". Really, we don't. That's why 99% of us call it "linux", while only a tiny 1% whine, bitch, and moan that it should be called "GNU/Linux". And they're (rightly) ignored."
Go ahead, boys. I figure I can do this another 20 or so times before I run dry.
Oh, stop being such a pussy, pc-boy. As far as "offensive" words go this is nothing, at least to those of us with a firm grip on reality.
The shame of this is that those very people are working with tax payer money
What taxpayer money? Best as I can tell the Gimp was created by unpaid volunteer effort. At least, that's the story they tell in their own history, from their own website.
Nobody but RMS fans gives a shit about the "ambiguity". Really, we don't. That's why 99% of us call it "linux", while only a tiny 1% whine, bitch, and moan that it should be called "GNU/Linux". And they're (rightly) ignored.
Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?
I suppose that was technically true when I altered the entries for Lee Hyo Ri, Kristin Kreuk and Kiera Knightely to include "and indubitably, one of the sweetest pieces of ass to ever grace the planet". Those entries stayed around for some time before someone decided that perhaps they weren't as factual as they first appeared to be (although I contend the statements are indeed facts, and to claim otherwise only proves that you're, well, gay).
However, my entry for Mark Hildreth (Kristin Kreuk's boyfriend, and therefore my hated nemesis) stated that he appeared in the film "Butt Pirates of the Carribean" which, I'm fairly certain, is not an actual movie. At least I hope not, because what a waste of film that would be. I further went on to allude that Ms. Kreuk had dumped Mr. Hildreth because he "had a tiny penis" and "couldn't last longer than thirty seconds in the sack". Last time I checked Ms. Kreuk is still dating Mr. Hildreth (sigh), and while it may be true that he has a tiny penis and can't last longer than thirty seconds in the sack, at the moment these statements simply represent my lame, pathetic hopes, along with the fantasy that someday Ms. Kreuk will decide I'm god and become my second wife (a man has to have dreams, you know).
While Wikipedia may be useful for getting references to REAL sources of information is certainly contains bucketsful of untrue crap, whether placed there deliberately or done so by packs of morons, idiots, or looneytoons (e.g., the blasted entry on UFOs). Saying that it's "authoritative" is quite laughable; saying that it's "more authoritative and accurate than anything else out there, including print" marks you as one of the morons, idiots or looneytoons.
Yeah, they're really not substantively different than the guy changing your oil or delivering your pizza.
They're *service providers*. Not gods. They provide a service for a specific price. It's incumbent upon them to act like good little capitalists and do what the fuck they've been contracted to do, at the time and place agreed upon. They don't deserve any special treatment simply because they're doctors.
Oh please. Don't be such a fucking drama queen. Doctors don't deserve any special consideration for being unable to keep timely appointments. They're service providers like any other, and it's about time they realized that.
Who is the peer in "peer-reviewed" who would review a medical journal who isn't also a doctor?
Fact is, any "study" published in a medical journal tooting the horn of, well, *medical professionals*, done by those same medical professionals, deserves a healthy amount of skepticism.
But that isn't what your link talked about. In fact, it doesn't address the actual skill of the doctors in question at all. According to the article, the complaints are summarized as:
"63 percent found that older physicians were less likely than younger doctors to conform to current standards."
and
"14 of 19 studies (74 percent) looking at performance found that older physicians were less likely to adhere to therapeutic standards compared with younger doctors."
In other words, older doctors are less likely to rigidly follow practices exhorted in medical school, and instead do what they think is best. Which apparently seems to be some sort of heretical idea, at least where younger doctors (or Harvard Medical School) is concerned.
Also note this piece of fucking silliness:
" One study found that patients were more likely to die of a heart attack if their physician had been in practice for more years."
The "study" which is being referred to was thoroughly debunked as soon as it hit the journals. Why? Because what the study failed to mention is that *older doctors tend to have older patients*. Of *course* older doctors have more patients that die of heart attacks; their clientele is older and more at risk!
Given that at least one of the sources of the meta-study you linked to was proven to be a crock of horseshit right from the get-go, I remain firmly skeptical of the results of the meta-study, as well as their interpretation of those results (i.e., "doctors who don't rigidly follow practices taught in med school are worse than the fresh, wet-behind-the-ears puppies who do").
Gotta wonder if this is just bad science, or if someone is promoting an agenda.
But I don't think that someone who completely gives up license fees is ever going to have a substantial R&D budget and do the hard things, the things too hard to do in a university environment.
Bill's ability to completely and utterly ignore any portion of reality which doesn't promote The Microsoft Way(TM) is truly extraordinary. From the way he talks I've come to think he actually believes the shit that spews forth from his pie-hole, in a very Howard Hughes-ian sort of way.
My point is that any system that potentially inflicts damage on a person's reputation should have a "due process" mechanism that lets that accused defend their actions or tell their side of the story.
It's called "a lawsuit". If you think the website contains lies about you or your practice you can sue them. If you can prove it in court then you can take the libelous swine to the cleaners, as well as get the web site shut down.
Of course, anyone, anywhere, can do this. Doctors do not need, nor do they deserve, any special consideration. What they do need to do is suck it up and realize that they have recourse to the legal system to redress a wrong - just like everyone else.
Given that the nature of their job is troubleshooting systems owned by users who aren't experts at explaining their problems (which anyone reading Slashdot should understand), that just isn't always possible.
I'll remember that the next time I deal with a client that's a doctor or medical practice. I'll just be late and tell them I was troubleshooting problems that turned out to be more complex than originally described, and surely they understand since it happens all the time to them?
My wife's a pediatrician and all the talk recently was about a spate of recent studies that prove statistically that newly minted doctors give better care than doctors out of residency for ten years plus
Great. Let's see some links to those empirical articles published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals. And hopefully they haven't been done by doctors, or the husbands of doctors.
I feel the problem is that lots of people tend to complain about everything.
This may be true, but doctors neither need nor deserve any special protections from criticism. If we can merrily bitch about the bad practices of a large corporation (e.g., bestbuysux.org) then we can do the same about anyone else. Fuck the people who think they merit special consideration.
I noticed you conveniently failed to address his point about the device you bought and paid for spying on you. But I suppose that isn't a problem for you because only criminals have something to hide, eh?
Actually, steps 1 and 2 are generally combined if you do a fresh install right from the get-go. I can't remember a version of Suse where you had to do this separate from the installation of the OS; one of the great things about this distro is that you can install everything but the kitchen sink along with the OS and GUIs themselves. Well, that's true of most distros but Suse's YAST makes this incredibly easy, especially from 8.2 on. In fact, it takes me much longer to install win2000 and associated apps, with all the manufacturers disks, reboots, patches, "service packs", etc.
Step 3 you can do right after the install, also from YAST. YAST rewrites the config files for you, so no annoying hunts for text files tucked away in odd places. Not just Apache, but NFS, NIS, etc - all the basic (and many of the not-so-basic) tools as well. This is one of the reasons I'm fond of Suse; I'm old enough now that it's no longer 'fun' to do this by hand. The faster things are up and running, the happier I am.
As for step 4, YAST now has a module for Samba as well. Not sure if you still have to tweak the config files since I haven't used it (the new YAST module, not Samba). If you're only interested in Linux seeing Windows and don't care about the reverse, NFS will do the trick and takes about five minutes to set up (literally, both client and server; I use this at home since my win2000 partition is only for games - no need for Samba there).
Five - of course. You've always been able to do this.
but instead i had to undergo aforementioned weeks of google groups and editing obscure config files in obscure places JUST TO SET THE IP ADDRESS OF THE MACHINE.
This confuses me. Suse will pick up the i.p. address of your machine right away, during the install, if you're directly connected. If you're on a network or working through a home router/hub, it'll pick up both the i.p. you've been assigned as well as the i.p. your box assigns you. If you're talking home machine and one of those little Netgear or Linksys boxes, you can use a browser to ask the machine itself what both the internal and external i.p. addresses are - or use it to assign internal i.p. addresses, if you like. Or you can just hit a web site that'll tell you your i.p. address, if that's easier for you.
I'm not sure why you had difficulty determining the i.p. address of your machine.
that's right i had to set the ip address, gateway, domain/workgroup, computer name, etc. in about 8 programs and config files.
Again, I don't understand why you had to do this. Suse installs right from the box, complete with connectivity, whether you're live on the net or on an internal network. One of the great things about it is that I rarely have to do any sort of manual intervention; it'll figure out the configuration on it's own, write the files, and I'm connected (internally and externally) as soon as the install is complete. If I'm using NFS (like at home) it takes me about five minutes to set up the machines to be able to see each others partitions.
that the magic bullet against the windows-registry is to have every single program that uses a network card to have to be told precisely how?
Still confused here. I don't have to do this; YAST works so well that even when I have a motherboard with two built-in NICs it'll automatically configure both, figure out which one has the actual connection, and use that NIC (while disabling the other) all on its own. I've only had one minor problem with this on an odd motherboard, and surprise! The manufacturer actually included a Linux patch which cleared it right up.
Once your connection is established you shouldn't have to do anything at all with any other program; they all operate through the OS for connectivity. That is, once the OS has a connection every other program should have a connection as well. You shouldn't have to do very much to set up your ftp server, web server, etc; in fact, you can configure these with YAST and be up and running in no time.
i'm sick of this response every time someone has a personal pick at a particular linux point.
Then go back to Windows or OS X. What's the problem here? Linux clearly isn't for you, and you have other options. Turning Linux into a clone of Windows or OS X isn't something most Linux users want, nor is it necessary when *Windows and OS X already exist*.
either that or sneering windows/n00b/linspire related comments.
It only becomes sneering when some idiot complains that Linux isn't a carbon copy of Windows. Again, if you can't handle Linux *then go back to Windows*! This isn't bloody rocket science.
would there user base be quite so massive?
The only people who give a shit if Linux has a massive user base are the morons on a religious crusade. For those of us who actually *use* Linux we - just - don't - give - a - flying - fuck. Linux is just the way we like it, and becoming more the way we like it with every passing year. Whether the user base consists of 500,000 users or 500,000,000 users is of zero interest to us.
and you all wander why this year is *never* the year of the linux desktop!
No, 99% of us don't give a shit one way or another. Linux isn't our religion, it's our OS.
I don't want OnStar or a GPS tracker in my car. If the next new car I decide comes with these 'features' standard I'm going to have them ripped out. Tinfoil hat or no, nobody has any business knowing what's going on in my car, or where it is, except for me.
Alas when you complain you often get the standard response choice is good, which seems to be the official mantra in the community.
That's because choice *is* good. If you're uncomfortable with making your own choices and want others to do it for you, then by all means - use Windows. It's far more in line with what you want.
I'm not a crusader for Linux. I don't care if you adopt it or not. Linux isn't for everyone and that doesn't bother me a whit. If you can't handle it, then there's Windows, or OS X. Use on of them and you'll never be bothered with the dilemma of all those choices ever again.
I'm running Suse 9.3 and have experienced so many bugs and problems.
So am I, and I'm not experiencing any problems whatsoever. I haven't had a serious problem with Suse since the 7.x releases. I haven't seen "many bugs and problems" on any of the hundreds of machines I've installed Suse on, either.
THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE APPLICATION FOR EVERY TASK!
Sounds to me that you find choice confusing. In that case, I heartily recommend you return to using Windows. Linux isn't for everyone and it never will be.
Me, I *like* choice. Lots of it. It means that whatever I choose to use is MY decision - not YOURS.
If users want to go crazy and install a dozen different word processors, fine, let them do it, but the default installation should have ONE and exactly ONE application in every category.
If this is what you want *then cook up your own distro*. I'm sure that if there are enough folks out there who believe as you do it'll sell like hotcakes. Clearly the average user of Suse (and most other distros) isn't pulling out his hair over the idea of choice, like you are.
Someone who is a technical manager high up in Novell should lay down the law on these two issues and make them happen.
And in the process piss off every Suse user who doesn't think like you. "Not in this lifetime" would be my answer to that.
Oh, that's rich. What was the last thing MS innovated again? Clippy?
Novell didn't innovate, that is a FACT
Neither has Microsoft. Innovation clearly isn't the only key to success in the software business. Illegal business practices seem to work wonders too (and that too is a FACT of record, following the FACT of conviction).
whining is for losers
Guess that's why MS whines about the "TCO" of Linux so much.
He wants you locked in with proprietary closed standards so that you have no choice but to buy and use his programs.
Hardly his programs. Less than 5% of his current wealth is invested in MS; all the rest of his stock has been sold off over the last ten years, most of it reinvested in pharmaceutical companies.
If MS were to fail tomorrow, Bill would still retain almost every penny of his wealth - because his wealth isn't tied to MS anymore, and hasn't been for quite a few years.
If your employees are installing software on your company machines then I'd say you're pretty much an idiot. Doesn't matter what the OS is, you're just an idiot. Letting your secretary determine which.exe/rpm is 'mission critical' for her job (e.g., a new version of Solitaire or Minesweeper, or perhaps XBill), then giving her the big high-five to go ahead and install said software as she sees fit...real bright, that.
Ease of installation isn't a viable corporate metric. In corporate America the idea is usually to make sure that the employee CAN'T install softare willy-nilly, because the employee is the most common point of failure in security. The idea is to a) make the GUI easy to use, or at least familiar (e.g., KDE looking like a clone of Windows), and b) to be sure that the apps can do the job you require them to do.
Linux can easily do a). I know, because I've set up more systems than I care to count and the most common misconception is that the KDE GUI configuration I use for Linux newbies is a 'new' version of Windows. Takes 'em all of a day (often much less time) to get used to the minor differences (e.g., having, say, 4 desktops instead of just one - a real hit with employees who rapidly discover that means they can have 4 different sets of rotating wallpapers! Really, that's a Much Bigger Thing(TM) for most employees than any technical issue).
As for b), most Linux apps can do anything the average employee requires, since said employee doesn't use 95% of the 'features' included in MS-based software anyway. Few businesses go beyond email/calendars/word processing/spreadsheets/etc. - basic business stuff. And that was pretty much mastered a decade ago, with only cosmetic changes since then.
The most common complaints I hear are that employee John Doe can no longer download and run apps he found on the internet, usually spyware disguised as cute animals that occasionally march across the screen or whatnot. And believe it or not, that's usually considered to be a *good* thing, at least by businesses who value the idea of not letting their employees compromise their systems with bouts of stupidity.
My favorite: the old Outback Steakhouse ad where they sic a pack of starving wolves on a high school marching band, complete with screams of terror. Then the announcer turns to the camera, grins, and says "Now that's good stuff!"
My wife and I saw that for the first time while eating at a restaurant in Durango, Colorado. Nearly choked on my pasta, it was so funny. Too bad they stopped doing these commercials (way too many complaints from the stiff-necked types).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought relative lack of sunlight and subsequent low temperatures were responsible for the ice?
It is. But ice caps are far more stable when based on a land mass, which the North Pole (currently) isn't, and hasn't been for quite some time. And we're seeing the effects today; while it appears that the north polar ice cap is melting rapidly and may be completey gone before century's end, the south polar ice cap is in no such danger. Although it too seems (and I do stress 'seems') to be melting somewhat, the pace is orders of magnitude smaller because the ice cap itself rests on the Antarctic land mass.
So, any significant warming of the Earth will melt the north pole, but not the south pole. The reverse would be true if the south pole cap was ocean ice and the north pole cap was sitting on a land mass.
Max
No matter the overall climatic changes, OUR activites have made it much worse and much faster.
We *still* don't know what the human contribution has done to the cycle - if anything. Most scientists agree that humans are having an impact on the speed of global warming, but no one - not any person, anywhere on the planet - can make an authoritative claim on the degree of this impact. It could be large, it could be small, it could be entirely unnoticeable compared to natural processes.
And that includes you. Neither you nor anyone else can make the claim that humans have made it "much worse" and "much faster" than it would've been without human contribution. You don't have a clue any more than anyone else does.
Ice is melting everywhere. Glaciers are going, Siberia is melting, releasing methane in a vicious cycle, villages in Alaska are disappearing in the meltoff of the land, we're getting four times the normal number of hurricanes in a year -- and they are stronger, for the waters are warmer than they have been in centuries. The Northwest Passage over the arctic ocean is opening up as the ice floes melt.
This is evidence of the events, not the cause. All of these things are true (except for the hurricane bit, which you got wrong); blaming them on humans as the major cause is a crock of shit. It could very well be true that these things would be happening if humans were still stuck in the Stone Age, albeit at (possibly) a somewhat slower pace. Only a massive infusion of cash and personnel into various related sciences (e.g., geology, climatology) will ever be able to answer this question; divine relevation via alarmist propaganda isn't a good subsitute for actual empirical evidence.
The only choice we have, in the short run, is whether we wish to mitigate the changes by cutting down greenhouse gases -- immediately.
You have no evidence whatsoever that this would slow down global warming. Best guess at this point is that *if* humans are having a major impact on global warming it's probably far too late to mitigate the effects. And forget about reversing them, we have no clue how to do that.
Even if it were true, the obvious answer is to replace coal-fired plants with nuclear breeder reactors, and IC engine-driven cars with hydrogen (as inefficient as that is). Think that's going to happen with extremist greenie fuckers pissing their shorts every time someone says the word "nuclear"?
Of course, the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown.
Ah, I see. Your whole argument devolves down to a pseudo-socialist rant that amounts to "It's the fault of the EEEEEVILLL corporations!". Please, get a fucking clue; if humans are to blame then it isn't the corporations at fault - it's YOU, asshole. YOU are the one to blame. So suck it up and take it like a man, rather than trying to pass the buck to someone else.
Max
One of the few uses of having a lot of karma is the ability to piss off fanatics, like the RMS-worshipping clowns who modded this down to 0:
"Nobody but RMS fans gives a shit about the "ambiguity". Really, we don't. That's why 99% of us call it "linux", while only a tiny 1% whine, bitch, and moan that it should be called "GNU/Linux". And they're (rightly) ignored."
Go ahead, boys. I figure I can do this another 20 or so times before I run dry.
Max
Oh, stop being such a pussy, pc-boy. As far as "offensive" words go this is nothing, at least to those of us with a firm grip on reality.
The shame of this is that those very people are working with tax payer money
What taxpayer money? Best as I can tell the Gimp was created by unpaid volunteer effort. At least, that's the story they tell in their own history, from their own website.
Max
Nobody but RMS fans gives a shit about the "ambiguity". Really, we don't. That's why 99% of us call it "linux", while only a tiny 1% whine, bitch, and moan that it should be called "GNU/Linux". And they're (rightly) ignored.
Max
Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?
I suppose that was technically true when I altered the entries for Lee Hyo Ri, Kristin Kreuk and Kiera Knightely to include "and indubitably, one of the sweetest pieces of ass to ever grace the planet". Those entries stayed around for some time before someone decided that perhaps they weren't as factual as they first appeared to be (although I contend the statements are indeed facts, and to claim otherwise only proves that you're, well, gay).
However, my entry for Mark Hildreth (Kristin Kreuk's boyfriend, and therefore my hated nemesis) stated that he appeared in the film "Butt Pirates of the Carribean" which, I'm fairly certain, is not an actual movie. At least I hope not, because what a waste of film that would be. I further went on to allude that Ms. Kreuk had dumped Mr. Hildreth because he "had a tiny penis" and "couldn't last longer than thirty seconds in the sack". Last time I checked Ms. Kreuk is still dating Mr. Hildreth (sigh), and while it may be true that he has a tiny penis and can't last longer than thirty seconds in the sack, at the moment these statements simply represent my lame, pathetic hopes, along with the fantasy that someday Ms. Kreuk will decide I'm god and become my second wife (a man has to have dreams, you know).
While Wikipedia may be useful for getting references to REAL sources of information is certainly contains bucketsful of untrue crap, whether placed there deliberately or done so by packs of morons, idiots, or looneytoons (e.g., the blasted entry on UFOs). Saying that it's "authoritative" is quite laughable; saying that it's "more authoritative and accurate than anything else out there, including print" marks you as one of the morons, idiots or looneytoons.
Max
Yeah, they're really not substantively different than the guy changing your oil or delivering your pizza.
They're *service providers*. Not gods. They provide a service for a specific price. It's incumbent upon them to act like good little capitalists and do what the fuck they've been contracted to do, at the time and place agreed upon. They don't deserve any special treatment simply because they're doctors.
This isn't that bloody hard to understand.
Max
Oh please. Don't be such a fucking drama queen. Doctors don't deserve any special consideration for being unable to keep timely appointments. They're service providers like any other, and it's about time they realized that.
Max
Who is the peer in "peer-reviewed" who would review a medical journal who isn't also a doctor?
Fact is, any "study" published in a medical journal tooting the horn of, well, *medical professionals*, done by those same medical professionals, deserves a healthy amount of skepticism.
But that isn't what your link talked about. In fact, it doesn't address the actual skill of the doctors in question at all. According to the article, the complaints are summarized as:
"63 percent found that older physicians were less likely than younger doctors to conform to current standards."
and
"14 of 19 studies (74 percent) looking at performance found that older physicians were less likely to adhere to therapeutic standards compared with younger doctors."
In other words, older doctors are less likely to rigidly follow practices exhorted in medical school, and instead do what they think is best. Which apparently seems to be some sort of heretical idea, at least where younger doctors (or Harvard Medical School) is concerned.
Also note this piece of fucking silliness:
" One study found that patients were more likely to die of a heart attack if their physician had been in practice for more years."
The "study" which is being referred to was thoroughly debunked as soon as it hit the journals. Why? Because what the study failed to mention is that *older doctors tend to have older patients*. Of *course* older doctors have more patients that die of heart attacks; their clientele is older and more at risk!
Given that at least one of the sources of the meta-study you linked to was proven to be a crock of horseshit right from the get-go, I remain firmly skeptical of the results of the meta-study, as well as their interpretation of those results (i.e., "doctors who don't rigidly follow practices taught in med school are worse than the fresh, wet-behind-the-ears puppies who do").
Gotta wonder if this is just bad science, or if someone is promoting an agenda.
Max
But I don't think that someone who completely gives up license fees is ever going to have a substantial R&D budget and do the hard things, the things too hard to do in a university environment.
Bill's ability to completely and utterly ignore any portion of reality which doesn't promote The Microsoft Way(TM) is truly extraordinary. From the way he talks I've come to think he actually believes the shit that spews forth from his pie-hole, in a very Howard Hughes-ian sort of way.
Max
My point is that any system that potentially inflicts damage on a person's reputation should have a "due process" mechanism that lets that accused defend their actions or tell their side of the story.
It's called "a lawsuit". If you think the website contains lies about you or your practice you can sue them. If you can prove it in court then you can take the libelous swine to the cleaners, as well as get the web site shut down.
Of course, anyone, anywhere, can do this. Doctors do not need, nor do they deserve, any special consideration. What they do need to do is suck it up and realize that they have recourse to the legal system to redress a wrong - just like everyone else.
Max
Given that the nature of their job is troubleshooting systems owned by users who aren't experts at explaining their problems (which anyone reading Slashdot should understand), that just isn't always possible.
I'll remember that the next time I deal with a client that's a doctor or medical practice. I'll just be late and tell them I was troubleshooting problems that turned out to be more complex than originally described, and surely they understand since it happens all the time to them?
Riiiiight. Let's see how well *that* flies....
Max
My wife's a pediatrician and all the talk recently was about a spate of recent studies that prove statistically that newly minted doctors give better care than doctors out of residency for ten years plus
Great. Let's see some links to those empirical articles published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals. And hopefully they haven't been done by doctors, or the husbands of doctors.
Max
I feel the problem is that lots of people tend to complain about everything.
This may be true, but doctors neither need nor deserve any special protections from criticism. If we can merrily bitch about the bad practices of a large corporation (e.g., bestbuysux.org) then we can do the same about anyone else. Fuck the people who think they merit special consideration.
Max
I noticed you conveniently failed to address his point about the device you bought and paid for spying on you. But I suppose that isn't a problem for you because only criminals have something to hide, eh?
Max
Actually, steps 1 and 2 are generally combined if you do a fresh install right from the get-go. I can't remember a version of Suse where you had to do this separate from the installation of the OS; one of the great things about this distro is that you can install everything but the kitchen sink along with the OS and GUIs themselves. Well, that's true of most distros but Suse's YAST makes this incredibly easy, especially from 8.2 on. In fact, it takes me much longer to install win2000 and associated apps, with all the manufacturers disks, reboots, patches, "service packs", etc.
Step 3 you can do right after the install, also from YAST. YAST rewrites the config files for you, so no annoying hunts for text files tucked away in odd places. Not just Apache, but NFS, NIS, etc - all the basic (and many of the not-so-basic) tools as well. This is one of the reasons I'm fond of Suse; I'm old enough now that it's no longer 'fun' to do this by hand. The faster things are up and running, the happier I am.
As for step 4, YAST now has a module for Samba as well. Not sure if you still have to tweak the config files since I haven't used it (the new YAST module, not Samba). If you're only interested in Linux seeing Windows and don't care about the reverse, NFS will do the trick and takes about five minutes to set up (literally, both client and server; I use this at home since my win2000 partition is only for games - no need for Samba there).
Five - of course. You've always been able to do this.
but instead i had to undergo aforementioned weeks of google groups and editing obscure config files in obscure places JUST TO SET THE IP ADDRESS OF THE MACHINE.
This confuses me. Suse will pick up the i.p. address of your machine right away, during the install, if you're directly connected. If you're on a network or working through a home router/hub, it'll pick up both the i.p. you've been assigned as well as the i.p. your box assigns you. If you're talking home machine and one of those little Netgear or Linksys boxes, you can use a browser to ask the machine itself what both the internal and external i.p. addresses are - or use it to assign internal i.p. addresses, if you like. Or you can just hit a web site that'll tell you your i.p. address, if that's easier for you.
I'm not sure why you had difficulty determining the i.p. address of your machine.
that's right i had to set the ip address, gateway, domain/workgroup, computer name, etc. in about 8 programs and config files.
Again, I don't understand why you had to do this. Suse installs right from the box, complete with connectivity, whether you're live on the net or on an internal network. One of the great things about it is that I rarely have to do any sort of manual intervention; it'll figure out the configuration on it's own, write the files, and I'm connected (internally and externally) as soon as the install is complete. If I'm using NFS (like at home) it takes me about five minutes to set up the machines to be able to see each others partitions.
that the magic bullet against the windows-registry is to have every single program that uses a network card to have to be told precisely how?
Still confused here. I don't have to do this; YAST works so well that even when I have a motherboard with two built-in NICs it'll automatically configure both, figure out which one has the actual connection, and use that NIC (while disabling the other) all on its own. I've only had one minor problem with this on an odd motherboard, and surprise! The manufacturer actually included a Linux patch which cleared it right up.
Once your connection is established you shouldn't have to do anything at all with any other program; they all operate through the OS for connectivity. That is, once the OS has a connection every other program should have a connection as well. You shouldn't have to do very much to set up your ftp server, web server, etc; in fact, you can configure these with YAST and be up and running in no time.
Max
i'm sick of this response every time someone has a personal pick at a particular linux point.
Then go back to Windows or OS X. What's the problem here? Linux clearly isn't for you, and you have other options. Turning Linux into a clone of Windows or OS X isn't something most Linux users want, nor is it necessary when *Windows and OS X already exist*.
either that or sneering windows/n00b/linspire related comments.
It only becomes sneering when some idiot complains that Linux isn't a carbon copy of Windows. Again, if you can't handle Linux *then go back to Windows*! This isn't bloody rocket science.
would there user base be quite so massive?
The only people who give a shit if Linux has a massive user base are the morons on a religious crusade. For those of us who actually *use* Linux we - just - don't - give - a - flying - fuck. Linux is just the way we like it, and becoming more the way we like it with every passing year. Whether the user base consists of 500,000 users or 500,000,000 users is of zero interest to us.
and you all wander why this year is *never* the year of the linux desktop!
No, 99% of us don't give a shit one way or another. Linux isn't our religion, it's our OS.
Max
I don't want OnStar or a GPS tracker in my car. If the next new car I decide comes with these 'features' standard I'm going to have them ripped out. Tinfoil hat or no, nobody has any business knowing what's going on in my car, or where it is, except for me.
Max
Alas when you complain you often get the standard response choice is good, which seems to be the official mantra in the community.
That's because choice *is* good. If you're uncomfortable with making your own choices and want others to do it for you, then by all means - use Windows. It's far more in line with what you want.
I'm not a crusader for Linux. I don't care if you adopt it or not. Linux isn't for everyone and that doesn't bother me a whit. If you can't handle it, then there's Windows, or OS X. Use on of them and you'll never be bothered with the dilemma of all those choices ever again.
Max
I'm running Suse 9.3 and have experienced so many bugs and problems.
So am I, and I'm not experiencing any problems whatsoever. I haven't had a serious problem with Suse since the 7.x releases. I haven't seen "many bugs and problems" on any of the hundreds of machines I've installed Suse on, either.
THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE APPLICATION FOR EVERY TASK!
Sounds to me that you find choice confusing. In that case, I heartily recommend you return to using Windows. Linux isn't for everyone and it never will be.
Me, I *like* choice. Lots of it. It means that whatever I choose to use is MY decision - not YOURS.
If users want to go crazy and install a dozen different word processors, fine, let them do it, but the default installation should have ONE and exactly ONE application in every category.
If this is what you want *then cook up your own distro*. I'm sure that if there are enough folks out there who believe as you do it'll sell like hotcakes. Clearly the average user of Suse (and most other distros) isn't pulling out his hair over the idea of choice, like you are.
Someone who is a technical manager high up in Novell should lay down the law on these two issues and make them happen.
And in the process piss off every Suse user who doesn't think like you. "Not in this lifetime" would be my answer to that.
Max
but in this industry you innovate or die
Oh, that's rich. What was the last thing MS innovated again? Clippy?
Novell didn't innovate, that is a FACT
Neither has Microsoft. Innovation clearly isn't the only key to success in the software business. Illegal business practices seem to work wonders too (and that too is a FACT of record, following the FACT of conviction).
whining is for losers
Guess that's why MS whines about the "TCO" of Linux so much.
Max
He wants you locked in with proprietary closed standards so that you have no choice but to buy and use his programs.
Hardly his programs. Less than 5% of his current wealth is invested in MS; all the rest of his stock has been sold off over the last ten years, most of it reinvested in pharmaceutical companies.
If MS were to fail tomorrow, Bill would still retain almost every penny of his wealth - because his wealth isn't tied to MS anymore, and hasn't been for quite a few years.
Max
If your employees are installing software on your company machines then I'd say you're pretty much an idiot. Doesn't matter what the OS is, you're just an idiot. Letting your secretary determine which .exe/rpm is 'mission critical' for her job (e.g., a new version of Solitaire or Minesweeper, or perhaps XBill), then giving her the big high-five to go ahead and install said software as she sees fit...real bright, that.
Ease of installation isn't a viable corporate metric. In corporate America the idea is usually to make sure that the employee CAN'T install softare willy-nilly, because the employee is the most common point of failure in security. The idea is to a) make the GUI easy to use, or at least familiar (e.g., KDE looking like a clone of Windows), and b) to be sure that the apps can do the job you require them to do.
Linux can easily do a). I know, because I've set up more systems than I care to count and the most common misconception is that the KDE GUI configuration I use for Linux newbies is a 'new' version of Windows. Takes 'em all of a day (often much less time) to get used to the minor differences (e.g., having, say, 4 desktops instead of just one - a real hit with employees who rapidly discover that means they can have 4 different sets of rotating wallpapers! Really, that's a Much Bigger Thing(TM) for most employees than any technical issue).
As for b), most Linux apps can do anything the average employee requires, since said employee doesn't use 95% of the 'features' included in MS-based software anyway. Few businesses go beyond email/calendars/word processing/spreadsheets/etc. - basic business stuff. And that was pretty much mastered a decade ago, with only cosmetic changes since then.
The most common complaints I hear are that employee John Doe can no longer download and run apps he found on the internet, usually spyware disguised as cute animals that occasionally march across the screen or whatnot. And believe it or not, that's usually considered to be a *good* thing, at least by businesses who value the idea of not letting their employees compromise their systems with bouts of stupidity.
Max
I'll bet the ad would be mildly amusing for a 14 year old boy
Or for those who never matured past the age of 14. When you think about it, the ads might be perfect for the target market.
Max
My favorite: the old Outback Steakhouse ad where they sic a pack of starving wolves on a high school marching band, complete with screams of terror. Then the announcer turns to the camera, grins, and says "Now that's good stuff!"
My wife and I saw that for the first time while eating at a restaurant in Durango, Colorado. Nearly choked on my pasta, it was so funny. Too bad they stopped doing these commercials (way too many complaints from the stiff-necked types).
Max