Now, I'm absolutely in agreement that there is a degree of N.I.M.B.Y. going on here, but in a less emotional vein, there are a few legitimate reasons to be against this:
1) We're not talking about a small number of these things, and they're hardly silent/invisible/maintainance-free. There would be a serious quality-of-life reduction, and in a highly-populated area, property-owners should be concerned.
2) These things are hardly the eco-friendly energy sources their proponents make them out to be. They're a huge, monsterous field of bird-shredders, and we're talking a wide area that would be deadly for any flying creatures. This is also something of an environmentally sensitive area, at least for North America.
3)Wind-devices don't produce as much power as many other "free" sources, although that might change with advances in tech. The argument for putting resources behind different energy methods than wind is a legitimate one.
4) Finally, last I heard, the environmental impact from producing and maintaining these things is considered by many to be worse than the benefit they generate -- while operation may be "clean" and "cheap", maintainance and construction is expensive and dirty.
Again, I am sure that the multi-zillionaires living in this area have a bad case of the NIMBY-s, but that is hardly the only thing going on here.
Apple is getting more and more behind speed-wise compared to PC's. This results in Apple hardware being more expensive and performing less than PC hardware. Not true (it appears Apple is finally starting to reverse the trend, although they remain woefully behind to this point), and a non sequitur. Speed differences are not directly correlated to cost, and would probably be inversely proportional if they were, not directly proportional as you suggest.
Intel also has much more differentiation Irrelevent -- Apple's strategy doesn't require a multitude of chip options. In fact, as long as there is sufficient range, Apple would prefer to have a limited number of hardware configurations.
Apple has almost no other choice than start using Intel-compatible cpu's in the future in order to stay competitive. Again, a non sequitur, and one that is ridiculous and entirely unsupported. IBM will produce CPUs for Apple that are entirely more suitable than anything Intel makes or will make.
Funny how some people will repeatedly read and nearly commit to memory Lord Of The Rings (or devote so much thought into The Matrix storyline) but never even consider reading The Bible.
That's because LotR is a better book.
Having a coherent/consistent story and being written by a single (very talented) author makes the world of difference.
Honestly, how can one expect intelligent people to dote on that load of contradictory, moralistic, badly-composed anthology of ancient hunter-gatherer fables?
Now, if you'd asked if people'd prefer to read the Dune series or the bible, I think the "Good Book" would win out.
What really happened is this:
Microsoft bought $150M in non-voting stock at a rather good price, and promised to continue Mac software development (in specific, the development of their Office suite and Internet Explorer WWW browser).
Apple, in turn, agreed to bundle IE as the default browser on all OS installation disks, license rights to several of its software products, and support Microsoft's forays into Java virtual machine development.
The agreement was to last five years, and has since expired. Microsoft made money off the deal, considering the value of Apple stock when it sold it off. Additionally, Apple didn't really need the $150M infusion, as it had billions in cash reserves. A additional reason that MS might have made this move, was that the DoJ investigation into anti-competitive practices might have been countered by actions like this -- Redmond was essentially supporting a competing OS.
So, no, Microsoft never "bought 25% of the shares of apple" [sic], nor does it/did it really have any say in Apple policy.
Dude, it isn't spelling. You're using words and phrases you don't quite understand. You spelled everything correctly, but you're stringing together words that don't mean what you think they do. I'm assuming English is your mother tongue and all, but "little lone"? As opposed to the "big lone" or the "medium-sized together"?
If you don't know what you're saying, maybe you shouldn't say it.
Just curious, but what is the proposed mechanism of action for "colloidal silver" acting as an antimicrobial that doesn't affect human tissue?
And, as for your comment about the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies being against its use, I hope you don't propose a conspiracy encompassing the entire medical community. I know that there are many, many, many doctors and researchers who would love for their to be an antiviral "magic bullet".
I'm not sure that this project (as it is now) will be all that useful. Alot of it appears to be hinging on generous speculation.
I'm not a virologist, but as far as I remember, drug-directed approaches haven't been notably successful with attacking coronaviruses (ever hear that "medicine can't cure the common cold", anyone?) -- and to confuse things more, this one seems to be very atypical.
Also, from what I know about the anti-virals that have shown some efficacy against these type of SS-RNA viruses, they've been directed at nucleic acids, not at product-proteins. Ribavirin, which was initially hoped to be the "magic bullet" to stop SARS is a nucleoside analogue (purine? I don't remember). I haven't heard of an effective intervention that disrupts the protein envelope or synthesis.
Additionally, this group is assuming that the causitive agent of SARS has correctly been isolated and identified in the first place, which isn't certain by any means.
Aiming computing power towards a worthy goal like this can't hurt, but I question how effective it really will be. I guess the computer-types can just tweak the parameters as the biomed-folks find out more on their end.
I moved from NYC to Boston, and I find it booooooring and provincial. I have no idea how I'd handle living "out there". When I'm away from NYC too long, I get antsy, like I'm being locked up somewhere away from activity. Coming back is like getting a hit when you've been in withdrawl.
When my wife takes me camping, I'm good for the first few hours...after which, I start wondering how long it'll take to get back to civilization. I think I'd find your 5-different-climate-zones cool for the first few minutes, and then be really, really bored.
Oddly enough, I was never had a problem with Milwaukee. Takes all types.
Absolutely, I agree. But, in a more immediate sense, this will help determine how domain names are viewed in the first place -- and if the confiscation is even possible. Once that gets decided, then it can be decided if unfair confiscations laws need to be addressed here.
It looks like there'll be negative fallout whatever the decision on this one. Either way, some bad things will have to be dealt with...But, to be more of a glass-is-half-full optimistic type, at least it will clarify the status of domain names, and drag them out of the legal limbo in which they currently reside. Better to know where you stand, right?
While it has been interesting to have all these legal and technological arguments (and it certainly provided the Slashdot crowd with many entertaining articles the domain names have been something of a Schrödinger's cat of the internet -- now the box is being opened.
Of course, just because the issue gets decided in the US doesn't mean that any conclusions reached will necessarily become international law.
Personally, I think that stand is insane. If you're living in a so-called "communist country", there's still an infinite number of ways to have a fulfilling, satisfying life experience. You can make love, eat good food, exercise your body, think deep thoughts, travel... What is it precisely you feel you can do in the US that you cannot in a communist society?
Even if you warp the definition of "communist country" to include the most repressive current regimes that are (mistakenly) tagged with that title (Cuba, N. Korea, etc.), you're still talking about a situation where a citizen can live a decent life, or work for change within the system. And millions of people do.
"Ask yourself this: given the choice between death or moving to Hungary or Poland in the 1970's, which would you personally have picked?"
Although it antedates your hypothetical '1970s Iron-curtain' scenerio, the frightening American slogan of "better dead than red" might be the answer you'd get from many USians, even today.
You said "cancer", not "advanced-to-the-point-of-no-return-breast cancer". There's a difference. I wasn't talking about any one cancer, but the whole syndrome in general.
Fortunately, few people get breast cancer, and in most cases, those who get it survive -- unlike AIDS, which you mentioned.
And, to act like there's been no progress battling cancer because "advanced" cancer is often incurable is not helpful -- almost ANY disease in its "advanced form" becomes intractable. That's another reason medicine has made a difference with many cancers -- the emphasis on early detection.
And, FYI, my mother-in-law has inoperable ovarian cancer. She's somehow managed to survive 5-years post-diagnosis through a combination of luck and experimental therapies. So, not only do I read about it, but I see it every day with my patients and my family.
In the US & Canada, we're pretty careful about how we prescribe our antibiotics these days.
We've gotten better about empirical treatments, we know that "less is more" in most cases (we won't use a howitzer like vancomycin when a lesser drug will do, for example), and we've gotten careful about when we give them out at all (as opposed to the past, when any old sign of infection would get a dose of antibiotics).
We also know when to bring out the big guns, too (and how to keep them effective longer by completing the regimen).
I'd say that from what I've seen, most common antibiotic resistance (like, to penicillin) is a hold-over from the days of free-dispensing the drugs, from overprescription and poor patient-compliance overseas (some places more than others), and from livestock.
Really bad nasties, like MRSA or VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci) are more from hospitals and clinics, where there's an overabundance of ill folks, immunocompromised patients everywhere, tons of different drugs being used, and constant attempts at cleaning/disinfection.
Except that when you BUY something, you OWN it, and the seller does not really have the right to tell you how and where and when you can use it, since it is no longer theirs.
Uhhhh.... I hope I'm being trolled, because that's utter crap?
You absolutely cannot tell me that certain cancers cannot be cured. To make such a wrong statement shows very little understanding of what cancer actually is, or of the progress in medicine over the past 100 years. The problem that most people seem to have is that they think "cancer" is a single disease, a single entity with a single precipitant. To say someone has "cancer" is not like saying they have a streptococcal infection, or they have a pulmonary embolism. "Cancer" is a multitude of different diseases, all very different in etiology and prognosis.
Furthermore, we can do things to intervene: for example, several subgroups of leukemias can very effectively be treated medically. Many ovarian and colorectal cancers and skin malignancies can be dealt with surgically to no ill effect, if caught early enough. And to say that "people with AIDS" live longer than your typical elderly man who develops prostate cancer is silly -- the vast majority of men who develop prostate cancer die of something else, because over 95% of the time one simply outlives that particular tumor.
Please-- the medical research establishment has enough trouble getting money in these bad economic/political times without people spreading baseless FUD.
Wow -- has it really changed that much on the banks of the old Raritan? I guess the days of waiting for hours out on the barren tundra of Busch to catch Sunday's rare "EE" to meet your girlfriend over on Douglas are gone.
Man, you kids these days are so spoiled. When I was your age, we didn't have no new-fangled bus-trackers -- we would have to build a bus ourselves if we needed to go to a class on Cook. And we built em' outta rocks! And lint! And we'd power them with wild badgers! And we LIKED it!
This is getting too drawn-out. Three points in reply:
1) Simply, ought you classify someone as a "troll" and discount them merely based on (presumed) intent? What if they lifted something someone else said because they couldn't say it as well? What if they are the original author, and didn't want to totally rewrite something that addressed the topic? What if, accidentally or not, they make a very good point?
2) I'm hardly radical, and nothing I said really was. If anything, some of the posters attacking the original post (is that a word?) are pretty reactionary. What's worse is that many replies are devoid of content except "You're wrong" (with notable exceptions). I noticed that people who were supportive of the original statement were told things like "rethink your stand" and "you're just feeding the trolls" -- but the people who actually BIT the presumed "bait" by attacking the poster's comment...well, they didn't seem to be challenged much at all.
3) When I'm tired, or rushed, my grammar and spelling degenerate. You probably don't need to add the sic when you quote, I think. On Slashdot, such errors are unremarkable -- even obligatory.
Anyway, this has become pretty tangential, and a bit tedious. You've absolutely got a point about the problems with trolling in a public forum, and how the signal:noise can get unbalanced, but I don't know if I agree with some blanket statements you made.
I'll let you have the last post and conclude with the statement that, I still think that some of the anime I've seen is pretty disturbing and misogynistic -- not because of the medium itself, and certainly not all (most?) of it. I'm totally against censorship of literature/art, but that doesn't mean that we can't be critical of what's around us, either. Cheers.
You're missing the point: your premise -- that the initial (re)post is a troll -- does not logically dictate your conclusion (that people who agree with the statement should rethink their position).The intent of the messenger doesn't change the validity of the message. The fact that it is a repost, or the possibility that it was intended as a troll does not mitigate the possibility that it may have valid intellectual content, or could be the basis for insightful discussion.The original statement is a good one, and its interesting to see how defensive some of the posters on here are about this topic. If you really think its wrong, post a good rebuttal -- and if the "troll" is reposted, repost the rebuttal, too. Honestly, I think that there's alot to be said for the opposing side of the argument on this topic, but just shouting "TROLL" or mod-blasting a post down that you disagree with isn't the way to go.
What's unbelievable is that you feel the original post -- a cogent and very insightful message -- is somehow a troll.Says something about the/. community when they feel that feminist/anti-misogynistic posts are "pseudo-sociology".
Slashdot Mirror
See my response to the other poster.
Now, I'm absolutely in agreement that there is a degree of N.I.M.B.Y. going on here, but in a less emotional vein, there are a few legitimate reasons to be against this:
1) We're not talking about a small number of these things, and they're hardly silent/invisible/maintainance-free. There would be a serious quality-of-life reduction, and in a highly-populated area, property-owners should be concerned.
2) These things are hardly the eco-friendly energy sources their proponents make them out to be. They're a huge, monsterous field of bird-shredders, and we're talking a wide area that would be deadly for any flying creatures. This is also something of an environmentally sensitive area, at least for North America.
3)Wind-devices don't produce as much power as many other "free" sources, although that might change with advances in tech. The argument for putting resources behind different energy methods than wind is a legitimate one.
4) Finally, last I heard, the environmental impact from producing and maintaining these things is considered by many to be worse than the benefit they generate -- while operation may be "clean" and "cheap", maintainance and construction is expensive and dirty.
Again, I am sure that the multi-zillionaires living in this area have a bad case of the NIMBY-s, but that is hardly the only thing going on here.
Apple is getting more and more behind speed-wise compared to PC's. This results in Apple hardware being more expensive and performing less than PC hardware.
Not true (it appears Apple is finally starting to reverse the trend, although they remain woefully behind to this point), and a non sequitur. Speed differences are not directly correlated to cost, and would probably be inversely proportional if they were, not directly proportional as you suggest.
Intel also has much more differentiation
Irrelevent -- Apple's strategy doesn't require a multitude of chip options. In fact, as long as there is sufficient range, Apple would prefer to have a limited number of hardware configurations.
Apple has almost no other choice than start using Intel-compatible cpu's in the future in order to stay competitive.
Again, a non sequitur, and one that is ridiculous and entirely unsupported. IBM will produce CPUs for Apple that are entirely more suitable than anything Intel makes or will make.
And because of that it is inconceivable that this could be used as evidence in a court. Talk about circumstantial!
Have you been to the USA since G.W.Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft came to power? And since the "September 11th" bombings?
This could destroy thieves and black markets.
You misspelled "personal privacy of any kind".
Funny how some people will repeatedly read and nearly commit to memory Lord Of The Rings (or devote so much thought into The Matrix storyline) but never even consider reading The Bible.
That's because LotR is a better book.
Having a coherent/consistent story and being written by a single (very talented) author makes the world of difference.
Honestly, how can one expect intelligent people to dote on that load of contradictory, moralistic, badly-composed anthology of ancient hunter-gatherer fables?
Now, if you'd asked if people'd prefer to read the Dune series or the bible, I think the "Good Book" would win out.
Maybe. Are we including "Chapterhouse Dune"?
Myth.
Or, at least heavily in need of editing.
What really happened is this:
Microsoft bought $150M in non-voting stock at a rather good price, and promised to continue Mac software development (in specific, the development of their Office suite and Internet Explorer WWW browser).
Apple, in turn, agreed to bundle IE as the default browser on all OS installation disks, license rights to several of its software products, and support Microsoft's forays into Java virtual machine development.
The agreement was to last five years, and has since expired. Microsoft made money off the deal, considering the value of Apple stock when it sold it off. Additionally, Apple didn't really need the $150M infusion, as it had billions in cash reserves. A additional reason that MS might have made this move, was that the DoJ investigation into anti-competitive practices might have been countered by actions like this -- Redmond was essentially supporting a competing OS.
So, no, Microsoft never "bought 25% of the shares of apple" [sic], nor does it/did it really have any say in Apple policy.
Dude, it isn't spelling. You're using words and phrases you don't quite understand. You spelled everything correctly, but you're stringing together words that don't mean what you think they do. I'm assuming English is your mother tongue and all, but "little lone"? As opposed to the "big lone" or the "medium-sized together"?
If you don't know what you're saying, maybe you shouldn't say it.
Dear lord.....may the ignorance stop one day....
Riiiight. "Little lone"??? Purple prose ruins one's credibility, especially when its obviously misused.
Just curious, but what is the proposed mechanism of action for "colloidal silver" acting as an antimicrobial that doesn't affect human tissue?
And, as for your comment about the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies being against its use, I hope you don't propose a conspiracy encompassing the entire medical community. I know that there are many, many, many doctors and researchers who would love for their to be an antiviral "magic bullet".
I'm not sure that this project (as it is now) will be all that useful. Alot of it appears to be hinging on generous speculation.
I'm not a virologist, but as far as I remember, drug-directed approaches haven't been notably successful with attacking coronaviruses (ever hear that "medicine can't cure the common cold", anyone?) -- and to confuse things more, this one seems to be very atypical.
Also, from what I know about the anti-virals that have shown some efficacy against these type of SS-RNA viruses, they've been directed at nucleic acids, not at product-proteins. Ribavirin, which was initially hoped to be the "magic bullet" to stop SARS is a nucleoside analogue (purine? I don't remember). I haven't heard of an effective intervention that disrupts the protein envelope or synthesis.
Additionally, this group is assuming that the causitive agent of SARS has correctly been isolated and identified in the first place, which isn't certain by any means.
Aiming computing power towards a worthy goal like this can't hurt, but I question how effective it really will be. I guess the computer-types can just tweak the parameters as the biomed-folks find out more on their end.
I guess it depends who you are, really.
I moved from NYC to Boston, and I find it booooooring and provincial. I have no idea how I'd handle living "out there". When I'm away from NYC too long, I get antsy, like I'm being locked up somewhere away from activity. Coming back is like getting a hit when you've been in withdrawl.
When my wife takes me camping, I'm good for the first few hours...after which, I start wondering how long it'll take to get back to civilization. I think I'd find your 5-different-climate-zones cool for the first few minutes, and then be really, really bored.
Oddly enough, I was never had a problem with Milwaukee. Takes all types.
Absolutely, I agree. But, in a more immediate sense, this will help determine how domain names are viewed in the first place -- and if the confiscation is even possible. Once that gets decided, then it can be decided if unfair confiscations laws need to be addressed here.
It looks like there'll be negative fallout whatever the decision on this one. Either way, some bad things will have to be dealt with...But, to be more of a glass-is-half-full optimistic type, at least it will clarify the status of domain names, and drag them out of the legal limbo in which they currently reside. Better to know where you stand, right?
While it has been interesting to have all these legal and technological arguments (and it certainly provided the Slashdot crowd with many entertaining articles the domain names have been something of a Schrödinger's cat of the internet -- now the box is being opened.
Of course, just because the issue gets decided in the US doesn't mean that any conclusions reached will necessarily become international law.
Personally, I think that stand is insane. If you're living in a so-called "communist country", there's still an infinite number of ways to have a fulfilling, satisfying life experience. You can make love, eat good food, exercise your body, think deep thoughts, travel... What is it precisely you feel you can do in the US that you cannot in a communist society?
Even if you warp the definition of "communist country" to include the most repressive current regimes that are (mistakenly) tagged with that title (Cuba, N. Korea, etc.), you're still talking about a situation where a citizen can live a decent life, or work for change within the system. And millions of people do.
Conversely, if you're dead, well...you're dead.
"Ask yourself this: given the choice between death or moving to Hungary or Poland in the 1970's, which would you personally have picked?"
Although it antedates your hypothetical '1970s Iron-curtain' scenerio, the frightening American slogan of "better dead than red" might be the answer you'd get from many USians, even today.
You said "cancer", not "advanced-to-the-point-of-no-return-breast cancer". There's a difference. I wasn't talking about any one cancer, but the whole syndrome in general.
Fortunately, few people get breast cancer, and in most cases, those who get it survive -- unlike AIDS, which you mentioned.
And, to act like there's been no progress battling cancer because "advanced" cancer is often incurable is not helpful -- almost ANY disease in its "advanced form" becomes intractable. That's another reason medicine has made a difference with many cancers -- the emphasis on early detection.
And, FYI, my mother-in-law has inoperable ovarian cancer. She's somehow managed to survive 5-years post-diagnosis through a combination of luck and experimental therapies. So, not only do I read about it, but I see it every day with my patients and my family.
In the US & Canada, we're pretty careful about how we prescribe our antibiotics these days.
We've gotten better about empirical treatments, we know that "less is more" in most cases (we won't use a howitzer like vancomycin when a lesser drug will do, for example), and we've gotten careful about when we give them out at all (as opposed to the past, when any old sign of infection would get a dose of antibiotics).
We also know when to bring out the big guns, too (and how to keep them effective longer by completing the regimen).
I'd say that from what I've seen, most common antibiotic resistance (like, to penicillin) is a hold-over from the days of free-dispensing the drugs, from overprescription and poor patient-compliance overseas (some places more than others), and from livestock.
Really bad nasties, like MRSA or VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci) are more from hospitals and clinics, where there's an overabundance of ill folks, immunocompromised patients everywhere, tons of different drugs being used, and constant attempts at cleaning/disinfection.
Except that when you BUY something, you OWN it, and the seller does not really have the right to tell you how and where and when you can use it, since it is no longer theirs.
Uhhhh.... I hope I'm being trolled, because that's utter crap?
You absolutely cannot tell me that certain cancers cannot be cured. To make such a wrong statement shows very little understanding of what cancer actually is, or of the progress in medicine over the past 100 years. The problem that most people seem to have is that they think "cancer" is a single disease, a single entity with a single precipitant. To say someone has "cancer" is not like saying they have a streptococcal infection, or they have a pulmonary embolism. "Cancer" is a multitude of different diseases, all very different in etiology and prognosis.
Furthermore, we can do things to intervene: for example, several subgroups of leukemias can very effectively be treated medically. Many ovarian and colorectal cancers and skin malignancies can be dealt with surgically to no ill effect, if caught early enough. And to say that "people with AIDS" live longer than your typical elderly man who develops prostate cancer is silly -- the vast majority of men who develop prostate cancer die of something else, because over 95% of the time one simply outlives that particular tumor.
Please-- the medical research establishment has enough trouble getting money in these bad economic/political times without people spreading baseless FUD.
lets not forget that as of a little while ago, Linux is on more desktops than MacOS is
Except, that it wasn't/isn't in any way, shape or form.
Wow -- has it really changed that much on the banks of the old Raritan? I guess the days of waiting for hours out on the barren tundra of Busch to catch Sunday's rare "EE" to meet your girlfriend over on Douglas are gone.
Man, you kids these days are so spoiled. When I was your age, we didn't have no new-fangled bus-trackers -- we would have to build a bus ourselves if we needed to go to a class on Cook. And we built em' outta rocks! And lint! And we'd power them with wild badgers! And we LIKED it!
This is getting too drawn-out. Three points in reply:
1) Simply, ought you classify someone as a "troll" and discount them merely based on (presumed) intent? What if they lifted something someone else said because they couldn't say it as well? What if they are the original author, and didn't want to totally rewrite something that addressed the topic? What if, accidentally or not, they make a very good point?
2) I'm hardly radical, and nothing I said really was. If anything, some of the posters attacking the original post (is that a word?) are pretty reactionary. What's worse is that many replies are devoid of content except "You're wrong" (with notable exceptions). I noticed that people who were supportive of the original statement were told things like "rethink your stand" and "you're just feeding the trolls" -- but the people who actually BIT the presumed "bait" by attacking the poster's comment...well, they didn't seem to be challenged much at all.
3) When I'm tired, or rushed, my grammar and spelling degenerate. You probably don't need to add the sic when you quote, I think. On Slashdot, such errors are unremarkable -- even obligatory.
Anyway, this has become pretty tangential, and a bit tedious. You've absolutely got a point about the problems with trolling in a public forum, and how the signal:noise can get unbalanced, but I don't know if I agree with some blanket statements you made.
I'll let you have the last post and conclude with the statement that, I still think that some of the anime I've seen is pretty disturbing and misogynistic -- not because of the medium itself, and certainly not all (most?) of it. I'm totally against censorship of literature/art, but that doesn't mean that we can't be critical of what's around us, either. Cheers.
You're missing the point: your premise -- that the initial (re)post is a troll -- does not logically dictate your conclusion (that people who agree with the statement should rethink their position).The intent of the messenger doesn't change the validity of the message. The fact that it is a repost, or the possibility that it was intended as a troll does not mitigate the possibility that it may have valid intellectual content, or could be the basis for insightful discussion.The original statement is a good one, and its interesting to see how defensive some of the posters on here are about this topic. If you really think its wrong, post a good rebuttal -- and if the "troll" is reposted, repost the rebuttal, too. Honestly, I think that there's alot to be said for the opposing side of the argument on this topic, but just shouting "TROLL" or mod-blasting a post down that you disagree with isn't the way to go.
What's unbelievable is that you feel the original post -- a cogent and very insightful message -- is somehow a troll.Says something about the /. community when they feel that feminist/anti-misogynistic posts are "pseudo-sociology".