"It's a shame either company was able to take so much money from the IT world."
Sun depended on IT departments being ignorant. When Google showed everyone that reliability could be achieved with below-consumer-quality hardware by using software that adjusted for failures, Sun began its long, slow decline.
These are VERY important ideas about trade shows from the end of the comment above:
"... there's basically loads of people wandering around just trying to get as much free stuff as they can. Possibly only 1% of the people who visit a booth actually want to know about the product, and most of them won't actually generate any business." [Edited for clarity.]
We need better trade shows. We need trade shows that don't allow companies to give away free things, and don't allow other distractions. And no "dry hustle" booth babes; they are, basically, prostitutes.
ASLR: The purpose of ASLR is to provide protection against vulnerabilities. The idea is to make it far more difficult to exploit those vulnerabilities. ASLR is always good to have.
However, if software has no vulnerabilities, then ASLR has no effect.
Software rental, rather than sale: Those who buy software are usually not prepared to fully understand the issue. So, software companies like Adobe are taking advantage of that ignorance, and renting software rather than selling it. For many users, that will make the software FAR more expensive. (Adobe's CS6 is the last for sale version, Adobe says.)
Software vulnerabilites: Software can be checked for vulnerabilities and fixed before the software is released. Microsoft doesn't do that intensely because vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft, in my opinion.
When Windows XP was released, it was VERY buggy. It wasn't until Service Pack 2 that some of the major bugs were fixed. For example, the first version and the Service Pack 1 version of Windows XP had serious problems with USB connections.
Now, after hundreds of fixes, Windows XP has become what it should have been when it was first released. Is Microsoft claiming Windows XP is STILL buggy? Is Microsoft claiming that, after all these years, there are still extremely serious vulnerabilities in Windows XP?
If so, think of the problems people have had with Windows Vista and Windows 8. Would it be reasonable to expect that Microsoft has released only carefully written software in Windows 8.1, after it has, in my opinion, habitually released sloppy, bug-ridden software during the entire history of the company? (The first Microsoft product, Microsoft Basic computer language, was seriously buggy and came with a poorly written manual.)
Would moving to Windows 8 merely expose your family or your staff to a set of new problems? Will Microsoft, in a few years, say Windows 8 is too buggy to support any longer, and try to convince people to upgrade to something else? In the past, that's how Microsoft has made money, by convincing people to pay for a new version of Windows. Not by paying an upgrade price, but by paying for what Microsoft calls an entirely new version, even though there may be minimal important changes
Vulnerabilities and frequent security updates are part of Microsoft's marketing plans.
I first reported the Firefox memory-hogging instability bug in Firefox version.9, whatever it was called then. Now, years later, Firefox still grabs more and more memory until it becomes unstable.
The memory-hogging instability occurs when many windows and tabs are open, as is likely for anyone doing extensive research.
It seems to be called "the cloud" partly in an attempt to encourage cloudy thinking by managers who have little technical knowledge. Each "cloud" has its own API, which causes an intended lock-in.
Exactly. And it is far worse than that. A lot of what will result as the Affordable Care Act is not decided in the law, but depends on someone or agency submitting a report. Search for the words "shall submit" using the Edit > Search feature in Adobe Acrobat. There are at least 149 requirements to submit a report!!!
The acronym "MTM" is defined on page 1,056 as "medication management". Begin reading on that page, for example, to realize the enormity of what is not yet defined just in that area.
Here are just 50 of the 149 instances of the phrase "shall submit":
plan shall submit claims for reim5 bursement to the Secretary which shall contain 6 documentation
Labor, shall submit a report to the appropriate 10 committees of Congress concerningâ" 11"(
Secretary shall submit a report to the 15 appropriate committees of Congress containing a 16
shall submit to Congress, within the 15-day pel5 riod beginning on the date
shall submit to the appropriate committees of 21 Congress a report on the study
Exchange shall submit the information 25 provided by an applicant under subsection
Secretary shall submit to the Commissioner 6 of Social Security the following information for 7
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary 7 of Homeland Security the information de8 scribed in
Secretary shall submit 3 the information described in subsection (b)(3)(A) pro4 vided
State shall submit a re25 port to the Secretary
Services shall submit a report to 24 the appropriate committees of Congress on the total
State shall submit to the Sec24 retary for the Secretary's approval the
shall submit to Congress and make available 19 to the public an interim report
shall submit to Congress and make available 24 to the public a final report
shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the 11 demonstration project.
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con2 taining the results of the evaluation and
section shall submit 6 to the Secretary an application at such time, in such man7
shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in 10 such format as
Secretary shall submit to Congress and make 14 available to the public a report on
and shall submit with any
State shall submit to the Secretary, in such form and 3 manner as the Secretary
entity shall submit 3 a report to the Secretary demonstrating improve4 ments (if any)
section shall submit an applical5 tion to the Secretary for approval, in such manner as
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the 3 results of the evaluation conducted
Secretary shall submit
States shall submit to Congress 19 an interim report containing the results of 20 the
States shall submit to Congress a re4 HR 3590 EAS/PP port containing the results
ices shall submit to Congress a report containing 10 the results of the study conducted
hospital shall submit to the 18 Secretary data on quality measures specified 19 under subparagraph
facility shall submit to the 22 Secretary data on quality measures specified 23 under subparagraph
program shall submit to the Sec4 retary data on quality measures specified under 5 subparagraph
v) shall submit data 15 to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2) 16
section shall submit to the Sec20 retary data on quality measures specified under 21 paragraph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 18 a report containing the plan developed under paral9 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 11 a report containing the plan developed under paral2 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con3 taining the results of the study conduct
No, it is very smart. It demonstrates that the law is illogical.
Suppose an anonymous person posts a comment on a web site hosted in an island nation with no libel law. Suppose the web site hosting is paid for by anonymous contributions from people who visit the site.
It's easy to find situations like that in which there is no one to sue.
This is my understanding: The effect of surrounding adult teeth with fluoride is beneficial, but that is a very weak effect compared to having fluoride incorporated into the entire structure of teeth because of drinking fluoridated water during childhood, as the adult teeth are being formed.
Consider the underlying issue: If you don't know that, and you are a dentist, it seems likely that you have been the target of lies. It is my perception that the American Medical Association, AMA, often acts for the greatest income for doctors, and not for the benefit of the public.
The Wikipedia article to which you linked contains a lot of language that appears to me to be designed to allow unnecessary doubt.
I went to a dentist recently with a staff that was promoting Xylitol, without the slightest understanding of the issues. There is another dentist I would like to have as my dentist, possibly, who has staff that lies about cleaning teeth. A woman who works in a dental clinic told me that there is a local organization that promotes dentists raising dental fees 8% each year.
JAMA is a publication by healthcare professionals, for healthcare professionals. Not for the public. In fact, very little of what is published in the medical literature can be interpreted without a broad understanding of physiology, pathophysiology, research design, and biostatistics. Your points against JAMA Otolaryngology are all based off of fundamental misunderstandings due to deficiencies in those areas. Let me address them not in the order you've brought them up, but from the "bottom up" so we can build off of prior knowledge.
First off, study design. Many of your points concern deficiencies in the abstract. The abstract's function is to allow a physician to gauge interest in the article's contents without having to read the entire thing. They're written under a strict word limit and are often submitted to the journal before the final draft of the article is completed, rendering many of them inaccurate. Additionally, the journal does not need to state that this is "just a discovery of an association". This is self-evident by the study design, which is identified in the abstract as "case control". This means that it is a retrospective study, and, by definition, cannot prove causality.
You completely missed the point, as I said above. JAMA publishes scientific articles which are mis-reported in articles for average readers. JAMA does not try to stop the sensationalism and dishonesty in the reporting for the public. There is a financial interest for doctors in being presented as knowing far more than they do.
Moving onto the slides, I cannot find a download link, so I cannot verify that they are correct.
Fluoridation is the process of converting the outer layer of your tooth enamel from a weaker, non-fluoridated form to a stronger form which incorporates fluoride ions. This change renders the outer layer of your teeth...
For some reason you have changed the subject to externally applied fluoride. I clearly said I was talking about fluoride internally ingested during the growth of a child's teeth, so that all the teeth have fluoride incorporated into the entire structure of the tooth, not just the outer layer, as you say.
Nowhere in the article is the discovery presented as causation.
Amazing that you say that! The discovery is presented a possible causation in the title: "Dental Caries May Protect Against Cancer".
What your post does highlight is a huge issue regarding health information. In that there is quite a lot of it, and, despite being written in an approximation of normal English, many terms have connotations that lay people will not have the training to understand. When you add in a number of "health news reporters" without any medical background who write articles that are either materially false or easily misconstrued, you have a recipe for a system that the public does not trust. As of right now, there is a relative paucity of trustworthy health news for the general public.
Again, you have jumped away from the subject. The subject is that JAMA knows the problem of exaggeration and dishonesty in medical reporting exists, but does nothing to stop it.
Fluoridation is the process of converting the outer layer of your tooth enamel from a weaker, non-fluoridated form to a stronger form which incorporates fluoride ions. This change renders the outer layer of your teeth more resistant to (but not immune to) scratching, chipping, and dissolution at low pH (such as is produced by oral bacteria). Fluoridation i
I feel uncomfortable with what you said, "I am a dentist and can guarantee you that even fluoride treated teeth...", because you jumped away from the subject, which was people who had fluoride during their entire childhoods, not "fluoride treated teeth". My understanding is that people who have had fluoride applied externally get some benefits, but not the complete benefits, which are far greater.
If you felt a need to change the subject, maybe you know what you said is not reliable. For example, as a dentist, you have no way of knowing the history of a patient when the patient was a child, unless the parent tells you.
So, for example, maybe a child lived in an area with fluoridated water, but drank sodas, or fruit juice made with fruit from another area with no fluoride in the water.
My information comes from people who have not had trouble with their teeth, and who lived with fluoridated water. They were all from well-educated families, so they did not do things that would, to an educated person, seem obviously self-defeating.
You completely missed the point. JAMA publishes scientific articles which are mis-reported in articles for average readers. JAMA does not try to stop the sensationalism.
I agree. It could be the opposite, that whatever prevents cancer causes tooth decay. Or, that there is an accidental association caused by some effect not studied, like accidental, unknown bias in the selection of patients to study.
This seems to be intentional fraud by JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The abstract of the JAMA Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery article calls the effect an "association".
The abstract should carry a warning something like this: "This is just a discovery of an association. No claim is made that one effect causes the other."
Instead, "MedPage Today, LLC and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania" published the "association" as cause and effect: "Dental Caries May Protect Against Cancer". In my opinion, that is fraud of a kind that is engaged in again and again. JAMA knows this occurs and does nothing to stop it. Instead, the public is encouraged to believe that something far more important than an "association" has been discovered. In effect, JAMA is allowing dishonest advertising of the medical and dental professions. JAMA seems to be an aggressive organization that sometimes promotes financial success for doctors against the interests of the public.
Also, the PDF of the slides is misleading. My understanding is that fluoridation means monitoring the levels of fluoride and adding fluoride so that the amount in the water is sufficient, as a child's permanent teeth are growing, to prevent tooth decay over the child's entire young and adult life. Once fluoride is incorporated into the teeth of children, the problem of dental infection by decay-causing bacteria is solved, because the pH required to cause decay in teeth that have fluoride included is never achieved by the bacteria. So, the slides are talking about cures for problems that occur only in people who did not have fluoridated water in childhood. I have friends who say that fluoridation had that effect in themselves and their children.
We haven't had any problems with Windows XP. If you have problems, you can re-load the OS from a CD.
To me, this Slashdot article seems to be an advertisement generated by Microsoft. Worldwide, there are still hundreds of millions of people using Windows XP, who have no reason to stop.
Many computers are used for business methods and data entry. There is no need or desire for new features.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a shame either company was able to take so much money from the IT world."
Sun depended on IT departments being ignorant. When Google showed everyone that reliability could be achieved with below-consumer-quality hardware by using software that adjusted for failures, Sun began its long, slow decline.
Good idea. MOD parent UP.
Trade shows need major improvement. People don't take them seriously. They are, mostly, a waste of time and money.
"What kind of rule could you possibly make to get rid of these metaphorical prostitutes?"
Just say that every person must be technically knowledgeable about the company's products. Have each company rated by everyone who goes to the show.
The show managers have strong reasons to demand the availability of real help and understanding. Otherwise a show can get a poor reputation.
These are VERY important ideas about trade shows from the end of the comment above:
"... there's basically loads of people wandering around just trying to get as much free stuff as they can. Possibly only 1% of the people who visit a booth actually want to know about the product, and most of them won't actually generate any business." [Edited for clarity.]
We need better trade shows. We need trade shows that don't allow companies to give away free things, and don't allow other distractions. And no "dry hustle" booth babes; they are, basically, prostitutes.
Imagine having one of those in your smartphone. You could answer text messages 1 microsecond faster. The battery life wouldn't be good.
ASLR: The purpose of ASLR is to provide protection against vulnerabilities. The idea is to make it far more difficult to exploit those vulnerabilities. ASLR is always good to have.
However, if software has no vulnerabilities, then ASLR has no effect.
Software rental, rather than sale: Those who buy software are usually not prepared to fully understand the issue. So, software companies like Adobe are taking advantage of that ignorance, and renting software rather than selling it. For many users, that will make the software FAR more expensive. (Adobe's CS6 is the last for sale version, Adobe says.)
Software vulnerabilites: Software can be checked for vulnerabilities and fixed before the software is released. Microsoft doesn't do that intensely because vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft, in my opinion.
"Windows 7... XP mode"
Is XP mode free of bugs? Will it get fixes for vulnerabilities?
If Microsoft can supply and fix XP mode, why not fix Windows XP?
The 8086 was Intel's first 16-bit processor.
When Windows XP was released, it was VERY buggy. It wasn't until Service Pack 2 that some of the major bugs were fixed. For example, the first version and the Service Pack 1 version of Windows XP had serious problems with USB connections.
Now, after hundreds of fixes, Windows XP has become what it should have been when it was first released. Is Microsoft claiming Windows XP is STILL buggy? Is Microsoft claiming that, after all these years, there are still extremely serious vulnerabilities in Windows XP?
If so, think of the problems people have had with Windows Vista and Windows 8. Would it be reasonable to expect that Microsoft has released only carefully written software in Windows 8.1, after it has, in my opinion, habitually released sloppy, bug-ridden software during the entire history of the company? (The first Microsoft product, Microsoft Basic computer language, was seriously buggy and came with a poorly written manual.)
Would moving to Windows 8 merely expose your family or your staff to a set of new problems? Will Microsoft, in a few years, say Windows 8 is too buggy to support any longer, and try to convince people to upgrade to something else? In the past, that's how Microsoft has made money, by convincing people to pay for a new version of Windows. Not by paying an upgrade price, but by paying for what Microsoft calls an entirely new version, even though there may be minimal important changes
Vulnerabilities and frequent security updates are part of Microsoft's marketing plans.
I first reported the Firefox memory-hogging instability bug in Firefox version .9, whatever it was called then. Now, years later, Firefox still grabs more and more memory until it becomes unstable.
The memory-hogging instability occurs when many windows and tabs are open, as is likely for anyone doing extensive research.
It seems to be called "the cloud" partly in an attempt to encourage cloudy thinking by managers who have little technical knowledge. Each "cloud" has its own API, which causes an intended lock-in.
MOD PARENT UP! See my comment above for more details about the incompetence.
Exactly. And it is far worse than that. A lot of what will result as the Affordable Care Act is not decided in the law, but depends on someone or agency submitting a report. Search for the words "shall submit" using the Edit > Search feature in Adobe Acrobat. There are at least 149 requirements to submit a report!!!
The acronym "MTM" is defined on page 1,056 as "medication management". Begin reading on that page, for example, to realize the enormity of what is not yet defined just in that area.
The Certified Full-Text Version: Affordable Care Act (PDF - 4.27 MB) is 2,409 pages of italics. A student who wrote so poorly would get a failing grade. Why such a mess? Maybe those who wrote it don't want taxpayers to read it.
Here are just 50 of the 149 instances of the phrase "shall submit":
plan shall submit claims for reim5 bursement to the Secretary which shall contain 6 documentation
Labor, shall submit a report to the appropriate 10 committees of Congress concerningâ" 11"(
Secretary shall submit a report to the 15 appropriate committees of Congress containing a 16
shall submit to Congress, within the 15-day pel5 riod beginning on the date
shall submit to the appropriate committees of 21 Congress a report on the study
Exchange shall submit the information 25 provided by an applicant under subsection
Secretary shall submit to the Commissioner 6 of Social Security the following information for 7
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary 7 of Homeland Security the information de8 scribed in
Secretary shall submit 3 the information described in subsection (b)(3)(A) pro4 vided
State shall submit a re25 port to the Secretary
Services shall submit a report to 24 the appropriate committees of Congress on the total
State shall submit to the Sec24 retary for the Secretary's approval the
shall submit to Congress and make available 19 to the public an interim report
shall submit to Congress and make available 24 to the public a final report
shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the 11 demonstration project.
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con2 taining the results of the evaluation and
section shall submit 6 to the Secretary an application at such time, in such man7
shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in 10 such format as
Secretary shall submit to Congress and make 14 available to the public a report on
and shall submit with any
State shall submit to the Secretary, in such form and 3 manner as the Secretary
entity shall submit 3 a report to the Secretary demonstrating improve4 ments (if any)
section shall submit an applical5 tion to the Secretary for approval, in such manner as
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the 3 results of the evaluation conducted
Secretary shall submit
States shall submit to Congress 19 an interim report containing the results of 20 the
States shall submit to Congress a re4 HR 3590 EAS/PP port containing the results
ices shall submit to Congress a report containing 10 the results of the study conducted
hospital shall submit to the 18 Secretary data on quality measures specified 19 under subparagraph
facility shall submit to the 22 Secretary data on quality measures specified 23 under subparagraph
program shall submit to the Sec4 retary data on quality measures specified under 5 subparagraph
v) shall submit data 15 to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2) 16
section shall submit to the Sec20 retary data on quality measures specified under 21 paragraph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 18 a report containing the plan developed under paral9 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 11 a report containing the plan developed under paral2 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con3 taining the results of the study conduct
"... no brainer..."
No, it is very smart. It demonstrates that the law is illogical.
Suppose an anonymous person posts a comment on a web site hosted in an island nation with no libel law. Suppose the web site hosting is paid for by anonymous contributions from people who visit the site.
It's easy to find situations like that in which there is no one to sue.
Good explanation.
This is my understanding: The effect of surrounding adult teeth with fluoride is beneficial, but that is a very weak effect compared to having fluoride incorporated into the entire structure of teeth because of drinking fluoridated water during childhood, as the adult teeth are being formed.
Consider the underlying issue: If you don't know that, and you are a dentist, it seems likely that you have been the target of lies. It is my perception that the American Medical Association, AMA, often acts for the greatest income for doctors, and not for the benefit of the public.
The Wikipedia article to which you linked contains a lot of language that appears to me to be designed to allow unnecessary doubt.
I went to a dentist recently with a staff that was promoting Xylitol, without the slightest understanding of the issues. There is another dentist I would like to have as my dentist, possibly, who has staff that lies about cleaning teeth. A woman who works in a dental clinic told me that there is a local organization that promotes dentists raising dental fees 8% each year.
Does that mean you allow dishonesty? Is it okay to promote "doctor's interests" against the common good? That's the entire issue.
When you were a child, did you live in an area where the water was fluoridated, either naturally, or by the city government?
You completely missed the point, as I said above. JAMA publishes scientific articles which are mis-reported in articles for average readers. JAMA does not try to stop the sensationalism and dishonesty in the reporting for the public. There is a financial interest for doctors in being presented as knowing far more than they do.
The link to the PDF file is at the bottom of the Slashdot story: Antimicrobial treatment, vaccination, or gene therapy against cariogenic bacteria.
I notice that you don't say if they are correct.
For some reason you have changed the subject to externally applied fluoride. I clearly said I was talking about fluoride internally ingested during the growth of a child's teeth, so that all the teeth have fluoride incorporated into the entire structure of the tooth, not just the outer layer, as you say.
Amazing that you say that! The discovery is presented a possible causation in the title: "Dental Caries May Protect Against Cancer".
Again, you have jumped away from the subject. The subject is that JAMA knows the problem of exaggeration and dishonesty in medical reporting exists, but does nothing to stop it.
I feel uncomfortable with what you said, "I am a dentist and can guarantee you that even fluoride treated teeth...", because you jumped away from the subject, which was people who had fluoride during their entire childhoods, not "fluoride treated teeth". My understanding is that people who have had fluoride applied externally get some benefits, but not the complete benefits, which are far greater.
If you felt a need to change the subject, maybe you know what you said is not reliable. For example, as a dentist, you have no way of knowing the history of a patient when the patient was a child, unless the parent tells you.
So, for example, maybe a child lived in an area with fluoridated water, but drank sodas, or fruit juice made with fruit from another area with no fluoride in the water.
My information comes from people who have not had trouble with their teeth, and who lived with fluoridated water. They were all from well-educated families, so they did not do things that would, to an educated person, seem obviously self-defeating.
You completely missed the point. JAMA publishes scientific articles which are mis-reported in articles for average readers. JAMA does not try to stop the sensationalism.
Another question: Does Hugh Pickens get paid for promoting this Slashdot article? Did someone at Slashdot get paid for including it?
I agree. It could be the opposite, that whatever prevents cancer causes tooth decay. Or, that there is an accidental association caused by some effect not studied, like accidental, unknown bias in the selection of patients to study.
This seems to be intentional fraud by JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The abstract of the JAMA Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery article calls the effect an "association".
The abstract should carry a warning something like this: "This is just a discovery of an association. No claim is made that one effect causes the other."
Instead, "MedPage Today, LLC and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania" published the "association" as cause and effect: "Dental Caries May Protect Against Cancer". In my opinion, that is fraud of a kind that is engaged in again and again. JAMA knows this occurs and does nothing to stop it. Instead, the public is encouraged to believe that something far more important than an "association" has been discovered. In effect, JAMA is allowing dishonest advertising of the medical and dental professions. JAMA seems to be an aggressive organization that sometimes promotes financial success for doctors against the interests of the public.
Also, the PDF of the slides is misleading. My understanding is that fluoridation means monitoring the levels of fluoride and adding fluoride so that the amount in the water is sufficient, as a child's permanent teeth are growing, to prevent tooth decay over the child's entire young and adult life. Once fluoride is incorporated into the teeth of children, the problem of dental infection by decay-causing bacteria is solved, because the pH required to cause decay in teeth that have fluoride included is never achieved by the bacteria. So, the slides are talking about cures for problems that occur only in people who did not have fluoridated water in childhood. I have friends who say that fluoridation had that effect in themselves and their children.
We haven't had any problems with Windows XP. If you have problems, you can re-load the OS from a CD.
To me, this Slashdot article seems to be an advertisement generated by Microsoft. Worldwide, there are still hundreds of millions of people using Windows XP, who have no reason to stop.
Many computers are used for business methods and data entry. There is no need or desire for new features.