"You're basically right, but there is a discipline which IMO is worthwhile, and that is trying to promote successful ageing."
That's definitely worthwhile. However, I haven't seen much good biochemical work in that area. The good work I have seen has not been biochemical, it has been in helping people change the way they live.
The Slashdot story is about finding a magic potion that will end aging. In my opinion, that is fraud.
Quote: "I live in LA. I was a little surprised when I moved here five years
ago to discover that the normals outnumber the weirdos by a dramatic
margin."
It's just that the weirdos and shysters get more publicity than normal
people.
After about 18 months in L.A., you begin to understand the more
serious problems. The L.A. culture is even more disfunctional than the culture
where you lived before. It gets seriously lonely, living in Los Angeles, even though
there are people all around you.
The real science in this is in the VERY early stages. It's a wild
guess, but a somewhat educated wild guess, that perhaps one one-thousandth is
known about body chemistry that would need to be known to "cure" aging.
There have been some successes, if you can call them that. This paper
talks about extending the life span of fruit flies by 7%: Extension of Drosophila Lifespan by Rhodiola rosea Through an
Anti-oxidant Independent Mechanism. This sentence is interesting:
"We evaluated a new formulation of R. rosea (SHR-5) which contains elevated
levels of the putative active compounds (rosin, rosarin, and rosavin), and
found that it could extend mean life span by 43%." The interesting word,
in that sentence, in my opinion, is "could". Not "extended the life span by
43%", but "could". And the active compounds are "putative"; that means "commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed". How "commonly regarded"
can it be when it is a "new formulation"?
If you follow experiments like this, you already know that "extending
the life span of fruit flies" is rather common. If I were to try to extend the life of fruit
flies myself, I would start by taking them out of their tiny cages in the laboratory and letting them fly more freely.
Maybe now they just get depressed and commit suicide. (I find it difficult to be serious about that "research" paper.)
Right now, 2008-06-27, 01:13 AM PDT, Slashdot is second on the list of
Blog Coverage (bottom of the left-hand column):
* Digg
* Slashdot
* Center for Society and Genetics
* Depressed Metabolism
I wonder if they will eliminate the link to this Slashdot story when they discover that
not all Slashdot readers are ignorant about science?
Remember all the publicity about sequencing the human genome? A lot of
taxpayers paid a lot of money for that. Then, it was revealed, that, so sorry,
the epigenome is a lot more complex, very influential, and almost completely
unknown.
I would like Slashdot editors to provide an assurance at the end of
every story they run that no one they know got money or any other benefit
because of running the story.
Every time you play a video game, you are spending time learning
about a fantasy world, when you could be learning about the real world. If you study the real world, you can discover that "anti-aging" is a HUGE
business, funded largely by people who have more money than scientific knowledge, and
hope not to die.
Yes, I know how to spell disfunctional. I just don't like that spelling, and I made my own.
As Bederman explains, in contrast to traditional libel law, the food disparagement laws "shift the burden of proof to the defendant. They allow speakers to be held liable even when they were just wrong. That's in contrast to the First Amendment..."
Quote from the first link in the parent comment: As Bederman explains, in contrast to traditional libel law, the food disparagement laws "shift the burden of proof to the defendant. They allow speakers to be held liable even when they were just wrong."
As happened to Oprah Winfrey, at a cost to her of more than a million dollars, someone can be sued who did not say anything false.
The laws are apparently intended to strike fear into the hearts of those who talk about food. They have been VERY effective at doing that, at a time when so much of the nation's food supply is driven by profit rather than safety and health.
The intent is to take away free speech, in one particular area, apparently, and the laws do that.
If part of the right to freedom of speech can be taken away in one area, then it can all be taken away, with no public discussion. Those who want corruption have all the power, apparently.
Thanks for adding some sensible information to the discussion. Slashdot editors seem not to be able to know the difference between science and foolish imaginings.
Here is a quote, a comment to the Wall Street Journal story:
"interference changed breathing machines' ventilation rates and caused syringe pumps to stop."
These things are FCC regulated. Should I feel safe knowing that not only are some of the systems in a hospital sensitive to EMF below FCC limits, but also that several life-critical devices FAIL under such radiation levels? For example, WHY should a syringe pump be designed so fragile that some radio waves can cause it to utterly stop?
Comment by RH - June 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Exactly. That's what I would have said. Here's another comment (my emphasis):
The usual ignorant hysteria. First of all, the test was of the reader, not the tags. "The median distance between the RFID reader and the medical device in all EMI incidents was 30 cm (range, 0.1-600 cm)." Second, and not available in the abstract is the AE classification. OBTW, Berwick is a shill for the trial lawyers, not a serious person.
Comment by jon - June 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm
It is remarkable to me how easily people accept abuse.
Wow! You missed the point. If arbitrary and unconstitutional laws can be made to benefit private interests,
we could soon see the U.S. government invading another country so that oil and weapons
investors can drive up the price of oil and make more money. Oh, wait... That's already happened.
Oprah paid more than 1 million dollars to defend
herself from a court case that accused her of making false statements. I
happened to have recorded that show, and I watched it, and I certainly didn't see anything false.
Sure, Oprah "won" the case, but it cost more than $1,000,000.
See the link I
provided, which partly says this:
Oprah and the Cannibal Cows
Just what did Oprah Winfrey and the Humane Society's Howard Lyman say about
beef? Here's a portion of the April 16, 1996, show that landed them in a Texas
court.
Oprah Winfrey: You said this disease could make AIDS look like the common
cold?
Howard Lyman: Absolutely.
Winfrey: That's an extreme statement, you
know.
Absolutely. And what we're looking at right now is we're following exactly
the same path that they followed in England: 10 years of dealing with it as
public relations rather than doing something substantial about it. One hundred
thousand cows per year in the United States are fine at night, dead in the
morning. The majority of those cows are rounded up, ground up, fed back to
other cows. If only one of them has mad cow disease, [it] has the potential to
infect thousands. Remember-today, the United States-14 per cent of all cows by
volume are ground up, turned into feed, and fed back to other animals.
Winfrey: But cows are herbivores; they shouldn't be eating other cows.
That's exactly right. And what we should be doing is exactly what nature
says: we should have them eating grass, not other cows. We've not only turned
them into carnivores, we've turned them into cannibals.
Winfrey: Now see? Wait a minute. Let me just ask you this right now,
Howard. How do you know for sure that the cows are ground up and fed back to
the other cows?
Lyman: Oh, I've seen it. These are USDA statistics. They're not something that
we're making up.
Winfrey: Now doesn't that concern you all a little
bit right here, hearing that?
audience: Yeah!
Winfrey: It has just stopped me cold
from eating another burger! I'm stopped!
So, the court upholds the constitutional guarantee of free speech. But... only
if the speech is against people.
This is not a joke: In 13
states, you do not have the right of free speech if you talk about food.
Read about food libel laws. Say anything you like about people, but
don't libel food!
Don't read this, if you live in these states: Citizens of
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, you may not read the next
paragraph:
Large amounts of caffeine have an effect on the human central nervous
system that many people consider to be unhealthy. In my opinion, it is better
to avoid caffeine. That means avoiding soft drinks with caffeine, and avoiding
coffee unless it is de-caffeinated.
Citizens of those states, resume reading. If you care for
yourself, you will care for your government. Read the many, many books about
government corruption in the United States. Take some action against
abusiveness.
More stories about your loss of the right to free speech:
The correct term is "independent agents". Using the term "artificial intelligence" has been a way to get more funding from grant sources who are ignorant of technology.
You said, "Women who are abused are not the ones to blame. They are the
ones who have the power to stop it but they are not really to blame."
Yes, women are to blame for what they do. They have the same
responsibility for their own actions as men.
This is just more of the same old Slashdot pseudo-science that is posted as a
real story.
"Bad boys" communicate that women have no responsibility toward them.
That's what women want when they just want to have sex. Only that. Try it
yourself. If you communicate that women have no responsibility, they will want
sex with you, too.
You might need considerable practice, because at present you may have
no idea what you are actually communicating.
Yes, it is a compliment when a woman wants to be intimate with you.
But, after a lot of that, it gets annoying. Only a real, responsible
relationship with a woman who wants to be true partners will give you what you
need as a human.
If you communicate that you want a real relationship, then it will be
difficult to find a woman in the United States, because the culture in the
United States is going through a period in which women are very negative
toward men.
Try different countries. Things can be very, very different in a country
other than your home country. Put on a backpack and hitchike through Europe during
the summer. I recommend the Greek island of Ios in July. (But, I haven't been there in a long time.) The Greeks are nice but the real attraction is other travelers from all over Europe. Two-thousand-five-hundred women and an equal number of men, with nothing to do but socialize.
Take buses and trains in less-developed countries. Stay in cheap hostels for backpackers. Read Let's Go: Europe. Read the Lonely Planet guides. You will meet women travelers who are a bit different because they also have decided to do a little more
with their lives than stay home.
If you want a wife, try looking in Brazil, where women are a little
less religious about avoiding responsibility. If you look in Brazil, don't
just marry the first Brazilian woman who seems wonderful. Talk to your woman about
responsibility. If you don't get good answers, try other women. Learn the
Brazilian culture. Learn the Brazilian social sophistication.
You might also try Thailand, but you would probably need to learn to
speak and write Thai, and you would need to learn an Asian culture, and it
would be more difficult to find a truly mature woman. Remember the lyrics of
the song "One night in Bangkok". Don't just fall in love with the first Thai woman who is nice to you.
Quote from the song: "One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble. Can't be too careful with your company."
The song is about a real event. One year the world chess championship was held in Thailand. The men went out at night, and were not prepared for the experience of being treated with gentleness. The Dalai Lama says that Thai people are gentle, and he's right.
I've seen it myself. One night, a long time ago, standing on the corner of Patpong road, a western woman was trying to get control over her western man again after he had seen in a Thai bar that a woman could be truly gentle with a man. All the man had known in his entire life, apparently, was women being harsh with men.
Again, don't marry the first Thai woman who is nice to you. Learn the culture. Learn the special challenges of being multi-cultural yourself and having a multi-cultural relationship.
A good idea, if you are in a country in which the native language is not English, is to hang around a school that teaches English. When you see a woman who is interesting, offer to have a conversation in English with her, so that she can practice, if she will teach you the Thai culture. In Thailand, you might try visiting the
"In a commercial software environment developers will try the same thing until the manager tells them to cut it out and fix problem (US). Or he'll back them in return for popularity and the company will go slowly go bust."
"In the absence of any commercial pressures the developers can feed the users any bullshit they want and nothing will happen."
No one should forget that Mozilla Foundation makes $50,000,000 per year from Google for making Firefox the default search engine.
Quote: "I am NOT going to use a debugger and trace out the problem (as they have asked me to do for them). That is THEIR job, not mine."
Google pays the Mozilla Foundation $50,000,000 every year to have Google as the default browser in Firefox. Seems like for 50 million Mozilla Foundation could do more than tell other people to do the work.
"I normally always have a Firefox window open and memory usage always climbs right up to 500-600MB."
"Once it gets to the point where it starts needing to page memory, it really slows the entire system down unless I shutdown Firefox and restart it. I can reproduce these problems on a daily basis."
"The memory leak was not fixed, but it was finally addressed it seems. The
memory usage still creeps up very high, but it takes much longer to reach the
point of a performance hit than before."
It's actually not just a memory leak. It is a CPU hogging bug, also.
Since that bug is now 7 years old, and still not fully
fixed, I suppose I should post my list of Firefox developer excuses again. The list
is not complete. There have been other excuses that I haven't had time to add to the list.
Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses
for Not Fixing the Firefox Memory
and CPU Hogging bugs.
These are actual excuses given at one time or
another.
Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU
hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of seven
years.]
Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug
eventually takes 100% of CPU power, and makes Windows XP unusable, even after
Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox.]
Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users
have reported the bug. See the links.]
Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did
a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]
No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report,
they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes
TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not
generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a
report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]
If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They
didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information
provided.]
This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is
invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]
You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the
same use does not crash any version of Opera.]
I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or
think about it.]
You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
[Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem,
and we may fix it.]
Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.
If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be
trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is
beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to
magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common
use.]
Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions
advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]
Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has
been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports
discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely
clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU
hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]
If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or
days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox.
[Firefox has "Standard Diagnostics". It has become accepted that some users
will have severe problems. !!! ]
I won't actually read the (many) bug reports, but I will give you some
complicated technical speculation. [This pretends to be helpful but, on
investigation, is shown to have nothing to do with the bugs.]
It's understandable that Firefox developers become defensive when users
report so many problems.
To spend smart developers' time going over reports of bu
Have the big bugs been fixed? Or is this just a mostly cosmetic release?
For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use. Somehow the management of Firefox development has been that the big difficult things don't get done. Are things different now?
Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st day
on
A Few Firefox 3 Followups
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
It wasn't very smart to encourage millions of downloads when it was very likely there would be bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're basically right, but there is a discipline which IMO is worthwhile, and that is trying to promote successful ageing."
That's definitely worthwhile. However, I haven't seen much good biochemical work in that area. The good work I have seen has not been biochemical, it has been in helping people change the way they live.
The Slashdot story is about finding a magic potion that will end aging. In my opinion, that is fraud.
Quote: "I live in LA. I was a little surprised when I moved here five years ago to discover that the normals outnumber the weirdos by a dramatic margin."
It's just that the weirdos and shysters get more publicity than normal people.
After about 18 months in L.A., you begin to understand the more serious problems. The L.A. culture is even more disfunctional than the culture where you lived before. It gets seriously lonely, living in Los Angeles, even though there are people all around you.
Fraud Alert! In my opinion, this Slashdot story is about an almost purely fraudulent subject, with insignificant truth. Many people want to believe, and my guess is that the leaders of "anti-aging" efforts want to take the money of the believers. Here's where they ask for money: At present, a $100 donation (enough for a free signed copy of "Ending Aging") is leveraged to $150!.
The real science in this is in the VERY early stages. It's a wild guess, but a somewhat educated wild guess, that perhaps one one-thousandth is known about body chemistry that would need to be known to "cure" aging.
There have been some successes, if you can call them that. This paper talks about extending the life span of fruit flies by 7%: Extension of Drosophila Lifespan by Rhodiola rosea Through an Anti-oxidant Independent Mechanism. This sentence is interesting: "We evaluated a new formulation of R. rosea (SHR-5) which contains elevated levels of the putative active compounds (rosin, rosarin, and rosavin), and found that it could extend mean life span by 43%." The interesting word, in that sentence, in my opinion, is "could". Not "extended the life span by 43%", but "could". And the active compounds are "putative"; that means "commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed". How "commonly regarded" can it be when it is a "new formulation"?
If you follow experiments like this, you already know that "extending the life span of fruit flies" is rather common. If I were to try to extend the life of fruit flies myself, I would start by taking them out of their tiny cages in the laboratory and letting them fly more freely. Maybe now they just get depressed and commit suicide. (I find it difficult to be serious about that "research" paper.)
Right now, 2008-06-27, 01:13 AM PDT, Slashdot is second on the list of Blog Coverage (bottom of the left-hand column):
* Digg
* Slashdot
* Center for Society and Genetics
* Depressed Metabolism
I wonder if they will eliminate the link to this Slashdot story when they discover that not all Slashdot readers are ignorant about science?
Remember all the publicity about sequencing the human genome? A lot of taxpayers paid a lot of money for that. Then, it was revealed, that, so sorry, the epigenome is a lot more complex, very influential, and almost completely unknown.
I would like Slashdot editors to provide an assurance at the end of every story they run that no one they know got money or any other benefit because of running the story.
Every time you play a video game, you are spending time learning about a fantasy world, when you could be learning about the real world. If you study the real world, you can discover that "anti-aging" is a HUGE business, funded largely by people who have more money than scientific knowledge, and hope not to die.
Yes, I know how to spell disfunctional. I just don't like that spelling, and I made my own.
"... Microsoft broke the whole GUI on Windows..."
Good point.
Oops, the quote should have been:
As Bederman explains, in contrast to traditional libel law, the food disparagement laws "shift the burden of proof to the defendant. They allow speakers to be held liable even when they were just wrong. That's in contrast to the First Amendment..."
Quote from the first link in the parent comment: As Bederman explains, in contrast to traditional libel law, the food disparagement laws "shift the burden of proof to the defendant. They allow speakers to be held liable even when they were just wrong."
As happened to Oprah Winfrey, at a cost to her of more than a million dollars, someone can be sued who did not say anything false.
The laws are apparently intended to strike fear into the hearts of those who talk about food. They have been VERY effective at doing that, at a time when so much of the nation's food supply is driven by profit rather than safety and health.
The intent is to take away free speech, in one particular area, apparently, and the laws do that.
If part of the right to freedom of speech can be taken away in one area, then it can all be taken away, with no public discussion. Those who want corruption have all the power, apparently.
Thanks for adding some sensible information to the discussion. Slashdot editors seem not to be able to know the difference between science and foolish imaginings.
Here is a quote, a comment to the Wall Street Journal story:
"interference changed breathing machines' ventilation rates and caused syringe pumps to stop."
These things are FCC regulated. Should I feel safe knowing that not only are some of the systems in a hospital sensitive to EMF below FCC limits, but also that several life-critical devices FAIL under such radiation levels? For example, WHY should a syringe pump be designed so fragile that some radio waves can cause it to utterly stop?
Comment by RH - June 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Exactly. That's what I would have said. Here's another comment (my emphasis):
The usual ignorant hysteria. First of all, the test was of the reader, not the tags. "The median distance between the RFID reader and the medical device in all EMI incidents was 30 cm (range, 0.1-600 cm)." Second, and not available in the abstract is the AE classification. OBTW, Berwick is a shill for the trial lawyers, not a serious person.
Comment by jon - June 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm
It is remarkable to me how easily people accept abuse.
Wow! You missed the point. If arbitrary and unconstitutional laws can be made to benefit private interests, we could soon see the U.S. government invading another country so that oil and weapons investors can drive up the price of oil and make more money. Oh, wait... That's already happened.
Oprah paid more than 1 million dollars to defend herself from a court case that accused her of making false statements. I happened to have recorded that show, and I watched it, and I certainly didn't see anything false. Sure, Oprah "won" the case, but it cost more than $1,000,000.
See the link I provided, which partly says this:
Oprah and the Cannibal Cows
Just what did Oprah Winfrey and the Humane Society's Howard Lyman say about beef? Here's a portion of the April 16, 1996, show that landed them in a Texas court.
Oprah Winfrey: You said this disease could make AIDS look like the common cold?
Howard Lyman: Absolutely.
Winfrey: That's an extreme statement, you know.
Absolutely. And what we're looking at right now is we're following exactly the same path that they followed in England: 10 years of dealing with it as public relations rather than doing something substantial about it. One hundred thousand cows per year in the United States are fine at night, dead in the morning. The majority of those cows are rounded up, ground up, fed back to other cows. If only one of them has mad cow disease, [it] has the potential to infect thousands. Remember-today, the United States-14 per cent of all cows by volume are ground up, turned into feed, and fed back to other animals.
Winfrey: But cows are herbivores; they shouldn't be eating other cows.
That's exactly right. And what we should be doing is exactly what nature says: we should have them eating grass, not other cows. We've not only turned them into carnivores, we've turned them into cannibals.
Winfrey: Now see? Wait a minute. Let me just ask you this right now, Howard. How do you know for sure that the cows are ground up and fed back to the other cows?
Lyman: Oh, I've seen it. These are USDA statistics. They're not something that we're making up.
Winfrey: Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit right here, hearing that?
audience: Yeah!
Winfrey: It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger! I'm stopped!
audience: Yeah!
So, the court upholds the constitutional guarantee of free speech. But... only if the speech is against people.
This is not a joke: In 13 states, you do not have the right of free speech if you talk about food.
Read about food libel laws. Say anything you like about people, but don't libel food!
Don't read this, if you live in these states: Citizens of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, you may not read the next paragraph:
Large amounts of caffeine have an effect on the human central nervous system that many people consider to be unhealthy. In my opinion, it is better to avoid caffeine. That means avoiding soft drinks with caffeine, and avoiding coffee unless it is de-caffeinated.
Citizens of those states, resume reading. If you care for yourself, you will care for your government. Read the many, many books about government corruption in the United States. Take some action against abusiveness.
More stories about your loss of the right to free speech:
Talk Show Host Gets First Taste of Food Disparagement Laws
Food disparagement laws: A threat to us all.
Food Fights
Food Fight - food disparagement laws fought by Center for Science in the Public Interest's FoodSpeak Coalition project
The correct term is "independent agents". Using the term "artificial intelligence" has been a way to get more funding from grant sources who are ignorant of technology.
You said, "Women who are abused are not the ones to blame. They are the ones who have the power to stop it but they are not really to blame."
Yes, women are to blame for what they do. They have the same responsibility for their own actions as men.
This is just more of the same old Slashdot pseudo-science that is posted as a real story.
"Bad boys" communicate that women have no responsibility toward them. That's what women want when they just want to have sex. Only that. Try it yourself. If you communicate that women have no responsibility, they will want sex with you, too.
You might need considerable practice, because at present you may have no idea what you are actually communicating.
Yes, it is a compliment when a woman wants to be intimate with you. But, after a lot of that, it gets annoying. Only a real, responsible relationship with a woman who wants to be true partners will give you what you need as a human.
If you communicate that you want a real relationship, then it will be difficult to find a woman in the United States, because the culture in the United States is going through a period in which women are very negative toward men.
Try different countries. Things can be very, very different in a country other than your home country. Put on a backpack and hitchike through Europe during the summer. I recommend the Greek island of Ios in July. (But, I haven't been there in a long time.) The Greeks are nice but the real attraction is other travelers from all over Europe. Two-thousand-five-hundred women and an equal number of men, with nothing to do but socialize.
Take buses and trains in less-developed countries. Stay in cheap hostels for backpackers. Read Let's Go: Europe. Read the Lonely Planet guides. You will meet women travelers who are a bit different because they also have decided to do a little more with their lives than stay home.
If you want a wife, try looking in Brazil, where women are a little less religious about avoiding responsibility. If you look in Brazil, don't just marry the first Brazilian woman who seems wonderful. Talk to your woman about responsibility. If you don't get good answers, try other women. Learn the Brazilian culture. Learn the Brazilian social sophistication.
You might also try Thailand, but you would probably need to learn to speak and write Thai, and you would need to learn an Asian culture, and it would be more difficult to find a truly mature woman. Remember the lyrics of the song "One night in Bangkok". Don't just fall in love with the first Thai woman who is nice to you.
Quote from the song: "One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble. Can't be too careful with your company."
The song is about a real event. One year the world chess championship was held in Thailand. The men went out at night, and were not prepared for the experience of being treated with gentleness. The Dalai Lama says that Thai people are gentle, and he's right.
I've seen it myself. One night, a long time ago, standing on the corner of Patpong road, a western woman was trying to get control over her western man again after he had seen in a Thai bar that a woman could be truly gentle with a man. All the man had known in his entire life, apparently, was women being harsh with men.
Again, don't marry the first Thai woman who is nice to you. Learn the culture. Learn the special challenges of being multi-cultural yourself and having a multi-cultural relationship.
A good idea, if you are in a country in which the native language is not English, is to hang around a school that teaches English. When you see a woman who is interesting, offer to have a conversation in English with her, so that she can practice, if she will teach you the Thai culture. In Thailand, you might try visiting the
"In a commercial software environment developers will try the same thing until the manager tells them to cut it out and fix problem (US). Or he'll back them in return for popularity and the company will go slowly go bust."
"In the absence of any commercial pressures the developers can feed the users any bullshit they want and nothing will happen."
No one should forget that Mozilla Foundation makes $50,000,000 per year from Google for making Firefox the default search engine.
Very good point. Except that, whenever there are no Bugzilla links, there is complaining that the bugs have not been reported.
Besides, Mozilla Bugzilla does not accept visits coming from Slashdot. You have to copy and paste the link.
Something like this?
I never got cancer, so I don't believe cancer is a real disease. I think the people who say they have cancer are just trying to get sympathy.
And besides, heart attacks are worse, even if there is such a thing as cancer.
Quote: "I am NOT going to use a debugger and trace out the problem (as they have asked me to do for them). That is THEIR job, not mine."
Google pays the Mozilla Foundation $50,000,000 every year to have Google as the default browser in Firefox. Seems like for 50 million Mozilla Foundation could do more than tell other people to do the work.
MOD PARENT UP.
"I normally always have a Firefox window open and memory usage always climbs right up to 500-600MB."
"Once it gets to the point where it starts needing to page memory, it really slows the entire system down unless I shutdown Firefox and restart it. I can reproduce these problems on a daily basis."
"after one hour or so, my FF process starts lagging a lot and need a restart, reaching approx 500MB memory usage."
MOD PARENT UP! Useful information.
Wow! I just looked at Bazaar.
Things I noticed:
Bazaar developers are very good writers. They explain things very well.
A lot of things they say make good sense to me. (Bazaar versus Git)
Buyers for computer parts often have to keep lots of tabs open.
Anyone doing research that cannot be finished immediately needs to keep tabs open.
Firefox is the most unstable program in common use
It's actually not just a memory leak. It is a CPU hogging bug, also.
Since that bug is now 7 years old, and still not fully fixed, I suppose I should post my list of Firefox developer excuses again. The list is not complete. There have been other excuses that I haven't had time to add to the list.
Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses
for Not Fixing the Firefox Memory
and CPU Hogging bugs.
These are actual excuses given at one time or another.
Have the big bugs been fixed? Or is this just a mostly cosmetic release?
For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use. Somehow the management of Firefox development has been that the big difficult things don't get done. Are things different now?
It wasn't very smart to encourage millions of downloads when it was very likely there would be bugs.
There have been a lot of initiatives like this that are designed to make money for doctors.
"Who do you think will win after putting the whole thing in perspective?"
I'm guessing that no one will win. Apparently no one has done even a little bit of creative thinking.