Chances are this is too late to be read, but here's a reply to "what's the worst". A particularly cruel punishment, I think, is suffered by the would-be customers or partial customers who are unable to raise enough money "in time". This list includes cases of people left devastated, sure that if they'd only been able to raise more money, or raise it faster, their loved one would have been able to be saved. If the patient started treatment, chances are that their family is broke, have lost someone dearly loved, and are forever haunted by "if only I'd been able to raise money faster it wouldn't have been too late."
People who sell "hopes" at high prices steal money from believers who can meet their price, and peace of mind from believers who can't.
The northwest passage has always been a viable trade route. Anyone who things otherwise has been listening to warmists spout off that we've never used it. I'll give you three guesses as to why Canada and Russia have so many ice breakers up there.
Always been viable? The first ship to successfully travel it from west to east took
three years (1940-1942). And that wasn't even trying it out as a trade route.
At least in South Africa at this time of year they may notice the results of global warming themselves. I remember hearing of one climate meeting a few years back that was held in Ottawa in winter; the weather didn't exactly provide an impression of global warming, and may have left attendees thinking that warming might be a good thing.
Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.
There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.
We don't instantly dismiss, at least I certainly don't. I look for the published records of properly carried out trials, don't find any reputable ones, and then I dismiss.
In this case Burzynski apparently doesn't even have a proper trial protocol, and no credible statistics could result. He's also been at it for quite a long time (30+ years!), much longer than it should take to do some proper testing. Hence.... quack.
Look, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof on treatments, where we should accept any claims unless they've been disproven. There are far too many wacky claims to be able to use that approach, even if it was appropriate. If the proponents of any treatment want it to be labeled as genuine rather than quackery, then carry out proper trials and produce reputable publications. Choosing not to do so suggests that the proponents themselves know that it's quackery.
If someone wants to do testing on the effects of chewing a measured amount of certain roots -- go ahead. I suggest you not smear your submitted papers in goat blood, though, and be careful about dosages if you haven't isolated the compound.
An advantage to blogging about the new victims is that it can provide some sort of external record of at least some of the patients. Since we know about them before they sought treatment, they aren't cherry-picked "success stories" like the other anecdotes.
Meanwhile, the UK government is currently looking into reforms to their rather chilling libel laws (burden of proof is reversed from the US laws, with the defendant having to prove the truth of their statements), so this set of threats and the attention it's getting is potentially helpful.
"big pharma" isn't a monolith, it includes multiple competing companies. Any of whom would be happy to buy up a likely cure and make large amounts of money from it. Over the patent life of a drug, you shoud be able to make much more money from a cure than an ongoing treatment, because you can charge a lot more for it and you get all of it upfront.
And then, once they're cured of the fatal disease, you can still sell them all of your other drugs!
Trying "alternative" approaches to treating cancer is probably why Steve Jobs is gone. Admittedly this is also just an anecdote, but a very high-profile one. I'm glad that you don't agree with these approaches. Please spread the word among other alt-med supporters.
It has been determined that, in some breast cancers, there is significant and complex genome rearrangement.
Feel free to explain how electromagnetic therapy is supposed to do anything about that.
As for the "drug companies don't want a cure" argument -- if any company, drug or otherwise, could get their hands on a cure, they'd be over the moon with joy, thinking about the license to print money that they'd found. If a drug company really thought Burzynski was onto something, they'd try to buy him out, not supress him.
Technically I think the critics (of which I am one, though I don't blog) are judging on the *lack* of scientific method.
His "clinical studies" don't have the proper controls, which means that they cannot produce anything more than anecdotal results. At my university, the ethics board would not approve any type of experiments on human subjects in such a situation; potential for scientific advancement is required to justify any risk.
At best it's a fishing trip, not a scientific study.
And saying so shouldn't lead to libel threats and I-know-where-you-live intimidation attempts.
Still want to run a piece of software that needs to be patched every so often ?
Well, no. And according to the article, they may not have a choice; the agreement comes
"with legally-binding assurances that the information will not be used against them".
Presumably this would prevent not giving them future contracts on the basis of knowing that their previous work was crap, since at least they owned up to it. How anti-merit of them.
So yes, multifold problems; the system maintainers are going to be very unhappy if they get frequent information about problems for them to deal with, and won't be able to do a thing about it. Sounds like a killer for whatever morale might be left.
And of course, these systems could be in general public use as well, but the public couldn't be informed.
One big concern is that the companies can get immunity (and public silence) if they 'fess up to the problems. Leakers of confidentially submitted information will be prosecuted, and the government will be on the hook, not the company.
Except since nobody can leak it, the ones really on the hook for the problems are the people who will be depending on it.
Still, that could be the only carrot that might convince the big companies to actually admit to their failures.
What counts as "more social"? If you have 80 people that you talk with on your contact list in your instant messaging client, does that count as much as social interactions with 80 people in real life? Or is there a certain ratio? I don't think that being social with 5 online people is equal to being social with 5 people in person.
Also, should we really count all of the 80 people on a list when most of them lurk? Am I really talking to *all* members of Slashdot just now, or just the AC whose post I'm responding to?
Probably somewhere in the middle, but it's also still not the same as having an actual conversation.
Also, the use of the internet is causing all sort of people to identify themselves as "geeks" just due to their internet/chat use (it's finally cool to be a tech geek, so alll sorts of people call themselves one even when all they're doing is chatting and downloading files). This skews the statistics.
However, it should also come as no surprise that internet users read, and talk to each other.
Sure they are. The pipers are presumably from Cape Breton (only the best for your true love, I presume), and I wouldn't be surprised if the drummers were as well (if you want them to be able to play with the pipers). Throw in some stepdancers and the change in the US-Canada exchange rate becomes very relevant.
I don't see how this would change the price of swans, though -- unless they're fake swans, really Canada Geese after a bleach job.
While I enjoy the image of The Royal Bank of Canada (perennially Canada's most profitable bank) as Darth Vader, it looks more like RBC is changing the deal back -- after SCO made a deal with the lawyers (to pay them 20% of any sale) that contradicted the deal with investors.
Its as if SCO issued new stock and gave it directly to the lawyers -- it waters down the value of the company (whatever that might be), and the existing investors are quite correct to do what they can to block it.
The original investment, on the other hand, was not quite so smart. Even if they were probably trying to hedge against an investment in IBM.
While giving lawyers a cut of litigation-promoted revenue might make sense, the problem with this reasoning is that in the event of selling the company cheap due to losing the lawsuits appears to still trigger the 20% -- before the investors get anything. And with Darl's brother being hired as a lawyer, too. Now the investors can block the sale, at least.
Of course, this clause can also be seen as an admission that it's only due to suing that they're getting any money at all, and that without the diligent efforts of the lawyers the company is worthless. Nice concession on their part, confirming that they don't have anything to sell that anyone wants to buy unless threatened.
On the other hand, issue 8 also contains a post from Caldera talking about their comittment to cooperative efforts in the Linux community and encouraging developers to work with them. I quote:
This is an Open Development which will result in a Branded UNIX which will be freely distributed on the Internet in source and binary forms.
A lot has changed since issue 8 with respect to people's intentions....
Someone should seriously mod up the parent, as it's very informative.
John M. Fisk writes (as part of this "Welcome") in issue 8:
I've decided to turn the Linux Gazette over to the Linux Journal.
and furthermore writes:
I think that the Gazette has demonstrated the "proof of concept" -- that a freely available and open-to-all online publication is a great means for sharing information and ideas. There are a number of great things that could be done with this and I'm excited about the Gazette continuing on in this tradition.
So I can see why SSC thinks that they're in charge -- the previous "in charge" said so. And the "great things that could be done" bit certainly allows for trying to change the format, as long as it's still "freely available and open-to-all". 'Course, we don't know what the changes were turning into, eg. Slashdot is freely available and open to all but you get it earlier if you subscribe (but not enough earlier to claim that it's not really free).
The people who've been volunteering in the years since have some grounds with respect to copyright on their articles, but volunteering for something doesn't make you in charge (any more than hosting would make SSC in charge). You'd need paperwork from that time to figure out this mess, I agree.
However, legally correct business is frequently not good business, and screwing over key people in the Linux community is not a good way to sell subscriptions to the Linux Journal. If they're rewinding the changes, it would make sense to try for an agreement with the volunteer staff rather than bully them.
Hmm. I would certainly hope that providing hosting and some support doesn't entitle them to take over the name. That'd be a very dangerous precedent; are we supposed to register the names of any and all web publications just in case it becomes popular and our ISP decides to take it over?
This (my question above) is a relatively naive take on the matter, but in general the approach to business of initial web publications, especially in the early days of the web, has been very naive. Many pro sites started as volunteer sites. Can we wait until it's popular before filing trademark papers or do we need to file them before we set up the site, just in case?
Either way it doesn't exactly encourage the grassroots innovation and publication that makes the web a tool for all rather than a big electronic billboard for companies.
And even if SSC manages to retain the trademark, they've still been violating the copyright of volunteer authors.
Slashdot Mirror
People who sell "hopes" at high prices steal money from believers who can meet their price, and peace of mind from believers who can't.
The northwest passage has always been a viable trade route. Anyone who things otherwise has been listening to warmists spout off that we've never used it. I'll give you three guesses as to why Canada and Russia have so many ice breakers up there.
Always been viable? The first ship to successfully travel it from west to east took three years (1940-1942). And that wasn't even trying it out as a trade route.
At least in South Africa at this time of year they may notice the results of global warming themselves. I remember hearing of one climate meeting a few years back that was held in Ottawa in winter; the weather didn't exactly provide an impression of global warming, and may have left attendees thinking that warming might be a good thing.
If you want to live and work in a bog swarming with bugs, go for it.
The 600,000+ people living in Washington, DC don't seem to mind too much.
Some politicians are sufficiently toxic that I doubt the bugs would go after them.
Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.
There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.
In this case Burzynski apparently doesn't even have a proper trial protocol, and no credible statistics could result. He's also been at it for quite a long time (30+ years!), much longer than it should take to do some proper testing. Hence.... quack.
Look, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof on treatments, where we should accept any claims unless they've been disproven. There are far too many wacky claims to be able to use that approach, even if it was appropriate. If the proponents of any treatment want it to be labeled as genuine rather than quackery, then carry out proper trials and produce reputable publications. Choosing not to do so suggests that the proponents themselves know that it's quackery.
If someone wants to do testing on the effects of chewing a measured amount of certain roots -- go ahead. I suggest you not smear your submitted papers in goat blood, though, and be careful about dosages if you haven't isolated the compound.
Though maybe he's lying about not thinking lying is wrong.
Meanwhile, the UK government is currently looking into reforms to their rather chilling libel laws (burden of proof is reversed from the US laws, with the defendant having to prove the truth of their statements), so this set of threats and the attention it's getting is potentially helpful.
The commenter probably has a karma bonus, which means that at some other time this person has said something intelligent.
And then, once they're cured of the fatal disease, you can still sell them all of your other drugs!
Of course it's illegal to claim that you have a cure for cancer. It's called false advertising.
Trying "alternative" approaches to treating cancer is probably why Steve Jobs is gone. Admittedly this is also just an anecdote, but a very high-profile one. I'm glad that you don't agree with these approaches. Please spread the word among other alt-med supporters.
Feel free to explain how electromagnetic therapy is supposed to do anything about that.
As for the "drug companies don't want a cure" argument -- if any company, drug or otherwise, could get their hands on a cure, they'd be over the moon with joy, thinking about the license to print money that they'd found. If a drug company really thought Burzynski was onto something, they'd try to buy him out, not supress him.
His "clinical studies" don't have the proper controls, which means that they cannot produce anything more than anecdotal results. At my university, the ethics board would not approve any type of experiments on human subjects in such a situation; potential for scientific advancement is required to justify any risk.
At best it's a fishing trip, not a scientific study.
And saying so shouldn't lead to libel threats and I-know-where-you-live intimidation attempts.
Well, no. And according to the article, they may not have a choice; the agreement comes "with legally-binding assurances that the information will not be used against them". Presumably this would prevent not giving them future contracts on the basis of knowing that their previous work was crap, since at least they owned up to it. How anti-merit of them.
So yes, multifold problems; the system maintainers are going to be very unhappy if they get frequent information about problems for them to deal with, and won't be able to do a thing about it. Sounds like a killer for whatever morale might be left.
And of course, these systems could be in general public use as well, but the public couldn't be informed.
One big concern is that the companies can get immunity (and public silence) if they 'fess up to the problems. Leakers of confidentially submitted information will be prosecuted, and the government will be on the hook, not the company. Except since nobody can leak it, the ones really on the hook for the problems are the people who will be depending on it.
Still, that could be the only carrot that might convince the big companies to actually admit to their failures.
Also, should we really count all of the 80 people on a list when most of them lurk? Am I really talking to *all* members of Slashdot just now, or just the AC whose post I'm responding to?
Probably somewhere in the middle, but it's also still not the same as having an actual conversation.
However, it should also come as no surprise that internet users read, and talk to each other.
Sure they are. The pipers are presumably from Cape Breton (only the best for your true love, I presume), and I wouldn't be surprised if the drummers were as well (if you want them to be able to play with the pipers). Throw in some stepdancers and the change in the US-Canada exchange rate becomes very relevant.
I don't see how this would change the price of swans, though -- unless they're fake swans, really Canada Geese after a bleach job.
Its as if SCO issued new stock and gave it directly to the lawyers -- it waters down the value of the company (whatever that might be), and the existing investors are quite correct to do what they can to block it.
The original investment, on the other hand, was not quite so smart. Even if they were probably trying to hedge against an investment in IBM.
Of course, this clause can also be seen as an admission that it's only due to suing that they're getting any money at all, and that without the diligent efforts of the lawyers the company is worthless. Nice concession on their part, confirming that they don't have anything to sell that anyone wants to buy unless threatened.
This is an Open Development which will result in a Branded UNIX which will be freely distributed on the Internet in source and binary forms.
A lot has changed since issue 8 with respect to people's intentions....
John M. Fisk writes (as part of this "Welcome") in issue 8: I've decided to turn the Linux Gazette over to the Linux Journal.
and furthermore writes: I think that the Gazette has demonstrated the "proof of concept" -- that a freely available and open-to-all online publication is a great means for sharing information and ideas. There are a number of great things that could be done with this and I'm excited about the Gazette continuing on in this tradition.
So I can see why SSC thinks that they're in charge -- the previous "in charge" said so. And the "great things that could be done" bit certainly allows for trying to change the format, as long as it's still "freely available and open-to-all". 'Course, we don't know what the changes were turning into, eg. Slashdot is freely available and open to all but you get it earlier if you subscribe (but not enough earlier to claim that it's not really free).
The people who've been volunteering in the years since have some grounds with respect to copyright on their articles, but volunteering for something doesn't make you in charge (any more than hosting would make SSC in charge). You'd need paperwork from that time to figure out this mess, I agree.
However, legally correct business is frequently not good business, and screwing over key people in the Linux community is not a good way to sell subscriptions to the Linux Journal. If they're rewinding the changes, it would make sense to try for an agreement with the volunteer staff rather than bully them.
This (my question above) is a relatively naive take on the matter, but in general the approach to business of initial web publications, especially in the early days of the web, has been very naive. Many pro sites started as volunteer sites. Can we wait until it's popular before filing trademark papers or do we need to file them before we set up the site, just in case?
Either way it doesn't exactly encourage the grassroots innovation and publication that makes the web a tool for all rather than a big electronic billboard for companies.
And even if SSC manages to retain the trademark, they've still been violating the copyright of volunteer authors.
... and yes I meant SSC, not SCC. oops.