For cereal? GCC is 23 years old at this point. DJGPP (Dos port of GCC) is 21 years old. The Apache webserver came out in 1995. Perl came out years before in 1987. I'm sure i could go on.
What I meant is that "'selling' OSS is a new thing". As such, the business model is not still 100% set. Wow, I didn't know DJGPP was that old !
>- Open Source is not tame. It's not easy to use (as even Windows tried to be - and sucked - at the beginning) Remember Windows NT?!
This is a crappy analogy. Some of the shit is definitely difficult (sendmail, weirder nagios configs). But if you can't figure out how to set up an basic Apache install, I'm sorry, you're kind of retarded. Anyhow, "easy to use" is not respective of quality.
I don't mean Apache really, but yeah, sendmail, qmail, etc, etc. And even sometimes "too easy to use" is complicated, see IIS 6
>- It's hard to sell OSS. IMHO Red Hat did it the best, but see other companies. Novell got mixed results, the others, well...
You obviously have no idea what you're fucking talking about at this point.
Maybe, do you know people that work for RedHat, Mandriva and Novell as I do?! Do you know their customers, how they work, etc, etc?!
- Open Source is (relatively) new - Open Source is not tame. It's not easy to use (as even Windows tried to be - and sucked - at the beginning) Remember Windows NT?!
- Open Source shines when it's hidden. Infrastructure, mainly. Even though Oracle had lots of success (and money) there
Now for the business side
- It's hard to sell OSS. IMHO Red Hat did it the best, but see other companies. Novell got mixed results, the others, well...
Now for the OSS crowd
OSS people get a lot of things in sw, but what they don't get: usabiliy, focus on customer, what it means to be 'shippable'.
How many times you try to argue with an OSS developer that a bug is a bug, not a feature?!? Or that things must work and something is preventing it to work and the developer refuses to fix it?!
I'm not saying that Apache should get a next,next,next interface, but some things are ridiculous.
And guess what, MS does not know that either, that's why WinCE sux
"securit experts" that try to convince people that IE is no less safe than FF/Chrome are going to be bothered (even though this attack has nothing to do with browser)
Well, at least this is Nature (as opposed to 'magazine for people that need to publish an article or else no grant money'), people will start examining their claims now (as it should be)...
The results of this paper are exactly as I said. To quote the paper itself, "These findings suggest that A1 receptor activation is both necessary and sufficient for the clinical benefits of acupunctures."
Well, you're right. But that's the conclusion they've drawn. The authors may be exaggerating a bit (for visibility reasons).
If they had said "inserting needles" instead of acupuncture we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. And in the end it doesn't matter.
Does this validate qi, channels through the body, or whatever about acupunture? NO! So even if this work gets validated, that doesn't validate acupunture either!
Oh, ok. But as I said, the way to solve this conflicts is to look at the scope of the conclusion. Either that, or someone messed up.
The results of this paper are "acupuncture has a real mechanism and a real and measurable effect".
No, the results of this paper are: "Inserting needles in rats triggers adenosine production in the area of needle insertion" (and you don't need to use a needle to stimulate adenosine)
Do the other papers say "We inserted needles in rats and we measured adenosine and the nominal levels were found"??
To paraphrase Sagan, 'They laughed at Einstein, ect., but they also laughed at Bozo' and there are a lot more Bozos than Einsteins, so it is preposterous to think that every stupid little thing should be investigated.
Oh, of course, It's not only a matter of 'may be interesting to investigate' but resources are limited, and grants are limited, etc. So yeah, we shouldn't investigate everything...
Discovered qi or chakra or whatever flowing through the body? That's new, then it's time to reopen acupuncture. Got a well designed study indicating superior results? Same thing. But until then, no amount of accusations of being closed minded is a substitute for good proof.
There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"
That's a load of crap. Skeptics make their first reaction to anything for which there is not sufficient evidence present "this is BS." That's a critical difference.
Problem n.1: Very few things have 'sufficient evidence' at first. That's the point of research. But then people go "there's not enough evidence so this is BS and I'm not going to research this" GOTO 10
Problem n.2. Define "sufficient evidence". Sometimes "sufficient evidence" looks like "overwhelming evidence so I'm changing my opinion to save face"
What I'm questioning is "calling BS" when the answer should be "let's research, wait for more tests before taking a stance". And I'm not even saying that about acupunture, but to lots of other things that had to "swim upstream" before being universally accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you count the attempts.
>- Open Source is (relatively) new
For cereal? GCC is 23 years old at this point. DJGPP (Dos port of GCC) is 21 years old. The Apache webserver came out in 1995. Perl came out years before in 1987. I'm sure i could go on.
What I meant is that "'selling' OSS is a new thing". As such, the business model is not still 100% set. Wow, I didn't know DJGPP was that old !
>- Open Source is not tame. It's not easy to use (as even Windows tried to be - and sucked - at the beginning) Remember Windows NT?!
This is a crappy analogy. Some of the shit is definitely difficult (sendmail, weirder nagios configs). But if you can't figure out how to set up an basic Apache install, I'm sorry, you're kind of retarded. Anyhow, "easy to use" is not respective of quality.
I don't mean Apache really, but yeah, sendmail, qmail, etc, etc. And even sometimes "too easy to use" is complicated, see IIS 6
>- It's hard to sell OSS. IMHO Red Hat did it the best, but see other companies. Novell got mixed results, the others, well...
You obviously have no idea what you're fucking talking about at this point.
Maybe, do you know people that work for RedHat, Mandriva and Novell as I do?! Do you know their customers, how they work, etc, etc?!
- Open Source is (relatively) new
- Open Source is not tame. It's not easy to use (as even Windows tried to be - and sucked - at the beginning) Remember Windows NT?!
- Open Source shines when it's hidden. Infrastructure, mainly. Even though Oracle had lots of success (and money) there
Now for the business side
- It's hard to sell OSS. IMHO Red Hat did it the best, but see other companies. Novell got mixed results, the others, well...
Now for the OSS crowd
OSS people get a lot of things in sw, but what they don't get: usabiliy, focus on customer, what it means to be 'shippable'.
How many times you try to argue with an OSS developer that a bug is a bug, not a feature?!? Or that things must work and something is preventing it to work and the developer refuses to fix it?!
I'm not saying that Apache should get a next,next,next interface, but some things are ridiculous.
And guess what, MS does not know that either, that's why WinCE sux
"securit experts" that try to convince people that IE is no less safe than FF/Chrome are going to be bothered (even though this attack has nothing to do with browser)
5 days would be enough for an advisory.
How long did MS took to solve some bugs again?!
It seems linux has a standart API, but it's quite recent: It's called VDPAU
Tell that to the guy that sold the HDs to google
100 million GB fits, 1 PB doesn't
Even my biology felt shocked by that! Maybe if I was the son of the emperor of an islamic country things would have been different...
You're right, but that's about 3 machines
Exactly
Of course MS didn't bother with it (maybe Windows 7 is compatible, I'm not sure about Vista), and manufacturers neither.
I'm not sure it's going to be better (that is, they're going to do it properly)
What, floppy drive for installing Win XP in Sata?? EFI would take care of that
VCs should buy the patent trolls and sue the big patent holders aggressively...
TAH DAH
1 - More money for small companies
2 - Patent lobbyists will get their own medicine
3 - Profit
Well maybe if they reduce the font size they don't need to waste that much paper
It was a beacon to keep the aliens out...
Now excuse me, I have to go to the supermarket, my tinfoil ran out...
What I find surprising is that at some cassinos they use a 'fake roulette' machine, that is, a roulette on the computer
I would never play such machine, never. If I want to play the roulette I want a real ball spinning there goddamit!
Tough shit on the casino, pay them! Don't operate a casino and the scream robbery when someone eventually wins! There ain't no bug!
You're right, it's probably a feature
Why would I be angry at winning 5.5 billion dollars?
Angry about what the IRS asks on it.
Hum... toxic materials in products made in New Jersey, hum....
that explains A LOT
Well no it doesn't.
This may allow kids to prove the earth is older than 5000 years so...
Anyone with a good telescope available?!
Coincidentally, I heard this rumour today! Would make a nice companion to SN 1987A for astronomers
Oh well, ask again in one thousand years...
What, templates are very useful... if you want to kill yourself
Also, levels and levels of inheritance
Warning! 'static const AType' invalid lside value 'static const AType'
Exactly! Thank you!
Thanks for the link.
Well, at least this is Nature (as opposed to 'magazine for people that need to publish an article or else no grant money'), people will start examining their claims now (as it should be)...
The results of this paper are exactly as I said. To quote the paper itself, "These findings suggest that A1 receptor activation is both necessary and sufficient for the clinical benefits of acupunctures."
Well, you're right. But that's the conclusion they've drawn. The authors may be exaggerating a bit (for visibility reasons).
If they had said "inserting needles" instead of acupuncture we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. And in the end it doesn't matter.
Does this validate qi, channels through the body, or whatever about acupunture? NO! So even if this work gets validated, that doesn't validate acupunture either!
The results of this paper are "acupuncture has a real mechanism and a real and measurable effect".
No, the results of this paper are: "Inserting needles in rats triggers adenosine production in the area of needle insertion" (and you don't need to use a needle to stimulate adenosine)
Do the other papers say "We inserted needles in rats and we measured adenosine and the nominal levels were found"??
Well?
To paraphrase Sagan, 'They laughed at Einstein, ect., but they also laughed at Bozo' and there are a lot more Bozos than Einsteins, so it is preposterous to think that every stupid little thing should be investigated.
Oh, of course, It's not only a matter of 'may be interesting to investigate' but resources are limited, and grants are limited, etc. So yeah, we shouldn't investigate everything...
Discovered qi or chakra or whatever flowing through the body? That's new, then it's time to reopen acupuncture. Got a well designed study indicating superior results? Same thing. But until then, no amount of accusations of being closed minded is a substitute for good proof.
That's the idea! Cheers.
There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"
That's a load of crap. Skeptics make their first reaction to anything for which there is not sufficient evidence present "this is BS." That's a critical difference.
Problem n.1: Very few things have 'sufficient evidence' at first. That's the point of research. But then people go "there's not enough evidence so this is BS and I'm not going to research this" GOTO 10
Problem n.2. Define "sufficient evidence". Sometimes "sufficient evidence" looks like "overwhelming evidence so I'm changing my opinion to save face"
What I'm questioning is "calling BS" when the answer should be "let's research, wait for more tests before taking a stance". And I'm not even saying that about acupunture, but to lots of other things that had to "swim upstream" before being universally accepted.