6:30 AM -- Get up
6:31 AM -- Go to the bathroom
6:32 AM -- Get coffee
6:35 AM -- Open Firefox, go to/. and read that there's a new patent infringment case
6:40 AM -- ?
7:00 AM -- profit!
I can't speak for all states, but where I live the UI tax is directly connected to how many UI claims the gummint has had to pay because you laid someone off. Looky here -
UI is funded through payroll taxes - the employer pays the tax. You're not "paying a bunch of money into the system" unless you've got people working for you;-)
Department of Defense says the host nation sets the 'drinking age' - unless you have a war on US soil this is a moot point. The drinking age in most European countries is closer to 18 and younger soldiers can drink on- and off-post.
The military doesn't have a drinking age - in the US the age is set by state (not federal) law.
Rather than modding you all Troll or Flamebait, I challenge all of you kneejerks who say higher pay => more honesty (or lower pay => less honesty) to show some evidence for that claim.
I wish I had mod points right now - I'd mod you up;-)
Apparently xenophobia is alive and well in some areas of/. - A person steals because they're dishonest, not because they're Indian, American or because they're underpaid.
Faster? Dual G5s are going to smoke any Intel Apple releases from what I'm seeing. If folks want power, go ahead and get it. G5s aren't going to be completely phased out even after they release and I suspect all of the high powered machines will stay G5 for a while. People that want/need a dual processor 64bit solution, will buy a G5 dual processor 64bit solution.
Since Intel disabled SMP in their non-Xeon, non-Itanium processors we might find that an SMP Intel/Apple is pretty snappy. A dual Intel box will probably be no slouch.
OT, but I think we're still missing the boat with cancer treatments here - rather than try to kill the nasties without half-killing the patient I think we should throw more research money at targeting the problem.
I figure you already know that cancer is a collective term for more than 100 different diseases that display the same three characteristics - cell mutation, the ability to mask that mutation from the host immune system and angiogenesis (the tumor's ability to create its own blood supply).
Although killing the nasties is probably a good stopgap measure, my preference would be to somehow enhance the host immune system and then just let nature take its course. Failing that I've been interested in some antiangiogenesis treatments - Vioxx had shown some antitumor acvity but now it's pulled from the market. Celebrex does too but to a lesser extent.
I know a couple of people who are doing Thalidomide in closely monitored environments - it's amazing to me that the same drug that caused all those horrible birth defects 40 years ago is now getting some use saving people's lives. It's too early to tell whether it'll someday become mainstream but there has been some positive response in trial data already.
I still think it's possible to kill the nasties without half-killing the host - the poison, slash and burn school of cancer treatment is still right out of the Middle Ages, even though there have been pretty great strides made in controlling chemotherapy side effects. The side effects ain't what they used to be, but there's still gotta be an answer that doesn't involve poisoning the hell out of the patient.
In light of my feeble attempts at college level logic courses I find your post very amusing. You appeal to the flaw in my arguement by way of reference to modern positivist emiricism. And yet on the other hand, you sig is a postmodern, postpositivist appeal to something along the lines of structural relativism. Whoa, I'm freakin' out man...
It was meant to be amusing rather than inflammatory. Enjoy your weekend;-)
They didn't mention it in the article, but I wonder if it would be beneficial to inject the substance directly into a tumor.
Maybe not as beneficial as one might think. I'm not a doctor but have done more research on the topic than most people should have to do.
If you let them grow long enough most malignancies will shed tumor cells into the host's lymph system or bloodstream - the process is called micrometastasis. At that point it's probably better to treat the cancer as a systemic disease rather than a localized one.
You've gotta get all the nasties - if you only get most of them then you've probably prolonged the patient's life but you're still pretty far from a cure.
This approach may solve some of the side effects of chemotherapy without addressing the larger issue - which is that if you can't eliminate 100% of the nasties what's left are generally resistant to the treatment you just inflicted on them. If each course of treatment kills say, 98% of the nasties the remaining 2% are generally resistant to that treatment so you have to find something else the next time the disease pops up.
But I digress. It's still interesting technology, but I think we need to make the drugs safer and more effective rather than focusing on the delivery system. Better delivery of a drug that's only 95% effective isn't a cure.
This isn't to say that Apple hasn't been jerks to their customers, distributors, competitors and developers, but your particular examples don't hold water and make you sound pissy rather than well-reasoned.
Agreed. My arguments are generally a little better researched - rather than do my own research I bought into someone else's argument. My apologies to the group.
There's a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of the PC/Mac debate (and it is kinda amusing to see the Apple crowd come out of the woodwork), but I'll stand corrected on the SuperDrive thing.
That argument does kinda evaporate sometime around mid-1987 when IBM and Apple both released 1.44mb floppy drives. To be fair, Apple needed to maintain backward compatibility for awhile.
The Power Computing boxes were nice machines, though. The workhorse in our office at the time was a Quadra 950 that was almost bulletproof, though. Nice machine also;-)
You're full of shit. Apple never licensed Mac OS 8 to clone manufacturers other than UMAX, in fact, Apple bought back PowerComputing's license before Mac OS 8 even SHIPPED. Mac OS 8 RUNS on clones but is not supported.
I should add that the reason neither Linux nor OSX can write to NTFS disks is due to Microsoft doing what the poster claimed Apple was doing.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is correct. I'd imagine the difference has a lot more to do with NTFS security attributes and journaling than trade secrets, but I'll freely admit that Microsoft isn't sharing anything about how NTFS works with anybody outside the company;-)
I thought it had to do with the physical geometry on the disk. IIRC, something to do with the Mac drives spinning the disk at a variable velocity whereas PC drives ran at a constant velocity.
Nah. There have almost always been third-party utilities that'll allow PCs to read MacDisks. MacOpener and (the now defunct) MacDrive98 are two products.
(The last time Apple tried fooling around with clones, Umax took it in the shorts.)
And this is exactly the reason I stopped buying Apple and migrated the entire company where I worked to Windows NT.
Actually, Umax, Power Computing and Motorola all took it in the shorts. I bought a pile of shiny new Power Computing McMacs when OS 8 came out, only to find that Apple declined to license future releases to the clone makers. I guess Power Computing folded, Umax went back to making pretty good scanners and I guess Motorola just walked away disgusted.
Me? I started putting dual processor Pentium boxes in place of the Mac graphics workstations and got higher productivity lower TCO.
It is funny that nobody ever thinks of Apple when they mention questionable business practices - the McMac thing was just one way they stifled the competition.
Know why Macs could read PC disks but not vice versa? Easy. Apple's HFS filesystem was copyrighted;-)
I'd probably buy another Mac if I could build it myself. Wonder if that'll ever happen?
Slashdot Mirror
...why should I read it?
6:30 AM -- Get up /. and read that there's a new patent infringment case
6:31 AM -- Go to the bathroom
6:32 AM -- Get coffee
6:35 AM -- Open Firefox, go to
6:40 AM -- ?
7:00 AM -- profit!
Good point - I hadn't thought of that.
http://www.michigan.gov/uia/0,1607,7-118-26898_271 93-78833--,00.html
UI is funded through payroll taxes - the employer pays the tax. You're not "paying a bunch of money into the system" unless you've got people working for you ;-)
Cool. Then we can create a beow...
Oh, never mind.
The military doesn't have a drinking age - in the US the age is set by state (not federal) law.
You are being tracked. You registered for the draft, right?
Now that I've found Mailinator there's no reason for me to maintain a Hotmail account.
Simpler logic: Both are thieves.
I wish I had mod points right now - I'd mod you up ;-)
Apparently xenophobia is alive and well in some areas of /. - A person steals because they're dishonest, not because they're Indian, American or because they're underpaid.
Since Intel disabled SMP in their non-Xeon, non-Itanium processors we might find that an SMP Intel/Apple is pretty snappy. A dual Intel box will probably be no slouch.
I figure you already know that cancer is a collective term for more than 100 different diseases that display the same three characteristics - cell mutation, the ability to mask that mutation from the host immune system and angiogenesis (the tumor's ability to create its own blood supply).
Although killing the nasties is probably a good stopgap measure, my preference would be to somehow enhance the host immune system and then just let nature take its course. Failing that I've been interested in some antiangiogenesis treatments - Vioxx had shown some antitumor acvity but now it's pulled from the market. Celebrex does too but to a lesser extent.
I know a couple of people who are doing Thalidomide in closely monitored environments - it's amazing to me that the same drug that caused all those horrible birth defects 40 years ago is now getting some use saving people's lives. It's too early to tell whether it'll someday become mainstream but there has been some positive response in trial data already.
I still think it's possible to kill the nasties without half-killing the host - the poison, slash and burn school of cancer treatment is still right out of the Middle Ages, even though there have been pretty great strides made in controlling chemotherapy side effects. The side effects ain't what they used to be, but there's still gotta be an answer that doesn't involve poisoning the hell out of the patient.
Good health to you, AC.
It was meant to be amusing rather than inflammatory. Enjoy your weekend ;-)
Maybe not as beneficial as one might think. I'm not a doctor but have done more research on the topic than most people should have to do.
If you let them grow long enough most malignancies will shed tumor cells into the host's lymph system or bloodstream - the process is called micrometastasis. At that point it's probably better to treat the cancer as a systemic disease rather than a localized one.
You've gotta get all the nasties - if you only get most of them then you've probably prolonged the patient's life but you're still pretty far from a cure.
This approach may solve some of the side effects of chemotherapy without addressing the larger issue - which is that if you can't eliminate 100% of the nasties what's left are generally resistant to the treatment you just inflicted on them. If each course of treatment kills say, 98% of the nasties the remaining 2% are generally resistant to that treatment so you have to find something else the next time the disease pops up.
But I digress. It's still interesting technology, but I think we need to make the drugs safer and more effective rather than focusing on the delivery system. Better delivery of a drug that's only 95% effective isn't a cure.
Trojans infect my system
Therefore Windows = Cancer
This is what happens when people sleep through college-level logic courses ;-)
Agreed. My arguments are generally a little better researched - rather than do my own research I bought into someone else's argument. My apologies to the group.
There's a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of the PC/Mac debate (and it is kinda amusing to see the Apple crowd come out of the woodwork), but I'll stand corrected on the SuperDrive thing.
That argument does kinda evaporate sometime around mid-1987 when IBM and Apple both released 1.44mb floppy drives. To be fair, Apple needed to maintain backward compatibility for awhile.
The Power Computing boxes were nice machines, though. The workhorse in our office at the time was a Quadra 950 that was almost bulletproof, though. Nice machine also ;-)
Are they still in business? :grin:
Yup.
I know what I bought :-*
Damn. I'm just getting this wrong all over the place - think I'll STFU and go back to my corner now ;-)
I stand corrected. Thank you ;-)
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is correct. I'd imagine the difference has a lot more to do with NTFS security attributes and journaling than trade secrets, but I'll freely admit that Microsoft isn't sharing anything about how NTFS works with anybody outside the company ;-)
Nah. There have almost always been third-party utilities that'll allow PCs to read MacDisks. MacOpener and (the now defunct) MacDrive98 are two products.
It's not a hardware issue - never has been ;-)
Really? You learn something new every day, I guess ;-)
And this is exactly the reason I stopped buying Apple and migrated the entire company where I worked to Windows NT.
Actually, Umax, Power Computing and Motorola all took it in the shorts. I bought a pile of shiny new Power Computing McMacs when OS 8 came out, only to find that Apple declined to license future releases to the clone makers. I guess Power Computing folded, Umax went back to making pretty good scanners and I guess Motorola just walked away disgusted.
Me? I started putting dual processor Pentium boxes in place of the Mac graphics workstations and got higher productivity lower TCO.
It is funny that nobody ever thinks of Apple when they mention questionable business practices - the McMac thing was just one way they stifled the competition.
Know why Macs could read PC disks but not vice versa? Easy. Apple's HFS filesystem was copyrighted ;-)
I'd probably buy another Mac if I could build it myself. Wonder if that'll ever happen?