I wonder if it's real or some really horrid chemical they can't quite get safe enough to use without dissolving your veins. That's the problem with that "discovery" in Sask. that cured cancer in rats. That's because rats can't scream as their veins dissolve.
Put on your thinking caps, why has cance shot up since 1900? What changed?
In 2007 or so, a Cytochrome B enzyme was found - CYP1B1 that only occurs in cancer cells. Fresh off the end of a successful prostate cancer drug, the first one with a new paradigm - something other than "kill ALL of the cells and pray" (See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F06%2F02%2FMNI11ORI84.DTL) that exploited CYP17, Potter then set out to make a more generalized one based on the nearly universal CYP1B1. He designed the molecule then set about to make it and while looking for precursors noticed the exact same molecule occurs in fruit, made in response to mold.
So they tried it, and it worked. Every time. It gets converted in cells with CYP1B1 to picotaneol which is fatal to cancer cells but not regular cells. If you google "Salvestrol case studies" you'll find three clinical trials where cancer was reversed in every case. It's not patentable...
So, the current hypothesis is, since we began spraying anti-fungals, there's no mold so the plant doesn't make this chemical in response to mold, so non-organic fruit contains only 10% of what unsprayed fruit has. And it's a very bitter chemical and we breed bitterness out...
Cancerous cells can be found in any animal at any time, the body takes care of them. The problem arises when it can't, and we find Gene P53 is deactivated in those people. This reactivates it; once the body has the correct raw materials it gets down to work.
It's always better to help the body do what it does naturally and has for millions of years compared to some synthetic noxious substance. If nothing else understand that with a chemical that's already in the body all the time, the body knows what to do with it. With man-made drugs there are always side effects in every case as the body has no idea what to do with the molecules it doesn't recognize and they latch on to places they shouldn't and hellooo side effects.
There are 30,000 deaths a year from these side effects.
This chemical is found in tangerines and prune plums, strawberries, asparagus and so on. Tangerines have the most. Which raises an interesting question. Do areas that grow a lot of tangerines have a lower cancer rate. That would be Morocco.
It's not on the list of per capita cancer rates WHO keeps, that's quoted in Wiki. That list ranges from South Africa as the lowest (about 250) to Denmark with the highest at 387 or something. Note also that poor countries have less, developed countries have more... poor people grow their own food and can't afford chemicals.
But, if you poke around on the Moroccan government website long enough, you find their per-capita cancer rate: 100. Less than half the lowest stat WHO has for any country. And besides having all the tangerines, they pretty much invented chain smoking there. But still: 100.
So, if these guys are using this mechanism and trying to make a patent end run, bad. If it's something else, some noxious chemical, it's equally worthless. If however they have a new agent that also uses the pro-drug paradigm Potter found, then that would be good.
But there's a reason they don't give any details on this compound and I'd really like to know what it is.
I figured that out one day and assumed anybody who ever looked at a gaussian curve of IQ thought the same thing. Draw a line down the middle. The half on the left are not even of average intelligence.
Now make a small circle on the right most bit. You are here. Next time you think "Fuck, is everyone stupid?!?" remember this.
Pretend you used unix from the start and the web comes along decades later and you have your stuff set up all nice and lo and behold all seventeen web pages work and nearly 700 people a year look them and next thing you know your buddy wants his bread clip collection to have it's own home page and your girlfriend's friends wants to put an anthology of lesbian vegan poetty online so you go fuckit and cut and paste their stuff up then that want to update it themselves so you show them vi wish them the best of luck and get back to fixing sendmail.
Fast forward years later and 300 people are using your stuff and you've written enough tools so you never have to talk to them again they can be busy little beavers updating merrily and rarely call. When they so you slip into root, fiddle with something and they're done.
Now, when you have root on a web server it's very different from having one user account on a machine and the later is really how you want to do this. It's convenient as hell to be logged in as root all the time, everything works. But it's really not a good idea. So in the past decade everybody I know has tried to do that. And it seems to work. With enough stuff in place you really don't need root in normal operation. In fact I'd go so far as to say other than catastrophic failure or radically new hardware there is never any reason to use root that can't be accomplished by the proper tool. I'm 99% sure this is true. Maybe 99.9.
So, I don't see why the android/root issue is any different from what happened with unix as we went from logging into a VT-100 as root to now where it's been years since I've had to.
So I think his point is very valid. Doesn't mean this doesn't bother me though; if I pay for it I get to decide what fucking code it will run and thank you very much, I'm not buying a service here.
I think in the end companies that make more sensible hardware will do better than ones that pull stupid stunts like this. One has to wonder where the real motivation behind it originates.
Correct. If you read the Amazon one star review they point out how the test results were biased and could only prove vitamins didn't work. When your only test patients are only very sick guys that happens.
Ben Goldacre in his Ted Talk exposes how and why this happens.
Wikipedia lists the fines levied against the pharmaceutical companies. Go look at it. It's impressive.
Wiki will also point out, Iatrogenesis, death as a side effect of modern medicine is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Number of deaths from vitamin overdoses: 0. In over 100 years. Deaths from patent medicines: 30,000 a year in the US alone.
Article is an excerpt from a book written by a guy that sold vaccines for big pharma. I'm not against vaccines, they're a good thing (although there is still plenty of room to be nervous without believing in autism/mercury).
But you have to keep in mind the vaccine industry has been at war with Pauling since he showed a IV drop of C will cure Polio. If you actually look it up you can find where he did that, and unlike everybody else here will have verified something in the article.
Because every claim made by the author in that article is probably wrong.
Shame on The Atlantic for this puff piece. They usually have good science.
Please see "Nutrition in a nutshell" by Wiliams (1961) to learn about the biochemistry of enzyme absorption in the human diet and an explanation as to why large dosages are required.
If you've read this and have a specific fault with either his logic or premises I'd like to hear it.
Otherwise I'm guessing you literally don't actually know what you're talking about.
Also look up the medical consensus on the "facts" claimed in the article.
Either he's unaware of them, or flat out lies. But he's clearly and verifiably wrong in nearly every paragraph he wrote.
A few evenings with Google scholar will verify that. The whole thing is misleading.
It makes it sound like Pauling died prematurely of cancer. He was 93 ffs.
In fact all the greats in the field Pauling invented died in their 90s.
Now go look at the ages of the people who claimed they're quacks died at. I think you might be a little surprised, that is, if nothing else, advocates of the sort of medicine Pauling espoused - which if, unlike the author of the hack article, is actually based on sound science if you care to research it, all die at a statistically significantly older age than average.
For I assert that when these proponents all die in their 90s while their critics mostly pass on before 60 then it might be worth taking the time to read their work more carefully.
And the interesting thing is if you do do that you'll read how they state how the drug companies deliberately improperly test these things to deliberately get false results.
For example the article mentions C and the cold a few times as if it did nothing. This is not true, if you look it up there is consensus that is limits the number of sick days and makes the symptoms less. That's in what Pauling would call a small dose, in higher doses the symptoms are even more diminished.
Yet the article pretends this isn't true. Why?
In each case the author makes a point about something nor working or being harmful it can be shown there is an other explanation than the one being offered; some of these are egregiously faulty test designs (See the one star reviews on Amazon to explore this further, they're well documented there). Lazy or lying? Which one?
The author implied that C is of no use in cancer. Currently, C has a higher cure rate than Chemo and radiation put together. He's unaware of this or is he lying?
Go look up some numbers. Compare them to 10 and 100 years ago. Notice the nutritional density has gone down?
Now compare it with 100,000 and 1.5Mya.
When you can do that off the top of your head and can quote numbers I'd be inclined to agree. Otherwise it sounds like you're just making it up. Because what you said absolutely isn't true for a number of reasons. If you knew enough biochemistry to understand this you would never say a thing like that so it would be very difficult to explain this to you, or at least lengthy.
I'm probably a good person to ask that question of, it's on my thinkpad despite my starting with Unix in 1977; in my entire professional career as a program I had only one Windows gig the rest was Unix or embedded assembly. I really do c/unix stuff, for work and fun. So why then do I still use XP?
Cause it works finally.
If it were as bad as it were 10 years ago, I'd be using Unix on my laptop, but xp has stopped pissing me off with stupid shit and does the very little I ask of it reasonably well, although my expectations of it are so low I'd be equally happy with a BIOS that boots to a web browser.
It does need daily reboots and sometimes goes for weeks on end without a need for a reboot and (touch wood) doesn't seem to crash any more.
So, under the "don't fix what aint broken" maxim, I'll leave xp on this machine. Would I "upgrade"? Not a chance in hell. If I used anything else I'd put BSD on it instead.
I used to laugh at Americans making fun of Canadians saying "aboot" too. Then I moved to California and in a few weeks I heard "aboot" whenever anybody said and and I was indeed saying it. When you're used to it you can't tell...
technically an 11/03 wasn't a PDP-11, it was an LSI-11.
The 11/34 was the first one that was really useful, EIS/FIS was built in so you had a divide instruction finally. But by then the console switches were gone, no more toggling in the boot loader for you.
Slashdot Mirror
If Morocco was the only poor country where people died early that would be a good point.
I wonder if it's real or some really horrid chemical they can't quite get safe enough to use without dissolving your veins. That's the problem with that "discovery" in Sask. that cured cancer in rats. That's because rats can't scream as their veins dissolve.
Put on your thinking caps, why has cance shot up since 1900? What changed?
In 2007 or so, a Cytochrome B enzyme was found - CYP1B1 that only occurs in cancer cells. Fresh off the end of a successful prostate cancer drug, the first one with a new paradigm - something other than "kill ALL of the cells and pray" (See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F06%2F02%2FMNI11ORI84.DTL) that exploited CYP17, Potter then set out to make a more generalized one based on the nearly universal CYP1B1. He designed the molecule then set about to make it and while looking for precursors noticed the exact same molecule occurs in fruit, made in response to mold.
So they tried it, and it worked. Every time. It gets converted in cells with CYP1B1 to picotaneol which is fatal to cancer cells but not regular cells. If you google "Salvestrol case studies" you'll find three clinical trials where cancer was reversed in every case. It's not patentable...
So, the current hypothesis is, since we began spraying anti-fungals, there's no mold so the plant doesn't make this chemical in response to mold, so non-organic fruit contains only 10% of what unsprayed fruit has. And it's a very bitter chemical and we breed bitterness out...
Cancerous cells can be found in any animal at any time, the body takes care of them. The problem arises when it can't, and we find Gene P53 is deactivated in those people. This reactivates it; once the body has the correct raw materials it gets down to work.
It's always better to help the body do what it does naturally and has for millions of years compared to some synthetic noxious substance. If nothing else understand that with a chemical that's already in the body all the time, the body knows what to do with it. With man-made drugs there are always side effects in every case as the body has no idea what to do with the molecules it doesn't recognize and they latch on to places they shouldn't and hellooo side effects.
There are 30,000 deaths a year from these side effects.
This chemical is found in tangerines and prune plums, strawberries, asparagus and so on. Tangerines have the most. Which raises an interesting question. Do areas that grow a lot of tangerines have a lower cancer rate. That would be Morocco.
It's not on the list of per capita cancer rates WHO keeps, that's quoted in Wiki. That list ranges from South Africa as the lowest (about 250) to Denmark with the highest at 387 or something. Note also that poor countries have less, developed countries have more... poor people grow their own food and can't afford chemicals.
But, if you poke around on the Moroccan government website long enough, you find their per-capita cancer rate: 100. Less than half the lowest stat WHO has for any country. And besides having all the tangerines, they pretty much invented chain smoking there. But still: 100.
So, if these guys are using this mechanism and trying to make a patent end run, bad. If it's something else, some noxious chemical, it's equally worthless. If however they have a new agent that also uses the pro-drug paradigm Potter found, then that would be good.
But there's a reason they don't give any details on this compound and I'd really like to know what it is.
I figured that out one day and assumed anybody who ever looked at a gaussian curve of IQ thought the same thing. Draw a line down the middle. The half on the left are not even of average intelligence.
Now make a small circle on the right most bit. You are here. Next time you think "Fuck, is everyone stupid?!?" remember this.
No aliens. No spies.
Dude, it's a minor work.
Pretend you used unix from the start and the web comes along decades later and you have your stuff set up all nice and lo and behold all seventeen web pages work and nearly 700 people a year look them and next thing you know your buddy wants his bread clip collection to have it's own home page and your girlfriend's friends wants to put an anthology of lesbian vegan poetty online so you go fuckit and cut and paste their stuff up then that want to update it themselves so you show them vi wish them the best of luck and get back to fixing sendmail.
Fast forward years later and 300 people are using your stuff and you've written enough tools so you never have to talk to them again they can be busy little beavers updating merrily and rarely call. When they so you slip into root, fiddle with something and they're done.
Now, when you have root on a web server it's very different from having one user account on a machine and the later is really how you want to do this. It's convenient as hell to be logged in as root all the time, everything works. But it's really not a good idea. So in the past decade everybody I know has tried to do that. And it seems to work. With enough stuff in place you really don't need root in normal operation. In fact I'd go so far as to say other than catastrophic failure or radically new hardware there is never any reason to use root that can't be accomplished by the proper tool. I'm 99% sure this is true. Maybe 99.9.
So, I don't see why the android/root issue is any different from what happened with unix as we went from logging into a VT-100 as root to now where it's been years since I've had to.
So I think his point is very valid. Doesn't mean this doesn't bother me though; if I pay for it I get to decide what fucking code it will run and thank you very much, I'm not buying a service here.
I think in the end companies that make more sensible hardware will do better than ones that pull stupid stunts like this. One has to wonder where the real motivation behind it originates.
Correct. If you read the Amazon one star review they point out how the test results were biased and could only prove vitamins didn't work. When your only test patients are only very sick guys that happens.
Ben Goldacre in his Ted Talk exposes how and why this happens.
Wikipedia lists the fines levied against the pharmaceutical companies. Go look at it. It's impressive.
Wiki will also point out, Iatrogenesis, death as a side effect of modern medicine is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Number of deaths from vitamin overdoses: 0. In over 100 years. Deaths from patent medicines: 30,000 a year in the US alone.
Article is an excerpt from a book written by a guy that sold vaccines for big pharma. I'm not against vaccines, they're a good thing (although there is still plenty of room to be nervous without believing in autism/mercury).
But you have to keep in mind the vaccine industry has been at war with Pauling since he showed a IV drop of C will cure Polio. If you actually look it up you can find where he did that, and unlike everybody else here will have verified something in the article.
Because every claim made by the author in that article is probably wrong.
Shame on The Atlantic for this puff piece. They usually have good science.
Please see "Nutrition in a nutshell" by Wiliams (1961) to learn about the biochemistry of enzyme absorption in the human diet and an explanation as to why large dosages are required.
If you've read this and have a specific fault with either his logic or premises I'd like to hear it.
Otherwise I'm guessing you literally don't actually know what you're talking about.
Pauling was way before Davis. Look it up.
Also look up the medical consensus on the "facts" claimed in the article.
Either he's unaware of them, or flat out lies. But he's clearly and verifiably wrong in nearly every paragraph he wrote.
A few evenings with Google scholar will verify that. The whole thing is misleading.
It makes it sound like Pauling died prematurely of cancer. He was 93 ffs.
In fact all the greats in the field Pauling invented died in their 90s.
Now go look at the ages of the people who claimed they're quacks died at. I think you might be a little surprised, that is, if nothing else, advocates of the sort of medicine Pauling espoused - which if, unlike the author of the hack article, is actually based on sound science if you care to research it, all die at a statistically significantly older age than average.
For I assert that when these proponents all die in their 90s while their critics mostly pass on before 60 then it might be worth taking the time to read their work more carefully.
And the interesting thing is if you do do that you'll read how they state how the drug companies deliberately improperly test these things to deliberately get false results.
For example the article mentions C and the cold a few times as if it did nothing. This is not true, if you look it up there is consensus that is limits the number of sick days and makes the symptoms less. That's in what Pauling would call a small dose, in higher doses the symptoms are even more diminished.
Yet the article pretends this isn't true. Why?
In each case the author makes a point about something nor working or being harmful it can be shown there is an other explanation than the one being offered; some of these are egregiously faulty test designs (See the one star reviews on Amazon to explore this further, they're well documented there). Lazy or lying? Which one?
The author implied that C is of no use in cancer. Currently, C has a higher cure rate than Chemo and radiation put together. He's unaware of this or is he lying?
Ignore this article. It's utter rubbish.
Look up some actual values then try that again. You're not even close.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go look up some numbers. Compare them to 10 and 100 years ago. Notice the nutritional density has gone down?
Now compare it with 100,000 and 1.5Mya.
When you can do that off the top of your head and can quote numbers I'd be inclined to agree. Otherwise it sounds like you're just making it up. Because what you said absolutely isn't true for a number of reasons. If you knew enough biochemistry to understand this you would never say a thing like that so it would be very difficult to explain this to you, or at least lengthy.
I remember the BSD daemonette. I guess I don't mind having my balls grabbed as much as you do Bruce.
Ginger beer.
Go through old books and papers - stuff going back to the victorian era is well represented.
Find the animal/plant that interests you and cut out the photos and grab test and curate them properly into the web.
That stuff could very easily go away. A lot of it already has.
I wouldn't pay much attention to copyright either. There's no point in protection of information that goes extinct.
I'm probably a good person to ask that question of, it's on my thinkpad despite my starting with Unix in 1977; in my entire professional career as a program I had only one Windows gig the rest was Unix or embedded assembly. I really do c/unix stuff, for work and fun. So why then do I still use XP?
Cause it works finally.
If it were as bad as it were 10 years ago, I'd be using Unix on my laptop, but xp has stopped pissing me off with stupid shit and does the very little I ask of it reasonably well, although my expectations of it are so low I'd be equally happy with a BIOS that boots to a web browser.
It does need daily reboots and sometimes goes for weeks on end without a need for a reboot and (touch wood) doesn't seem to crash any more.
So, under the "don't fix what aint broken" maxim, I'll leave xp on this machine. Would I "upgrade"? Not a chance in hell. If I used anything else I'd put BSD on it instead.
What's he doing keeping stuff in MS apps for? Then when they don't work 5 years later he's all like OMG THE NET WILL BREAK.
Idiot. He knows better. Or should.
I used to laugh at Americans making fun of Canadians saying "aboot" too. Then I moved to California and in a few weeks I heard "aboot" whenever anybody said and and I was indeed saying it. When you're used to it you can't tell...
This is a joke, right?
That would have been an 8088, not 8086, yes? The latter were comparatively rare, PC's used the former.
"Maybe someday I'll find a Socket 4 in a dumpster "
Good place for them. They were vile.
Plus, don't forget about that little math bug in early Pentia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
You find a compiler binary or cross-compile it on another system.
A compiler written in FORTRAN? Really? Which one?
11/03 isn't old. 11/20 is old.
technically an 11/03 wasn't a PDP-11, it was an LSI-11.
The 11/34 was the first one that was really useful, EIS/FIS was built in so you had a divide instruction finally. But by then the console switches were gone, no more toggling in the boot loader for you.
Wow does that look weird. By the early 80s Z80 syntax was much more common. LXI. Ewwww.
http://nemesis.lonestar.org/computers/tandy/software/apps/m4/qd/opcodes.html