I bet this user got one of his own little-pet-point-of-view-blabla removed from WP. And - obviously - it cannot be. It necessarily was "his self-esteem was personally attacked by very very not nice WP admins". Ha ha ! After 18 years some users still consider WP is a play-ground. What a surprise when they realise : no. What a rage when they realise there are some non-negotiable rules. Poor thing ! Childishness is hilarious when smeared over forums. Those users would tell you they do "what they want", including driving on the wrong side of the road because "who are you to tell me otherwise ?!". What a surprise when they realise they crashed. Haaaa ha ha. 'tis so gross.
WE, the readers, determine what is USEFUL.
Lol: What a round of utter crap. Just read WP history, inception goals, and rules before commenting further. Or go on FB, YT and the likes where you can happily do "what you want". (Well btw... did you notice it is changing ? Yes ! More and more... rules on FB and the like, to tame the truck loads of rubbish content generated by users who do "what they want". Poor thing.)
If it's anything like AI, every time you learn something, the bar is instantly raised. Bar inflation is underappreciated by the pocket protector set. Thus perhaps the proper diagnosis is that the end user is investing enormous amounts of effort into stopping the bar from moving. Because there's no end in sight to how much IT support would prefer to offload onto a better-educated user base.
Supposing they did choose to learn—surprise!—all this end user sunk cost is thrown overboard in the next software generation, because ribbon GUIs are a thing now, or touch desktops, or some other dubious, branding brainfuck.
Spot on. +1 Insightfull.
Perpetually re-learning degraded UIs, changed nearly totally due to fashions instead of need, is unprofessional. Expecting this from end users as a monthly or even if only yearly standard routine, is unprofessional.
So easy to blame it all on end users. Yet, I so well understand them !
...ethical responsibility to pay the loan back, but not the owner of the loan's responsibility to actually track what people owe them? Seems to me that ethically...
Debt: The First 5000 Years is a stimulating read, bringing in quite different point of views on debt, loan, responsibility, ethicality and so on. Quite radical. Arguable. Not a short read. Cut and paste from WP :
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present.
A major argument of the book is that the imprecise, informal, community-building indebtedness of "human economies" is only replaced by mathematically precise, firmly enforced debts through the introduction of violence, usually state-sponsored violence in some form of military or police.
A second major argument of the book is that, contrary to standard accounts of the history of money, debt is likely the oldest means of trade, with cash and barter transactions being later developments. Debt, the book argues, has typically retained its primacy, with cash and barter usually limited to situations of low trust involving strangers or those not considered credit-worthy.
Graeber shows how the second argument follows from the first; that, in his words, "markets are founded and usually maintained by systematic state violence," though he goes on to show how "in the absence of such violence, they (...) can even come to be seen as the very basis of freedom and autonomy."
Actually you can buy pre-made kits on line that let you do CRISPR editing for $1200 in your own garage. Obviously you're selecting from a set of existing tools and it's not for editing human cells, but one of the reasons CRISPR is such a breakthrough is because of how cheap and simple it is - and it's very powerful.
+++
This is the very point. G*ogle "CRISPR kit" and... blamo within 5 top match : http://www.origene.com/CRISPR-.... Page "CRISPR-Cas9 Vectors" : nothing over 500$. All possible in your kitchen. What some of us don't get IMO is we are not talking about a revolution here but instead a full scale disruption.
I know ([fr] https://www.franceinter.fr/emi...) some national defence office are well on the case. Already.
We all know whether legal or not is irrelevant. It will be done. Don't we know ?
He's far left by American standards, but just regular left by French ones.
The far-left in France is occupied by communists, and those called "socialists" in France (and Europe generally) like this guy or the current president, aren't what Americans call socialists.
The far-left is: NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste) and LO (Lutte Ouvrière) : these are calling for armed revolution, and "grand soir" and so on.
Then come : Communists.
Then : Left parties : Front de Gauche, Gauche Unitaire, Partis Radical de Gauche, Ecological party. Mélenchon is trying to aggregate from this domain.
Then : Socialists (PS) : In France PS is not any more "socialist". It's kinda rubish social-liberal proxy for openly right opinions.
Then : Center parties
Then : Right...
So to call Mélenchon a Communist is incorrect. Not only because he is not tagged so, but also for fundamental divergences.
For example : PC in France keeps promoting productivisme (producing a lot) and internationalism (free movement for workers). While Mélenchon calls extremely loudly for less & better production, and for joint-protectionism : we may exchange things, services and workers but with solidarity. Not at he expense of environment, local workers neither remote. So... see: these are not minor details. On the contrary : it makes Mélenchon's position quite different from extreme left and communists. And it makes Mélenchon's position simply socialist unlike those of PS in France.
More similar to Lepen. In fact they are close on many subjects, Lepen being extreme right and Melenchon being extreme left.
Nope.
To coin it simply : beyond Le Pen on the right side there is... nothing. No other party. So, technically Le Pen is indeed extreme right. Yet the main reason why to tag Le Pen "extreme right" is its fundamental views : ethnic, xenophobic, anti-semitic influences, islamophobic, rather incompetent regarding public policies. These points will be vehemently disputed by this party and Marine Le Pen worked hard to soften the picture. Yet, fundamentally it is correct to state it is extreme-right : it is conceptually and historically. It is also little known yet well analysed this party actually picked-up many political concept from left movement. Yep : you see it is the other way around, Front National try to look acceptable and credible by diverting ideas from the left. Nice tactic isn't it ?! Classic.
Mélenchon (his movement is currently named "La France Insoumise" or FI or Greek symbol Phi) is a all together different story. Many have a strong interest into shaping this politician as an "extremist" : it would so much easier to discredit him. Yet he is not. At all. That would be as bold as stating Berni Sanders is a dangerous extreme left. Bold and... incorrect. Indeed he severely questions EU and globalisation as also do some... centre party, not only extreme right. That does not make him extreme.
First item : beyond Mélenchon on the left side in France one can find at least 2 groups : NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitalist) and LO (Lute Ouvrière). So, simply put : no Mélenchon is technically NOT extreme left. Second and more important item : these two party (NPA and LO) are anti-republican (they do not believe in the concept of Republic as a collective type of organisation). They promote armed revolution. Their view is very much labour-class centric. These party (NPA & LO) are technically and conceptually really extreme left. On the other hand Mélenchon promotes an "extreme-republic" (his words) view. He calls for pacific drastic changes in the form of a 6th republic. He cares not only for the labour-class but more importantly for the human-class : the one that is being shredded by necro-liberalism and environmental lunatics. He for example explicitly calls for legalisation on long-term-illegal-workers. He is not maniac about Muslims or other religions (He calls for a clear state-church split. He thinks citizen should believe what they want at home and at church. (He also stresses in France more than 50% is agnostic or atheist)). And so on...
So Dude wake up ! You may not like Mélenchon or left or far-left or or extreme-left or socialists or your auntie or you name it : fair enough. Yet, you cannot just go banana and disseminate random idiocies. I also notice that for me to give a little context, it takes... this. While for you to libel it is as easy as a one-liner idiocy. This is classic malevolent rhetorical technique : dump a crap-load and force your opponent to waist energy and time on the clean-up. Did that for you.
Now let's imagine : let two AlphaGo machines play each other Go games. More games. More time allowed... Folks : it becomes IMO so abysmal. Where will it stops ? I literally shiver in awe. I believe this could be radically extreme disruptive technology. Keep in mind, AlphaGo invented moves it never observed before. Keep in mind, it can learn quite some different games, just by being exposed to samples. Wooooooaaaaaa. Impressed, concerned, exited, I am.
Z.
FTA on SD : "it is the overabundance of low quality ads that practically force the public to seek out ad blockers"
IMO it is missing the point : intrusiveness is the problem. Overabundance is just one type of intrusiveness. Intrusive means : consuming the resources I own ( cpu, mem, disc) or that I pay for (bandwidth). Putting my very own resources at risk with the malvertising. Rendering my interface slow. But mostly : too big, too visible, too noisy, flashy. AFAIK it's one of the points fought by AdBlockPlus : Ad is not the problem, intrusive ad is. It is enough to have one single intrusive ad - the contrary of abundance - to make me install all I can (ADB+, etc file, FlashBlock, etc).
Z.
It's pretty obvious the world would be far better off without religion.
^^^ THIS.
Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.
It's like a mind virus or brain disease that most people simply accept. WTF??
The amazing part is that most people don't consider it as a disease to be eradicated.
Hi there.
Marc Trévidic was judge at anti-terrorist office in Paris for 10 years. On this [french] France-info 14.12.2015 radio interview, he states "Murderers motivation is at most 10% religion based. Main reason are personal path. Religion is only a varnish." At minute 18h 15m 25s [fr] http://www.franceinfo.fr/actu/.... So even though religions are indeed delusions, they are not guilty of these murders. Anger should be directed only at those persons who perpetrated murders, who individually hold responsibility. Let's not play terrorist game. Their goal is to divide and trigger retaliation against Muslims in France so a vicious circle is started.
Every one : do _not_ sort people according religion or atheism.
Odds are I've thought about this and looked into it a lot more than you. Odds are I'm a lot more articulate than you speaking about it. And odds are I'm better trained in science and more experienced working with technology than you. Just sayin'.
This is an interesting statement your are making : because your are (so you say) more educated you would be less subject to believes. You will be surprised to know that this statement has been properly studied. And... the results are exactly the opposite ! Yes. ( I was actually surprised too.) http://www.lazarus-mirages.net....
The concepts of "believes" and "faith" are extremely interesting objects. Homeopathy is good test case to study them.
Hint 1: Indeed. That is a good way to check whether something is magic or real. In general, a medicine with no scientific evidence has quite some chances to not work at all.
May I stress the following: The scientific understanding of a "thing" is not to be confused with the fact that this "thing" must exists in order to be (or not) understood. Rephrased : scientific evidence regarding homeopathy still means today "is there a 'thing' at all to be explained ?". And up to today the answer is : no. The status of homeopathy today is not whether one can explain it, or which theory is good about it, but is there something to be explained. And, again, up to today the answer is : no. Explaining homeopathy - today - is like explaining how good father xmass is at going through chimneys : wrong question. Question is : is there a father xmass ? And up to today the answer is : no.
To be noticed : No one denies the "feeling good" one may express after having ingested homeopathic pills. I am sincerely happy this happens. I feel good after a cup of coffee. Because coffee dos not claim to be a medicine there is not need to prove a link between my feeling and the coffee. On the other hand, homeopathy explicitly claim to be a medicine. Wow ! Then, there is no choice : proof must be produced.
Well, there's a lot of evidence against many products which is very dangerous to health and their are legal.
Hint 2: Yep. That is also a way to detect real medicines. A real one will have effects and side effects. Both are even - or should be - documented on the notice. That is actually what is expected from a medicine : have at least "a" effect. Unfortunately it comes with "side" effects. This is a reason why medicine should be prescribed only by trained medical staff : because they are indeed dangerous. This is a good hint : a medicine claiming to have zero side effects is very more likely to have zero effects. Welcome to homeopathy which - up to now - have never produced any measurable specific effect.
The undeniable fact is that there *is* evidence in favor of homeopathy of the same nature as that used to support other medical treatments. As I said, I think this indicates poor methodology on the part of medical researchers in general. This is similar to how ESP studies are the control group for psychology:
The original post which includes some of the evidence, and that paper cites many others. You clearly cannot conceive that this situation could exist, but it does.
As to "every damn reputable medical body", only the uninformed care what a bunch of NHST-users think. You have to look at the evidence for yourself, it is extremely unfortunate but the medical experts cannot be relied upon to sift BS from good science. They are not trained in scientific thinking.
Again : "... You have to look at the evidence for yourself..."
This is IMO where the problem is. No, you cannot "look at the evidence for yourself". Reviewing the quality of a test protocol, checking the statistical significance of some numbers, in a double-blinded, against placebo group, against control group is certainly not accessible to random one. Sorry. That needs proper education and training. That is named "scientific training".
So to make it short. Homeopathy specific effect has never been observed. Nor validated by enough independent scientifically trained reviewers. The number of studies brought into the picture has little - if not none at all - evidence value. Studies must be verified. Many times.
So to make it short. Homeopathy has not been shown to have any specific effect at all. Ever.
For the homeopathy to work or not, it must first have any observable effect. Until now, homeopathy have shown zero effect.
Direct personal experience is good to coin questions, not to produce validated knowledge.
== Sound: My "direct personal experience" tells me there is a constant high pitch sound in my environment. Knowledge tells me it is Tinnitus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
== Sight: My "direct personal experience" tells me I see phantoms right now. Knowledge tells me these are floaters https://en.wikipedia.org/?titl....
== Taste & Smell: My "direct personal experience" tells me I am eating a peach. Knowledge tells me I smelling a peach, while biting and shewing an apple.
== Taste: My dad's "direct personal experience" tells him this peach has no taste at all. Knowledge tells him he is suffering Ageusia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... == Touch: My "direct personal experience" tells me I have pins and needles on my arm. Knowledge tells me I have a kind of nerve anesthesia.
== Sight: Through "direct personal experience", billions of individuals believed earth is flat. Knowledge tells us it is spherical.
== Sight: Through infinitely reproducible "direct personal experience" billions of individuals - including you right now -, across many centuries, across many civilizations, every where on the planet can drop a pen in a glass of water and believe it is broken. Knowledge tells us the refraction of light leads us to believe so.
See for yourself what your "Direct personal experience" tells you for example there on first Google hit on "optical illusion" : http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/
Not a single sens we have can be trusted to produce knowledge. Not mines. Not yours. This is basic knowledge. At 18 years of age, school should have informed you about objectivity and subjectivity.
If that happened to you, YOU would be willing to try homeopathy and pretty much anything else that might work, because you don't have an alternative.
No I wouldn't use homeopathy because I am not stupid enough to ever believe it would cure me of anything. I'm going to die someday and I'd rather do so with some dignity rather than paying money to some snake oil salesman for something that will do nothing.
Hi there. Yes you will. The statement before makes an assumption : one will behave rationally under life-ending-stress. That is simply untrue. I salute the wish to stay rational in all and any circumstances. We all should have this ability. Yet that is only a wish. People are not necessarily stupid going into "idiocies". It is a better strategy to believe in rubbish and stay alive, instead of being clear-minded of commit suicide out of lack of hope. Let me diverge a bit...
A friend of mine - 35 years of age - suffers Chron like disease for years. I tell you, this is very practical : You poo blood, and are so week that you can't move a chair and suffers pain. Lots of pain. During a few weeks a year. That girl makes use of science-based medicine. Yet, when she perceives nothing cures her as much as she needs, she also turns to alternative-bollocks medicines WITHOUT abandoning science-based medicine. I discovered truck-loads of incredible crank-pseudo-medical-shit. UN-F...G-BELIEVABLE ! My rational side is screaming so loud : tell her this is all rubbish !
Once, I observed her going under 40 Kg body weight on a hospital bed. Man : when facing the real she-may-die-out-of-disease-OR-desperation-within-3-days AND given she still DOES make use of science-based medicine, my rational side screams even louder : shut up and let her believe whatever she wants.
Which leads me to this personal conclusion. We - humans - are faith machines. We want and need to believe. I am not happy about that for myself, but that is a different question. Sure hope does not cure. But it may seriously help not to commit suicide which is somehow useful. So... Sure let's banish homeopathy and others gibberish. But let's create a whole range of "official" placebos. The "red one", the "blue version", the "green style" and so on. With fine print on label : "This is not a medicine. It is distilled water void of any active content with no effect other than potential - but not guaranteed - placebo effect. In all case, you must seek professional qualified attention before using this placebo."
Hi there.
IMO this is to be linked to the cult of "work hard play hard". The problem is... always over-driving one's life, leads faster to problems. Playing too hard also leads to problems. Hopping to balance one's over-work by some over-play is - maybe counter-intuitively for some - not a sollution. In french it is named "sur-régime" : if you always drive a car with the engine spinning well beyond what's necessary, well you may go faster, but you will certainly die earlier. Over-performing, over-working, and so on, has a cost.
Ciao.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
Oops ! Isn't it a major point of organic farming. Not only the end product but also procedures and environment ? Many consumers choose organic product not only for it's intrinsic assumed qualities, but out of environments concerns. I'am no pro-organic man, yet that study seams to say little to me.
(...) they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
Now I am confused. What does this study have to say then!?
A long while ago, I contributed to WP quite a bit. I stopped being subject to WikiStress. I learned one thing at that time : when WP things gets on your nerves, just get a break. Then, one realise that an article is no one's little pet. And now one can come back to an article and forget about it easily. Many people who claim to be specialist or to be especially rightful, should take a WikiBreak... and come back later. No, later than that. Now, contributions starts being good.
I also observed/. threads about WP : They where rather poor, often being aggregation of blatantly incorrect statements. Reason IMHO was that not so many actually contributed to WP, thus ignoring what I now can read in this thread : WP is not a school yard, there are rules, these rules can indeed be gamed, WP is no one pet's toy : being a so called expert does not yield special status, consensus is indeed the driving thing in WP - not The Truth - and so on...
That's a lot of good comments in one single WP/. thread. Pleasantly surprising. I suppose WP is getting actually known by people. Nice!
Hello. Disclaimer: This will probably flagged as flam-ish.
HA HA HA! ( I.e. Laughing Out Loud ). Pardon my French (BTW I am a French man) but Wikipedia-wise you are the exemplification of a wanker. So many of you thinks WP is their-little-pet-project-I-do-what-ever-I-want-out-of-it. Ça fait pitié..:-)
OK. On a less flamish tone. WP is not and has never been anarchy. There were and are many rules one has to follow in order to contribute. This was and is the project of J Wales. Those signs that are annoying you, are there to remind user that WP is not one-more-my-space-n-co i.e. pure utter jabber-teen-ager-commercial-crap-I-want-you-to-believe. I suggest the following question : Without any attempt at forcing WP users to cite and reference their statements, would you be reading Wikipedia ? My bet is for a plain no. I have already had some conversation about WP-pseudo-freedom here and here. How about plainly ignoring those warnings ? The fact you don't want to accept that you can't write just anything you fancy is your freedom. You are not forced into contributing. Yet, working with WP means you will have to abide by JW rules. Unhappy boy ? Well... fork.
Hi. FYI, in Europe we don't pay to receive SMS within a state. So from my point of view, this "SMS spam problem" is a non-problem. Have people sending SMS pay. End of story, move on.
Yet to be honest, this is still a reap off. SMSing in Switzerland costs 0.10euro/SMS. Head of Swiss mobile phone operators society said on radio RSR the cost for providers is actually 0.02Euro/SMS. No one is naive here: if that is the publicly acknowledged cost, that means - rough un-sourced estimate - real cost may well be 0.002Euro/SMS. So that is still a vast reap off. To the extent that European instances recently forced operators to lower their unjustified high prices. Ha! See, let the market be totally free, and feel the citizen be totally fucked. Funny how I can't help thinking of nowadays western economic crash. Let the market do whatever, noooooo worries folks : citizens will anyway pay.
Sidewise, I would accept to have to pay a tinny fee per e-mail I send: like 0.00001Euro. Poof, e-mail spam is dead. End of story, move on. Yes that would mean if I use mailing-list, I would pay for every single recipient: exactly what's required. I mean, I'd have to wonder am I really making sense enough to justify the cost ? Ach nein ! I'd have to admit that vast amount of what I send is rubbish. And... poof: less shite on the net. Exactly what's required. ( And... poof - domino's cascade - every one would dam care not to have zombified PC. )
I concure: I believe I get some security with less - no, lesser than that - instead of more protections. I run a win XP SP1 at home. Behind a NAT rejecting non solicited traffic. Apart of that : - no soft firewall - no real time virus scanner - no OS updates ever but even less than that: - disabled about 90% of startup process - disabled about 70% of all startup services - disabled all automatic updates - uninstall un-needed stuff - no toolbar-crapware-[younameit]ware - aggressively remove crap ( CrapCleaner helps ) The one time I was too aggressive : I broke a soft. Guess what: I downgraded the soft. Worked fine since. - Being somehow prudent internet surfer: etc/hots + addblock + rip + a few other things giving me a browser doing lesser than usual but well. I obtain a seemingly clean radar when I scrutinize my box from time to time. Sometime less is more.
I remember once at a work place : the automatic update on win boxes got the source code repository access screwed. Halted the nigtlies for the company. Since that, I consider automatic updates as viruses: you don't know when and what comes in. Yet it is often allowed and recommended. Mad.
Leave a wolf among sheeps. Please do not be surprised, after a day no to see the wolf having a nice singing party with the sheeps. What's that story to do with our business here ? Well...
Leave ultra-liberalism drive business for a while. Please, do not be surprised after some time to see it maximising financial profit regardless of any other consideration. Please all, let's not condemn Mosanto for doing what the system precisely expect it to do.
I hope people will keep me free of the usual bullshit like : so what you want is comunisme?. I trust we could talk about issues without being immediately pushed into extremist positions.
The thing which causes me trouble a lot, is to have realised years ago, that no one actually need GM agriculture. It's now proven that on the long run plants adapts as well as fauna, which ruins pro-GM arguments. We already have enough productivity per surface. The issue with food worldwide, is not technical but instead political. The talks served by Mosanto n Co. are only valid within absolutlism : making more money.
Don't get me wrong, we are using controlled-closed environment GM technologies for years. That's fantastically beneficial, safe and needed. What is non needed, dangerous, non efficient and a mascaraed is agricultural GM applications.
Hello
I couldn't help a loud laugh out while RTA. Again now: lol !:-) The first thing comming to my mind is : "Attack on epileptics is quite nuts. But spreading a rumour that it's an anti-scientology group who did without solid justifications is completely nuts. That sounds tortuous enough to come from pro-scientology people". I mean scientologist are so twisted and ready to harass by any means the ones against them, that they could well have perpetrated all that. Regretfully this scenario matches pretty well the extend of madness scientologists are used to exhibit boldly.
Bye.
With Linux you can but don't know how, so you can not. I hade a mandrake version installed on a box at home for a year. For a year I couldn't use my cd burner for nowhere under the rainbow I could find how and which device file to simlink to something somewhere. A full year. Oh boys: I read all the how-to's I could, I asked friends... Consider it as you please: I am a poor admin, I am curious enough to wait a full year, end result is the same : I could not use the material I baught, because of Linux.
NEVER again at home there will be a nix on my box. NEVER.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello poor little pink unicorn. You feel hurt ?
I bet this user got one of his own little-pet-point-of-view-blabla removed from WP. And - obviously - it cannot be. It necessarily was "his self-esteem was personally attacked by very very not nice WP admins". Ha ha ! After 18 years some users still consider WP is a play-ground. What a surprise when they realise : no. What a rage when they realise there are some non-negotiable rules. Poor thing ! Childishness is hilarious when smeared over forums. Those users would tell you they do "what they want", including driving on the wrong side of the road because "who are you to tell me otherwise ?!". What a surprise when they realise they crashed. Haaaa ha ha. 'tis so gross.
WE, the readers, determine what is USEFUL.
Lol: What a round of utter crap. Just read WP history, inception goals, and rules before commenting further. Or go on FB, YT and the likes where you can happily do "what you want". (Well btw... did you notice it is changing ? Yes ! More and more... rules on FB and the like, to tame the truck loads of rubbish content generated by users who do "what they want". Poor thing.)
If it's anything like AI, every time you learn something, the bar is instantly raised. Bar inflation is underappreciated by the pocket protector set. Thus perhaps the proper diagnosis is that the end user is investing enormous amounts of effort into stopping the bar from moving. Because there's no end in sight to how much IT support would prefer to offload onto a better-educated user base.
Supposing they did choose to learn—surprise!—all this end user sunk cost is thrown overboard in the next software generation, because ribbon GUIs are a thing now, or touch desktops, or some other dubious, branding brainfuck.
Spot on. +1 Insightfull.
Perpetually re-learning degraded UIs, changed nearly totally due to fashions instead of need, is unprofessional. Expecting this from end users as a monthly or even if only yearly standard routine, is unprofessional.
So easy to blame it all on end users. Yet, I so well understand them !
...ethical responsibility to pay the loan back, but not the owner of the loan's responsibility to actually track what people owe them? Seems to me that ethically...
Debt: The First 5000 Years is a stimulating read, bringing in quite different point of views on debt, loan, responsibility, ethicality and so on. Quite radical. Arguable. Not a short read. Cut and paste from WP :
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present.
A major argument of the book is that the imprecise, informal, community-building indebtedness of "human economies" is only replaced by mathematically precise, firmly enforced debts through the introduction of violence, usually state-sponsored violence in some form of military or police.
A second major argument of the book is that, contrary to standard accounts of the history of money, debt is likely the oldest means of trade, with cash and barter transactions being later developments. Debt, the book argues, has typically retained its primacy, with cash and barter usually limited to situations of low trust involving strangers or those not considered credit-worthy.
Graeber shows how the second argument follows from the first; that, in his words, "markets are founded and usually maintained by systematic state violence," though he goes on to show how "in the absence of such violence, they (...) can even come to be seen as the very basis of freedom and autonomy."
Z.
Actually you can buy pre-made kits on line that let you do CRISPR editing for $1200 in your own garage. Obviously you're selecting from a set of existing tools and it's not for editing human cells, but one of the reasons CRISPR is such a breakthrough is because of how cheap and simple it is - and it's very powerful.
+++ This is the very point. G*ogle "CRISPR kit" and... blamo within 5 top match : http://www.origene.com/CRISPR-.... Page "CRISPR-Cas9 Vectors" : nothing over 500$. All possible in your kitchen. What some of us don't get IMO is we are not talking about a revolution here but instead a full scale disruption. I know ([fr] https://www.franceinter.fr/emi...) some national defence office are well on the case. Already. We all know whether legal or not is irrelevant. It will be done. Don't we know ?
He's far left by American standards, but just regular left by French ones.
The far-left in France is occupied by communists, and those called "socialists" in France (and Europe generally) like this guy or the current president, aren't what Americans call socialists.
So to call Mélenchon a Communist is incorrect. Not only because he is not tagged so, but also for fundamental divergences.
For example : PC in France keeps promoting productivisme (producing a lot) and internationalism (free movement for workers). While Mélenchon calls extremely loudly for less & better production, and for joint-protectionism : we may exchange things, services and workers but with solidarity. Not at he expense of environment, local workers neither remote. So... see: these are not minor details. On the contrary : it makes Mélenchon's position quite different from extreme left and communists. And it makes Mélenchon's position simply socialist unlike those of PS in France.
More similar to Lepen. In fact they are close on many subjects, Lepen being extreme right and Melenchon being extreme left.
Nope.
To coin it simply : beyond Le Pen on the right side there is... nothing. No other party. So, technically Le Pen is indeed extreme right. Yet the main reason why to tag Le Pen "extreme right" is its fundamental views : ethnic, xenophobic, anti-semitic influences, islamophobic, rather incompetent regarding public policies. These points will be vehemently disputed by this party and Marine Le Pen worked hard to soften the picture. Yet, fundamentally it is correct to state it is extreme-right : it is conceptually and historically. It is also little known yet well analysed this party actually picked-up many political concept from left movement. Yep : you see it is the other way around, Front National try to look acceptable and credible by diverting ideas from the left. Nice tactic isn't it ?! Classic.
Mélenchon (his movement is currently named "La France Insoumise" or FI or Greek symbol Phi) is a all together different story. Many have a strong interest into shaping this politician as an "extremist" : it would so much easier to discredit him. Yet he is not. At all. That would be as bold as stating Berni Sanders is a dangerous extreme left. Bold and... incorrect. Indeed he severely questions EU and globalisation as also do some... centre party, not only extreme right. That does not make him extreme.
First item : beyond Mélenchon on the left side in France one can find at least 2 groups : NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitalist) and LO (Lute Ouvrière). So, simply put : no Mélenchon is technically NOT extreme left. Second and more important item : these two party (NPA and LO) are anti-republican (they do not believe in the concept of Republic as a collective type of organisation). They promote armed revolution. Their view is very much labour-class centric. These party (NPA & LO) are technically and conceptually really extreme left. On the other hand Mélenchon promotes an "extreme-republic" (his words) view. He calls for pacific drastic changes in the form of a 6th republic. He cares not only for the labour-class but more importantly for the human-class : the one that is being shredded by necro-liberalism and environmental lunatics. He for example explicitly calls for legalisation on long-term-illegal-workers. He is not maniac about Muslims or other religions (He calls for a clear state-church split. He thinks citizen should believe what they want at home and at church. (He also stresses in France more than 50% is agnostic or atheist)). And so on...
So Dude wake up ! You may not like Mélenchon or left or far-left or or extreme-left or socialists or your auntie or you name it : fair enough. Yet, you cannot just go banana and disseminate random idiocies. I also notice that for me to give a little context, it takes... this. While for you to libel it is as easy as a one-liner idiocy. This is classic malevolent rhetorical technique : dump a crap-load and force your opponent to waist energy and time on the clean-up. Did that for you.
Sorry, I don't buy your bullshit.
Now let's imagine : let two AlphaGo machines play each other Go games. More games. More time allowed... Folks : it becomes IMO so abysmal. Where will it stops ? I literally shiver in awe. I believe this could be radically extreme disruptive technology. Keep in mind, AlphaGo invented moves it never observed before. Keep in mind, it can learn quite some different games, just by being exposed to samples. Wooooooaaaaaa. Impressed, concerned, exited, I am. Z.
FTA on SD : "it is the overabundance of low quality ads that practically force the public to seek out ad blockers"
IMO it is missing the point : intrusiveness is the problem. Overabundance is just one type of intrusiveness. Intrusive means : consuming the resources I own ( cpu, mem, disc) or that I pay for (bandwidth). Putting my very own resources at risk with the malvertising. Rendering my interface slow. But mostly : too big, too visible, too noisy, flashy. AFAIK it's one of the points fought by AdBlockPlus : Ad is not the problem, intrusive ad is. It is enough to have one single intrusive ad - the contrary of abundance - to make me install all I can (ADB+, etc file, FlashBlock, etc). Z.
It's pretty obvious the world would be far better off without religion.
^^^ THIS.
Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.
It's like a mind virus or brain disease that most people simply accept. WTF??
The amazing part is that most people don't consider it as a disease to be eradicated.
Hi there. Marc Trévidic was judge at anti-terrorist office in Paris for 10 years. On this [french] France-info 14.12.2015 radio interview, he states "Murderers motivation is at most 10% religion based. Main reason are personal path. Religion is only a varnish." At minute 18h 15m 25s [fr] http://www.franceinfo.fr/actu/.... So even though religions are indeed delusions, they are not guilty of these murders. Anger should be directed only at those persons who perpetrated murders, who individually hold responsibility. Let's not play terrorist game. Their goal is to divide and trigger retaliation against Muslims in France so a vicious circle is started. Every one : do _not_ sort people according religion or atheism.
+1. Tanks. Simple. Judgment less. Auto-teaching. Thanks.
Odds are I've thought about this and looked into it a lot more than you. Odds are I'm a lot more articulate than you speaking about it. And odds are I'm better trained in science and more experienced working with technology than you. Just sayin'.
This is an interesting statement your are making : because your are (so you say) more educated you would be less subject to believes. You will be surprised to know that this statement has been properly studied. And... the results are exactly the opposite ! Yes. ( I was actually surprised too.) http://www.lazarus-mirages.net....
The concepts of "believes" and "faith" are extremely interesting objects. Homeopathy is good test case to study them.
There's no scientific evidence [for homeopathy]?
Hint 1: Indeed. That is a good way to check whether something is magic or real. In general, a medicine with no scientific evidence has quite some chances to not work at all.
May I stress the following: The scientific understanding of a "thing" is not to be confused with the fact that this "thing" must exists in order to be (or not) understood. Rephrased : scientific evidence regarding homeopathy still means today "is there a 'thing' at all to be explained ?". And up to today the answer is : no. The status of homeopathy today is not whether one can explain it, or which theory is good about it, but is there something to be explained. And, again, up to today the answer is : no. Explaining homeopathy - today - is like explaining how good father xmass is at going through chimneys : wrong question. Question is : is there a father xmass ? And up to today the answer is : no.
To be noticed : No one denies the "feeling good" one may express after having ingested homeopathic pills. I am sincerely happy this happens. I feel good after a cup of coffee. Because coffee dos not claim to be a medicine there is not need to prove a link between my feeling and the coffee. On the other hand, homeopathy explicitly claim to be a medicine. Wow ! Then, there is no choice : proof must be produced.
Well, there's a lot of evidence against many products which is very dangerous to health and their are legal.
Hint 2: Yep. That is also a way to detect real medicines. A real one will have effects and side effects. Both are even - or should be - documented on the notice. That is actually what is expected from a medicine : have at least "a" effect. Unfortunately it comes with "side" effects. This is a reason why medicine should be prescribed only by trained medical staff : because they are indeed dangerous. This is a good hint : a medicine claiming to have zero side effects is very more likely to have zero effects. Welcome to homeopathy which - up to now - have never produced any measurable specific effect.
The undeniable fact is that there *is* evidence in favor of homeopathy of the same nature as that used to support other medical treatments. As I said, I think this indicates poor methodology on the part of medical researchers in general. This is similar to how ESP studies are the control group for psychology:
The original post which includes some of the evidence, and that paper cites many others. You clearly cannot conceive that this situation could exist, but it does. As to "every damn reputable medical body", only the uninformed care what a bunch of NHST-users think. You have to look at the evidence for yourself, it is extremely unfortunate but the medical experts cannot be relied upon to sift BS from good science. They are not trained in scientific thinking.
Again : "... You have to look at the evidence for yourself ..."
This is IMO where the problem is. No, you cannot "look at the evidence for yourself". Reviewing the quality of a test protocol, checking the statistical significance of some numbers, in a double-blinded, against placebo group, against control group is certainly not accessible to random one. Sorry. That needs proper education and training. That is named "scientific training".
So to make it short. Homeopathy specific effect has never been observed. Nor validated by enough independent scientifically trained reviewers. The number of studies brought into the picture has little - if not none at all - evidence value. Studies must be verified. Many times.
So to make it short. Homeopathy has not been shown to have any specific effect at all. Ever.
For the homeopathy to work or not, it must first have any observable effect. Until now, homeopathy have shown zero effect.
Maybe tomorrow.
I know from my direct experience that it works,
Direct personal experience is good to coin questions, not to produce validated knowledge.
== Sound: My "direct personal experience" tells me there is a constant high pitch sound in my environment. Knowledge tells me it is Tinnitus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
== Sight: My "direct personal experience" tells me I see phantoms right now. Knowledge tells me these are floaters https://en.wikipedia.org/?titl....
== Taste & Smell: My "direct personal experience" tells me I am eating a peach. Knowledge tells me I smelling a peach, while biting and shewing an apple.
== Taste: My dad's "direct personal experience" tells him this peach has no taste at all. Knowledge tells him he is suffering Ageusia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
== Touch: My "direct personal experience" tells me I have pins and needles on my arm. Knowledge tells me I have a kind of nerve anesthesia.
== Sight: Through "direct personal experience", billions of individuals believed earth is flat. Knowledge tells us it is spherical.
== Sight: Through infinitely reproducible "direct personal experience" billions of individuals - including you right now -, across many centuries, across many civilizations, every where on the planet can drop a pen in a glass of water and believe it is broken. Knowledge tells us the refraction of light leads us to believe so.
See for yourself what your "Direct personal experience" tells you for example there on first Google hit on "optical illusion" : http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/
Not a single sens we have can be trusted to produce knowledge. Not mines. Not yours. This is basic knowledge. At 18 years of age, school should have informed you about objectivity and subjectivity.
If that happened to you, YOU would be willing to try homeopathy and pretty much anything else that might work, because you don't have an alternative.
No I wouldn't use homeopathy because I am not stupid enough to ever believe it would cure me of anything. I'm going to die someday and I'd rather do so with some dignity rather than paying money to some snake oil salesman for something that will do nothing.
Hi there. Yes you will. The statement before makes an assumption : one will behave rationally under life-ending-stress. That is simply untrue. I salute the wish to stay rational in all and any circumstances. We all should have this ability. Yet that is only a wish. People are not necessarily stupid going into "idiocies". It is a better strategy to believe in rubbish and stay alive, instead of being clear-minded of commit suicide out of lack of hope. Let me diverge a bit...
A friend of mine - 35 years of age - suffers Chron like disease for years. I tell you, this is very practical : You poo blood, and are so week that you can't move a chair and suffers pain. Lots of pain. During a few weeks a year. That girl makes use of science-based medicine. Yet, when she perceives nothing cures her as much as she needs, she also turns to alternative-bollocks medicines WITHOUT abandoning science-based medicine. I discovered truck-loads of incredible crank-pseudo-medical-shit. UN-F...G-BELIEVABLE ! My rational side is screaming so loud : tell her this is all rubbish !
Once, I observed her going under 40 Kg body weight on a hospital bed. Man : when facing the real she-may-die-out-of-disease-OR-desperation-within-3-days AND given she still DOES make use of science-based medicine, my rational side screams even louder : shut up and let her believe whatever she wants.
Which leads me to this personal conclusion. We - humans - are faith machines. We want and need to believe. I am not happy about that for myself, but that is a different question. Sure hope does not cure. But it may seriously help not to commit suicide which is somehow useful. So... Sure let's banish homeopathy and others gibberish. But let's create a whole range of "official" placebos. The "red one", the "blue version", the "green style" and so on. With fine print on label : "This is not a medicine. It is distilled water void of any active content with no effect other than potential - but not guaranteed - placebo effect. In all case, you must seek professional qualified attention before using this placebo."
Hi there. IMO this is to be linked to the cult of "work hard play hard". The problem is... always over-driving one's life, leads faster to problems. Playing too hard also leads to problems. Hopping to balance one's over-work by some over-play is - maybe counter-intuitively for some - not a sollution. In french it is named "sur-régime" : if you always drive a car with the engine spinning well beyond what's necessary, well you may go faster, but you will certainly die earlier. Over-performing, over-working, and so on, has a cost. Ciao.
FTA
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
Oops ! Isn't it a major point of organic farming. Not only the end product but also procedures and environment ? Many consumers choose organic product not only for it's intrinsic assumed qualities, but out of environments concerns. I'am no pro-organic man, yet that study seams to say little to me.
(...) they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
Now I am confused. What does this study have to say then!?
Z.
Hi.
A long while ago, I contributed to WP quite a bit. I stopped being subject to WikiStress. I learned one thing at that time : when WP things gets on your nerves, just get a break. Then, one realise that an article is no one's little pet. And now one can come back to an article and forget about it easily. Many people who claim to be specialist or to be especially rightful, should take a WikiBreak... and come back later. No, later than that. Now, contributions starts being good.
I also observed /. threads about WP : They where rather poor, often being aggregation of blatantly incorrect statements. Reason IMHO was that not so many actually contributed to WP, thus ignoring what I now can read in this thread : WP is not a school yard, there are rules, these rules can indeed be gamed, WP is no one pet's toy : being a so called expert does not yield special status, consensus is indeed the driving thing in WP - not The Truth - and so on...
That's a lot of good comments in one single WP /. thread. Pleasantly surprising. I suppose WP is getting actually known by people. Nice!
Z
Hello. Disclaimer: This will probably flagged as flam-ish.
HA HA HA! ( I.e. Laughing Out Loud ). Pardon my French (BTW I am a French man) but Wikipedia-wise you are the exemplification of a wanker. So many of you thinks WP is their-little-pet-project-I-do-what-ever-I-want-out-of-it. Ça fait pitié.. :-)
OK. On a less flamish tone. WP is not and has never been anarchy. There were and are many rules one has to follow in order to contribute. This was and is the project of J Wales. Those signs that are annoying you, are there to remind user that WP is not one-more-my-space-n-co i.e. pure utter jabber-teen-ager-commercial-crap-I-want-you-to-believe. I suggest the following question : Without any attempt at forcing WP users to cite and reference their statements, would you be reading Wikipedia ? My bet is for a plain no. I have already had some conversation about WP-pseudo-freedom here and here. How about plainly ignoring those warnings ? The fact you don't want to accept that you can't write just anything you fancy is your freedom. You are not forced into contributing. Yet, working with WP means you will have to abide by JW rules. Unhappy boy ? Well... fork.
With regards. Z.
Hi. FYI, in Europe we don't pay to receive SMS within a state. So from my point of view, this "SMS spam problem" is a non-problem. Have people sending SMS pay. End of story, move on.
Yet to be honest, this is still a reap off. SMSing in Switzerland costs 0.10euro/SMS. Head of Swiss mobile phone operators society said on radio RSR the cost for providers is actually 0.02Euro/SMS. No one is naive here: if that is the publicly acknowledged cost, that means - rough un-sourced estimate - real cost may well be 0.002Euro/SMS. So that is still a vast reap off. To the extent that European instances recently forced operators to lower their unjustified high prices. Ha! See, let the market be totally free, and feel the citizen be totally fucked. Funny how I can't help thinking of nowadays western economic crash. Let the market do whatever, noooooo worries folks : citizens will anyway pay.
Sidewise, I would accept to have to pay a tinny fee per e-mail I send: like 0.00001Euro. Poof, e-mail spam is dead. End of story, move on. Yes that would mean if I use mailing-list, I would pay for every single recipient: exactly what's required. I mean, I'd have to wonder am I really making sense enough to justify the cost ? Ach nein ! I'd have to admit that vast amount of what I send is rubbish. And... poof: less shite on the net. Exactly what's required. ( And... poof - domino's cascade - every one would dam care not to have zombified PC. )
Z.
I concure: I believe I get some security with less - no, lesser than that - instead of more protections.
I run a win XP SP1 at home. Behind a NAT rejecting non solicited traffic.
Apart of that :
- no soft firewall
- no real time virus scanner
- no OS updates ever
but even less than that:
- disabled about 90% of startup process
- disabled about 70% of all startup services
- disabled all automatic updates
- uninstall un-needed stuff
- no toolbar-crapware-[younameit]ware
- aggressively remove crap ( CrapCleaner helps ) The one time I was too aggressive : I broke a soft. Guess what: I downgraded the soft. Worked fine since.
- Being somehow prudent internet surfer: etc/hots + addblock + rip + a few other things giving me a browser doing lesser than usual but well.
I obtain a seemingly clean radar when I scrutinize my box from time to time.
Sometime less is more.
I remember once at a work place : the automatic update on win boxes got the source code repository access screwed. Halted the nigtlies for the company. Since that, I consider automatic updates as viruses: you don't know when and what comes in. Yet it is often allowed and recommended. Mad.
Bye.
Z.
Hello.
Leave a wolf among sheeps. Please do not be surprised, after a day no to see the wolf having a nice singing party with the sheeps. What's that story to do with our business here ? Well...
Leave ultra-liberalism drive business for a while. Please, do not be surprised after some time to see it maximising financial profit regardless of any other consideration. Please all, let's not condemn Mosanto for doing what the system precisely expect it to do.
I hope people will keep me free of the usual bullshit like : so what you want is comunisme?. I trust we could talk about issues without being immediately pushed into extremist positions.
The thing which causes me trouble a lot, is to have realised years ago, that no one actually need GM agriculture. It's now proven that on the long run plants adapts as well as fauna, which ruins pro-GM arguments. We already have enough productivity per surface. The issue with food worldwide, is not technical but instead political. The talks served by Mosanto n Co. are only valid within absolutlism : making more money.
Don't get me wrong, we are using controlled-closed environment GM technologies for years. That's fantastically beneficial, safe and needed. What is non needed, dangerous, non efficient and a mascaraed is agricultural GM applications.
Bye. Z.
Hello :-) The first thing comming to my mind is : "Attack on epileptics is quite nuts. But spreading a rumour that it's an anti-scientology group who did without solid justifications is completely nuts. That sounds tortuous enough to come from pro-scientology people". I mean scientologist are so twisted and ready to harass by any means the ones against them, that they could well have perpetrated all that. Regretfully this scenario matches pretty well the extend of madness scientologists are used to exhibit boldly.
I couldn't help a loud laugh out while RTA. Again now: lol !
Bye.
From the article : "These new superconductors can be operated at higher temperatures, perhaps without a refrigerant. "
Perhaps I can produce superconductors in my kitchen. Perhaps not. Let me post that somewhere...
Looks like media buzz but no real point here.
Bye.
This is very true and is the culprit.
With Linux you can but don't know how, so you can not. I hade a mandrake version installed on a box at home for a year. For a year I couldn't use my cd burner for nowhere under the rainbow I could find how and which device file to simlink to something somewhere. A full year. Oh boys: I read all the how-to's I could, I asked friends... Consider it as you please: I am a poor admin, I am curious enough to wait a full year, end result is the same : I could not use the material I baught, because of Linux.
NEVER again at home there will be a nix on my box. NEVER.
Bye.