But seems it takes more than that to get modded up, these days.:(
Groklaw later posted a story on it, btw, pointing out the conflict of interest. Or at least, paid propaganda masquerading as a guide in the public interest. Disgusting really.
Advising Microsoft Corporation on digital copyright,
parallel importation and copyright enforcement issues, including submissions to
the Ministry of Economic Development and the select committee.
Advising on
copyright and intellectual property issues for a range of clients including ACP
Media and Microsoft Corporation.
Acting as general counsel for Microsoft
Corporation on its anti-piracy campaign in New Zealand, including conducting
copyright infringement litigation generally.
Acting for Microsoft on a range
of issues and transactions including the computers in schools project with the
Ministry of Education.
Advising clients on the design, build and leasing of
key premises including the head offices of Microsoft Corporation, Siemens,
Fonterra Co-operative Group, Hertz Fleet Lease and AMP Bank.
Advising
Microsoft Corporation on software copyright infringement actions and its
nation-wide schools licensing programme.
Advising Microsoft Corporation on a
number of e-commerce initiatives.
If that isn't FUD-for-food, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the document itself does not stand up to scrutiny. It's the usual diet of carefully phrased lies and bogus insinuations. As zcat on Groklaw pointed out, you can't even get past the introduction without finding several unsupportable insinuations:
"Government agencies acquire open source software through a variety of
channels, whether it be staff downloading open source code from the internet, or
external developers providing software that includes open source components.
While this use of open source software has many benefits, it brings with it a
number of legal risks not posed by proprietary or commercial software. These
include an increased risk of exposure to faults and intellectual property
claims, and the risk of forced disclosure of confidential code."
Increased risk of exposure to faults? You mean like viruses? spyware?
Self-installing rootkits on audio CDs? The WMA backdoor? The WMF backdoor? I
don't see any 'increased risk' from using Open Source software here; I see a
hugely decreased risk!
IP Claims? Well, lets wait and see how the SCO case works out..
Forced disclosure of confidential code? This one is pure FUD. Complying with the
GPL by disclosing code is always optional. The alternative is to stop
distributing _other_ _people's_ _code_ without their permission.
Oh yeah; on the point of exposure to IP claims, Microsoft provides some great
legal protection; to quote their standard eula: "17. EXCLUSION OF
INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR
CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL
INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD
FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR
OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR
INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR
OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE
OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT
OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY
SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
The appearance of this FUD on the e-govt site is particularly ironic given that the 'E-government' strategy is to
ensure that the public sector was able to make best use of information and technology to improve its service delivery, internal performance and overall capability.
They're going to have a hard time doing that if they deprecate open source.
The irony reaches unbearable levels when one reads, in its vision statement,
But, left to develop by itself, it has the potential to create new divisions in society between those who have the skills and tools to use the new technologies to participate in our democracy and those who do not.
Open source eliminates those divisions. By definition, proprietary software creates and perpetuates them.
Perhaps a concerned New Zealand citizen should call them on the contradiction between the paid lies and propaganda and E-government's stated vision.
I've already been called on it above. But I'm not going to keep apologising for the phrasing to everyone who hits Reply...
What I meant to say was along the lines that this kind of initiative expresses some tiny fraction of the web's potential, remembering that we are dealing with a medium that is barely born. I would also opine that by their carelessness, many content providers on today's web don't really 'get' its larger ideas.
My Memes page is anything but a vision of what the web/net might be. It's just a mess of stuff that only makes sense together to me.
However it is one of only two Google hits for the phrase; one's your site, the other's your cite.
I'm not really qualified to speak for anarchists but they may indeed be disinterested in preserving and cataloguing. Well, bring on the anarchists and archivists both. The web is big enough.
I applaud this initiative very loudly and long. So few people seem to understand that this is part of the web's mission. Let's hope Google succeeds where the BBC's grand plan to share their UK public-owned radio and TV archive seems to have stalled (100 clips in 2 years?) - although they are giving the world some top-notch video processing software in the process.
Here's my favourite line from that page:
For the BBC, open source software development is an extension of our Public Service remit.
You can't get less evil than that.
From the BBC's announcement in August 2003:
The service, the BBC Creative Archive, would be free and available to everyone, as long as they were not intending to use the material for commercial purposes, Mr Dyke added.
"The BBC probably has the best television library in the world," said Mr Dyke, who was speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival.
"Up until now this huge resource has remained locked up, inaccessible to the public because there hasn't been an effective mechanism for distribution.
"But the digital revolution and broadband are changing all that.
"For the first time there is an easy and affordable way of making this treasure trove of BBC content available to all."
He predicted that everyone would benefit from the online archive, from people accessing the internet at home, children and adults using public libraries, to students at school and university.
Who was/will be the first person tortured by US or Britain to reveal their keys? - Since this is now apparently expected behaviour by these governments.
Telling him he shouldn't build it in C++ anyway just isn't helpfull.
If lives are at stake, or this is a seriously mission critical system, language selection must be part of the architecture and design - not an arbitrary choice "because my boss said so".
C++ is not an inherently fault tolerant language. There are several that are: Erlang for instance.
his really controversial stuff and the work that's really central to what makes him stand out as a "scientist" is also the stuff that has never made it through peer review
Well, first, by definition "controversial stuff" is less likely to survive review. That's how Schon got his stuff through: it looked very, very plausible; it was just not reproducible in any way (heck, it was fake). I have no doubt Dr Batmanghelidj believed his results reproducible - and from what I've read, his assertions are not only based on his own trials, but are easily tested.
Secondly, it is odd that you would use the construction "what makes him stand out as a scientist". Is that your own phrase? It seems an odd one to use, when you are saying that he does not pass conventional criteria for accepted "standing": being published widely but not too widely - and don't, whatever you do, put any non-reviewed papers on your site or they will conclude you're a kook!
Knocking the peer review process generally earns you some kook points as well.
Judging by the trajectory of my post's moderation this evening, I am going to earn more kook points than karma points by citing the late Dr F.B. I'm okay with that.
don't you think you'd be seeing more whistle blowers
Don't you think there are very powerful mechanisms to suppress them? I read an aphorism recently along the lines, "Control a man's support and you control the man." We know that the first effective restraint on people is financial, for instance. One does not have to get fully melodramatic and invoke Lynchian Cowboy chats or late night telephone calls here.
Sometimes when nobody agrees with you, you're just wrong.
I'd be thrilled if somebody would investigate the possibility that he might be right about something. You don't seem at all inclined to do that. Your energy is devoted to sitting on the fence, discounting iconoclasts as kooks without a trial (on circumstance alone); and awarding "kook points" to their defenders. A harmless hobby but not very helpful.
little more than anecdotal evidence
I believe Dr Batmanghelidj tested his theories clinically throughout his career. However my understanding is purely based on his book; I have not read the papers.
legions of experts are convinced that he does not
I have not seen a single opinion that contradicts Dr Batmanghelidj on the issue of dehydration. When I said "medical answers", I meant those that concern the human body's need for water, and dehydration as an unacknowledged cause of mistreated symptoms.
If you are referring to AIDS: What do you do when you have experts on both sides of the question? Easy! Discredit the ones whose views you don't like. Can you be certain this has not occurred on this issue? Can you be certain that you are not yourself constructing a subjective system of innuendo around this man? If you can, please explain the source of this certitude.
As for the non-experts: You can stop one thousand people on the street and 997 of them will happily lynch you for telling them you hold an opinion about AIDS that differs from what they heard on TV. It's that kind of hot-button issue.
I would assert to you that they are not. They have a hard time making it past rigiorous peer review because they tend to be wrong.
I disagree.
I put people like Batmanghelidj, Dembski, Behe, and anybody else who shuns peer review
I have not seen any evidence that Dr Batmanghelidj "shuns peer review"! You're trying to construct your own caricature of the man that can hardly be based on the facts you've gained from his web site - as far as I know, you haven't read his books.
They claim to be a persecuted minority when, in reality, they have more press and more clout than much of the scientific establishment.
In the same vein: That is absurd. What clout does Dr B have? You hadn't heard of him until this post. What effect has he had on m
Dr Batmanghelidj heads a section in his book, "Diet Sodas Can Cause Weight Gain." He does touch on the liver's role in the body's reaction to artificial sweeteners in particular, but there are several processes which contribute to the gain, including confusion between thirst and hunger signals. All in all it is an interesting argument to follow.
The following is no substitute for reading the text or classroom study of the text (emphasis and links mine):
This paradox in our understanding of the relationship between taking a sweetener that does not directly contribute to the total calorie intake of the body and weight gain needs explanation.
... It is assumed these manufactured beverages can replace the needs of the body for water. It is assumed, just because these beverages contain water, the body will be adequately served. This assumption is wrong.... To understand the above statement, we need to recognize some simple principles of anatomy and physiology of the brain that regulate eating and drinking.
... Caffeine, one of the main components of most sodas, is a drug.... [it] has diuretic properties. It is physiologically a dehydrating agent. This... is the main reason a person is forced to drink so many cans of soda every day and never be satisfied. The water does not stay in the body long enough. At the same time, many persons confuse their feeling of thirst for water: Thinking they have consumed enough "water" that is in the soda, they... begin to eat more than their body's need for food.
... Caffeine... stimulates the brain/body even when a person is exhausted... it seems that caffeine lowers the threshold of ATP stockpile control. Stored ATP is used for some functions that would not normally gain access to it
... In the intestinal tract, aspartame converts to two highly excitatory neurotransmitter amino acids: aspartate and phenylalanine, as well as methyl alcohol/formaldehyde - wood alcohol.
... If caffeine converts ATP to AMP, a spent energy 'ash', aspartate converts GTP energy stockpile to GMP. Both AMP and GMP are spent fuels; they cause thirst/hunger to replace the lost fuel stockpiles in the brain cells. Thus, sodas cause indiscriminate overuse of energy reserves of cells in the brain.
It is a well recognized scientific fact that spent fuel (AMP) does cause hunger. Caffeine causes addiction... Hence, caffeinated diet sodas in sedentary persons must cause weight gain; they indirectly stimulate more food intake because of the brain's forced use of its energy reserves. Bear in mind that only some of the energy value of foods eaten will be used by the brain. The rest of the consumed energy will be stored in the form of fat if not used by muscle activity....
The more important reflex that occurs is a brain reaction to sweet taste.... "cephalic phase response". A conditioned reflex becomes established... that is associated with the introduction of new energy into the body. When sweet taste stimulates the tongue, the brain programs the liver to prepare for the acceptance of new energy - sugar - from outside. The liver, in turn, stops the manufacture of sugar from the protein and starch reserves of the body and instead begins to store the metabolic fuels that are circulating in the blood. As Michael G. Tardoff, Mark I. Friedman, and other scientists have shown, cephalic phase responses alter the metabolic activity in favor of nutrient storage; the fuel available for conversion is reduced which leads to the development of appetite.
... Using aspartame, several scientists have shown a similar urge to overeat in humans. Blundel an
While it's interesting when somebody smart posits a contrarian view or two, the people who seem to think that essentially everything about prevailing theory is wrong are usually... well... nuts.
There's an ocean of difference between being thought nuts and being nuts. Challenging conventional thinking practically guarantees the former, in our age of deadly conformity. However, I find no evidence for anything other than solid scientific research in his book. Dr. Batmanghelidj is certainly not alone in questioning orthodox theories about AIDS.
I couldn't help but notice that very few of his papers had anything in them that indicated that they were actually published by a journal other than his own.
The fact that his Foundation chooses to make additional research available under their own banner, in addition to the several papers in independent journals, does not prove it is all hokum. It is not as if peer reviewed journals have a clean slate, given the continual trickle of hoax results (recently Korean Hwang Woo-Suk, Bell Labs' Henrik Schon) so I am not sure that your point is as strong as you may think.
Dr Batmanghelidj was certainly well aware of the disinterest of industry in his findings; imagine if the popular conception that chemicals should be the universal first resort were rejected in favour of treating chronic dehydration as a first step! That his views are commercially unpalatable (like those of AIDS iconoclasts) is hardly commentary on the quality of his research.
I stop to defend the man because I am tired of the same perennial kneejerk "if this guy has the answer why haven't we seen it on CNN?" reactions to any idea that slightly tweaks our age's mental enslavement. Let's ask the two questions: Does he have any kind of medical answer (hundreds of his patients are convinced he does)? And if so, we can move on to the next important question: Why are independent thinkers so carefully hidden from view and meticulously discredited in the public media?
Let people assess it for themselves, try his therapies, and perhaps add to the rather impressive roster of testimonials he offers in his book!
The relationship between dehydration and pain has been studied for nearly 30 years by the late Fereydoon Batmanghelidj M.D., an expert in the body's water chemistry. Many such links are documented on his web site and in his books.
I am currently reading Your Body's Many Cries for Water and it has been very eye-opening about body chemistry, and covers the subject with medical and scientific rigour. I highly recommend it to people for whom conventional medicine is at best 'managing' and not reversing their health issues. Particularly compelling in that book is Dr Batmanghelidj's thorough scientific explanation on how 'diet' sodas actually substantially contribute to weight gain.
The immediately curious can access his library of scientific papers (in PDF format).
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd said "vi on a Sun3", you'd have had to trade the Funny modifier for Informative.
Groklaw later posted a story on it, btw, pointing out the conflict of interest. Or at least, paid propaganda masquerading as a guide in the public interest. Disgusting really.
If that isn't FUD-for-food, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the document itself does not stand up to scrutiny. It's the usual diet of carefully phrased lies and bogus insinuations. As zcat on Groklaw pointed out, you can't even get past the introduction without finding several unsupportable insinuations:
From $1,999:
But best of all... It runs OS X, Linux and even that other O/S (at high speed) if you're desperate.
The irony reaches unbearable levels when one reads, in its vision statement,
Open source eliminates those divisions. By definition, proprietary software creates and perpetuates them.
Perhaps a concerned New Zealand citizen should call them on the contradiction between the paid lies and propaganda and E-government's stated vision.
but Gentoo does use xinetd; what are you smoking?
Any non-trivial instructions for migrating from current profile should appear here, according to the upgrading guide.
And they just released a nice shiny version 4.0.0 of TWiki, which I can't wait to try out.
I've already been called on it above. But I'm not going to keep apologising for the phrasing to everyone who hits Reply...
What I meant to say was along the lines that this kind of initiative expresses some tiny fraction of the web's potential, remembering that we are dealing with a medium that is barely born. I would also opine that by their carelessness, many content providers on today's web don't really 'get' its larger ideas.
However it is one of only two Google hits for the phrase; one's your site, the other's your cite.
I'm not really qualified to speak for anarchists but they may indeed be disinterested in preserving and cataloguing. Well, bring on the anarchists and archivists both. The web is big enough.
But to some "anarchists", this is a dream of public information, communication and access beginning to be realised (a phrase due to Tony Smith).
Here's my favourite line from that page:
You can't get less evil than that.
From the BBC's announcement in August 2003:
Who was/will be the first person tortured by US or Britain to reveal their keys? - Since this is now apparently expected behaviour by these governments.
How do you think we got this far, if it ever were? This verges on the 'you can't trust programmers who aren't paid' FUD.
Yep - and I was thinking, "what's the point?"
I know it takes 10 times as many 'doze boxes to do the work of one UNIX server, but 10 Linux boxes? That must have been a heck of an AIX machine.
If lives are at stake, or this is a seriously mission critical system, language selection must be part of the architecture and design - not an arbitrary choice "because my boss said so".
C++ is not an inherently fault tolerant language. There are several that are: Erlang for instance.
Just a thought.
Plus, Apple has a low-end publishing competition: Pages.
--T
Well, first, by definition "controversial stuff" is less likely to survive review. That's how Schon got his stuff through: it looked very, very plausible; it was just not reproducible in any way (heck, it was fake). I have no doubt Dr Batmanghelidj believed his results reproducible - and from what I've read, his assertions are not only based on his own trials, but are easily tested.
Secondly, it is odd that you would use the construction "what makes him stand out as a scientist". Is that your own phrase? It seems an odd one to use, when you are saying that he does not pass conventional criteria for accepted "standing": being published widely but not too widely - and don't, whatever you do, put any non-reviewed papers on your site or they will conclude you're a kook!
Knocking the peer review process generally earns you some kook points as well.
Judging by the trajectory of my post's moderation this evening, I am going to earn more kook points than karma points by citing the late Dr F.B. I'm okay with that.
don't you think you'd be seeing more whistle blowers
Don't you think there are very powerful mechanisms to suppress them? I read an aphorism recently along the lines, "Control a man's support and you control the man." We know that the first effective restraint on people is financial, for instance. One does not have to get fully melodramatic and invoke Lynchian Cowboy chats or late night telephone calls here.
Sometimes when nobody agrees with you, you're just wrong.
I'd be thrilled if somebody would investigate the possibility that he might be right about something. You don't seem at all inclined to do that. Your energy is devoted to sitting on the fence, discounting iconoclasts as kooks without a trial (on circumstance alone); and awarding "kook points" to their defenders. A harmless hobby but not very helpful.
little more than anecdotal evidence
I believe Dr Batmanghelidj tested his theories clinically throughout his career. However my understanding is purely based on his book; I have not read the papers.
legions of experts are convinced that he does not
I have not seen a single opinion that contradicts Dr Batmanghelidj on the issue of dehydration. When I said "medical answers", I meant those that concern the human body's need for water, and dehydration as an unacknowledged cause of mistreated symptoms.
If you are referring to AIDS: What do you do when you have experts on both sides of the question? Easy! Discredit the ones whose views you don't like. Can you be certain this has not occurred on this issue? Can you be certain that you are not yourself constructing a subjective system of innuendo around this man? If you can, please explain the source of this certitude.
As for the non-experts: You can stop one thousand people on the street and 997 of them will happily lynch you for telling them you hold an opinion about AIDS that differs from what they heard on TV. It's that kind of hot-button issue.
I would assert to you that they are not. They have a hard time making it past rigiorous peer review because they tend to be wrong.
I disagree.
I put people like Batmanghelidj, Dembski, Behe, and anybody else who shuns peer review
I have not seen any evidence that Dr Batmanghelidj "shuns peer review"! You're trying to construct your own caricature of the man that can hardly be based on the facts you've gained from his web site - as far as I know, you haven't read his books.
They claim to be a persecuted minority when, in reality, they have more press and more clout than much of the scientific establishment.
In the same vein: That is absurd. What clout does Dr B have? You hadn't heard of him until this post. What effect has he had on m
The following is no substitute for reading the text or classroom study of the text (emphasis and links mine):
There's an ocean of difference between being thought nuts and being nuts. Challenging conventional thinking practically guarantees the former, in our age of deadly conformity. However, I find no evidence for anything other than solid scientific research in his book. Dr. Batmanghelidj is certainly not alone in questioning orthodox theories about AIDS.
I couldn't help but notice that very few of his papers had anything in them that indicated that they were actually published by a journal other than his own.
The fact that his Foundation chooses to make additional research available under their own banner, in addition to the several papers in independent journals, does not prove it is all hokum. It is not as if peer reviewed journals have a clean slate, given the continual trickle of hoax results (recently Korean Hwang Woo-Suk, Bell Labs' Henrik Schon) so I am not sure that your point is as strong as you may think.
Dr Batmanghelidj was certainly well aware of the disinterest of industry in his findings; imagine if the popular conception that chemicals should be the universal first resort were rejected in favour of treating chronic dehydration as a first step! That his views are commercially unpalatable (like those of AIDS iconoclasts) is hardly commentary on the quality of his research.
I stop to defend the man because I am tired of the same perennial kneejerk "if this guy has the answer why haven't we seen it on CNN?" reactions to any idea that slightly tweaks our age's mental enslavement. Let's ask the two questions: Does he have any kind of medical answer (hundreds of his patients are convinced he does)? And if so, we can move on to the next important question: Why are independent thinkers so carefully hidden from view and meticulously discredited in the public media?
Let people assess it for themselves, try his therapies, and perhaps add to the rather impressive roster of testimonials he offers in his book!
I am currently reading Your Body's Many Cries for Water and it has been very eye-opening about body chemistry, and covers the subject with medical and scientific rigour. I highly recommend it to people for whom conventional medicine is at best 'managing' and not reversing their health issues. Particularly compelling in that book is Dr Batmanghelidj's thorough scientific explanation on how 'diet' sodas actually substantially contribute to weight gain.
The immediately curious can access his library of scientific papers (in PDF format).
You're not a big history student, are you?
That clinches it... I have thought about contributing before, but this clinches it. I'm going to join.