These journals are not only printed media, but peer-reviewed scientific journals. They way scientist publish their findings and theories is through articles in this kind of journals, that get screened and reviewed by specialists of the field before publication; so anything published is supposed to have scientific merit.
Of course, nothing prevents a business to set up an allegedly scientific journal that publishes serious-looking articles that push its products or agenda, but it wouldn't have a great impact because of the lack of reputation of said journal among the scientific community
But in this case, it was Elsevier who acepted to do that. Elsevier is a very reputable publishing company for scientific journals, so any publication under its name will carry that credibility, so Merck choose to use it as a way to push their own interests over the pharmaceutical and medical community.
Which supports *my* point as well. Even the fact that it's peer-reviewed doesn't tell you anything, unless you also examine the "peers" and find them beyond reproach. Even the guys selling colon cleansers always have a few doctors involved. Unless you somehow know the doctor is also on the payroll - and that the basic concept was literally crap - it would be quite easy to fall into the trap. Point being aside from a very few items with known value, just about every journal you might run across is as suspect. Its advertising, it's business, and it's their job to sell stuff. You have to expect it, and caveat emptor.
I was watching a panel discussion/documentary show called "Amazing Discoveries!". They were talking about great properties of the "Powersauce bar" ("A bushel of apples packed in every bar, plus a secret ingredient that unleashes the awesome power of apples!)" and the dangers of the "Vita-Peach Health Block".
But seriously, I don't see why this is so surprising. Infomercials have been around forever, masquerading as talk shows, documentaries, etc. This is just a print equivalent. I certainly wouldn't expect the fact that it happens to be on paper vice glowing phosphors to make it any more plausible, and it's clearly much easier to get away with if you own the printing press. Most infomercials have to buy time and the station posts a disclaimer. This is like also owning the TV station.
There's no reason to believe a "journal" is any more plausible or legitimate than a TV "documentary".
... Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe.
Oh dear God, you look to "Wagon Train in Space" for philosophical insight? I guess this explains all we need to know about our little group here. Or am I just missing the joke?
Either we're stupid, or we just enjoy being outraged by stupid stuff, I can't tell which...
Can't it be both?
It's just another example of not wanting to accept EITHER the risk, or the delay, because no one can make a fucking decision and stick with it anymore.
You may be interested to read about the role that the Middle East played in the development of modern science. While they are not very mainstream (hey, history gets written by those on top at any point, which at the moment happens to be Western nations), there are many books that deal with the advanced science that was being carried out in that region.
I am not sure why you say it's not mainstream. I am not particularly interested in history, and I was well aware of the fact that most of our knowledge of the Western classical period (greek/rome) came only because the information was maintained in the Middle East while Europe was suffering through the dark ages and while western scholars were carefully calculating things like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Seems like half the terms we have in English for mathematics were actually originally developed in Arabic. Even James Burke's TV series made it quite clear. Overruning the "Saracens" in Spain gave access to a lot of the otherwise lost data and sparked the European renaissance. I think at least most people are aware of the general facts if not the details.
And I would debate that 8-neighbor cellular automata, even with fully understood rules, mean ANYTHING AT ALL, aside from a tedious exploration of a vaguely interesting rule of logic. "A new kind of science" might be right - a new kind of science that is irrelevant by all previous measures and tells you nothing useful about the physical nature of the universe.
Not only is any direct measurement very subjective, an objective measurement (exam grades achieved by children) is skewed by so many factors it's not even funny and even brings in its own set of problems - it's more dependent on the children who happen to be in the class than the teacher to begin with, and since it is often used despite that it means that most teachers (even the good ones) are forced to teach to an exam syllabus rather than actually providing a rounded understanding of a subject.
But you have to remember that the entire reason that the exams were instituted for a very good reason. Part of a hypothetical "rounded understanding of a subject" is actually being competent in the basic skills associated with the topic. That wasn't happening in many many cases. "Rounded Understanding" isn't possible until "basic understanding" has been achieved. Even if ALL they do it end up teaching the test, that's still a hell of a lot better than teaching nothing at all and graduating students that don't have basic skills required to function. That's what was happening (and still is, in a lot of cases) and that's why, in the large, that the testing was instituted.
There's no technological reason why this bundling is necessary. It's just because the companies (cable and content providers) have found it to their advantage so far. I feel it would strongly benefit the customers to enforce an end to this bundling.
Well, of course. And you got one of the more important points, i.e. forcing new channels into more homes, so the content providers can seel teh ads for more. But I think you missed one of the key points - that by including at least one thing in each package that *someone* wants, the cable companies get paid for ALL the content, which they can then use to pay off all the providers. That's why package include, say "Lifetime Movie Network", "Speed" and "Sprout" all in one. People who are seriously interested in getting the Speed channel are not the target demo for LMN! But you can sell the entire package for a high cost to everyone who wants Speed, everyone who wants LMN, and everyone who wants Sprout, for far more than you could sell the individual channels al la Carte. The providers get the same money from the cable providers, and the cable companies get more money from subscribers, 3. PROFIT
The main point should be the fact that network design and security model is defected in this case, not what OS is running or software it's running on top of what OS. There is no foolproof OS known to mankind as of yet, and I highly doubt medical device manufactures can do any better at developing OS/software than software companies. And I hate when I have to defend Microsoft on this, but there is no proof that Windows OS is inherently unstable when it's in use by medical devices.
It's not so much that it is inherently unstable, it's that it (and anything remotely like it) are so complex under the hood that you have no way of every testing or proving it works. Do you suppose that Windows contains a function from a library somewhere, that wasn't explicitly tested? Yes? BZZZT! Fail! At least for a truly life-critical system. It's not at all clear what the deal was here, but in the most critical situations the OS is written from scratch, and sometimes consists of "see clock leading edge, jump to location 80octal, run". Of course there's a break point where the risk of doing this sort of programming is greater than the risk of using something more complex with more history, but I would sure lean more towards the former than the latter, if it was my grandmother hooked up to it.
I have found the same thing. I just got my work Mac upgraded from a 8600/300 w/8.6 to a PowerMac Dual 1.23Ghz (Mirror Drive Door)/OS 10.4.11 and I have been pretty amazed at how quickly it runs some stuff compared to my Intel Core 2 Duo WinXP machine. I have a scientific simulation that runs in about 10 minutes on the PC, same code runs in less than a minute on the MDD Mac. Exactly the same FORTRAN source code, simple text-only console application, only difference is it targeted to PPC vice Intel. None too shabby for a 5-year-old machine. Other things, like launching applications, don't leap out at me as particularly fast but it's a very nice machine.
Agreed, I don't see how anyone could convince themselves that they have actually tested it sufficiently if it's running on Windows (or any other consumer-level OS). But once you have it on one version, and never change it, at least you haven't introduced any other variables, i.e. at least it's not a moving target.
Does it bother anyone else that "critical medical equipment" was running Windows NT or 2000? Don't get me wrong - I like to bash MS as much as the next/.'er but XP is almost to sunset - Shouldn't they be running something a little newer?
For a life-critical system they probably shouldn't be running ANY version of Windows. But once you get past that issue, if you have tested it sufficiently to permit people's lives to depend on it, retesting it to the same standards on first Win2000 and then XP is a non-trivial effort, and might not even be possible without massive changes. So you would be sorely tempted to leave it alone. Presumably, since it's the same code, it doesn't need any more "features" or performance. So porting it provides no value.
A better question is whether or not it's a good idea to have the damn thing hooked up to the internet so it could *get* Conficker in the first place! Well, actually, that's not a question, since its obvious...
I am not sure what you are talking about, I have yet to find a site that won't function (if not render perfectly) with the current Safari release. Examples?
Most of the processors I have written embedded code for have multiple pages of errata, mostly instructions that don't work correctly in a few situations.
Actually, the worst spaghetti code I have ever seen (in 30+ years most of it in life-critical systems) is OO C++. It doesn't have to be that way, but I have seen examples that would embarrass the most hackish FORTRAN programmers.
I am alarmed at the religious fervor and non-functional dogma associated with modern programming practices. Even GOTOs have good applications - yes, you can always come up with some other way of doing it, by why and with how much extra futzing? But it's heresy.
The sad thing is that it will affect the poor and the Third World most of all. Only the extremely ill, old, young, and those with compromised immune systems will have a problem in more developed countries where antiviral medicine is available.
Not necessarily. The reason the 1918 version of H1N1 was so bad was that those with healthy immune systems were more likely to die because the immune system overreacted. You have a point about the antiviral medicine, but the other factors *favor* those in third-world countries.
It's amazing how a sense of self-preservation kicks in when you see 3000 people killed by terrorists while sitting in their offices minding their own business. While some may have overreacted, it's not foolish to be consider the possiblities and pay attention. There is a very real threat and people are justifiably concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Which supports *my* point as well. Even the fact that it's peer-reviewed doesn't tell you anything, unless you also examine the "peers" and find them beyond reproach. Even the guys selling colon cleansers always have a few doctors involved. Unless you somehow know the doctor is also on the payroll - and that the basic concept was literally crap - it would be quite easy to fall into the trap. Point being aside from a very few items with known value, just about every journal you might run across is as suspect. Its advertising, it's business, and it's their job to sell stuff. You have to expect it, and caveat emptor.
Brett
I was watching a panel discussion/documentary show called "Amazing Discoveries!". They were talking about great properties of the "Powersauce bar" ("A bushel of apples packed in every bar, plus a secret ingredient that unleashes the awesome power of apples!)" and the dangers of the "Vita-Peach Health Block".
But seriously, I don't see why this is so surprising. Infomercials have been around forever, masquerading as talk shows, documentaries, etc. This is just a print equivalent. I certainly wouldn't expect the fact that it happens to be on paper vice glowing phosphors to make it any more plausible, and it's clearly much easier to get away with if you own the printing press. Most infomercials have to buy time and the station posts a disclaimer. This is like also owning the TV station.
There's no reason to believe a "journal" is any more plausible or legitimate than a TV "documentary".
Brett
Oh dear God, you look to "Wagon Train in Space" for philosophical insight? I guess this explains all we need to know about our little group here. Or am I just missing the joke?
Brett
Can't it be both?
It's just another example of not wanting to accept EITHER the risk, or the delay, because no one can make a fucking decision and stick with it anymore.
Brett
I am not sure why you say it's not mainstream. I am not particularly interested in history, and I was well aware of the fact that most of our knowledge of the Western classical period (greek/rome) came only because the information was maintained in the Middle East while Europe was suffering through the dark ages and while western scholars were carefully calculating things like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Seems like half the terms we have in English for mathematics were actually originally developed in Arabic. Even James Burke's TV series made it quite clear. Overruning the "Saracens" in Spain gave access to a lot of the otherwise lost data and sparked the European renaissance. I think at least most people are aware of the general facts if not the details.
Brett
Uh, excuse me, inventing the universe!
And I would debate that 8-neighbor cellular automata, even with fully understood rules, mean ANYTHING AT ALL, aside from a tedious exploration of a vaguely interesting rule of logic. "A new kind of science" might be right - a new kind of science that is irrelevant by all previous measures and tells you nothing useful about the physical nature of the universe.
Brett
Object-oriented programming. And yes, I expected to get done for heresy.
Brett
And I will admit to providing an outstanding example of the lack of basic grammar skills in that post. Wow!
Not only is any direct measurement very subjective, an objective measurement (exam grades achieved by children) is skewed by so many factors it's not even funny and even brings in its own set of problems - it's more dependent on the children who happen to be in the class than the teacher to begin with, and since it is often used despite that it means that most teachers (even the good ones) are forced to teach to an exam syllabus rather than actually providing a rounded understanding of a subject.
But you have to remember that the entire reason that the exams were instituted for a very good reason. Part of a hypothetical "rounded understanding of a subject" is actually being competent in the basic skills associated with the topic. That wasn't happening in many many cases. "Rounded Understanding" isn't possible until "basic understanding" has been achieved. Even if ALL they do it end up teaching the test, that's still a hell of a lot better than teaching nothing at all and graduating students that don't have basic skills required to function. That's what was happening (and still is, in a lot of cases) and that's why, in the large, that the testing was instituted.
Brett
I think it's blatantly obvious, the NEA is exceptionally powerful and won't permit it.
Brett
Fascinating commentary that would carry more impact if you weren't an AC!
Brett
Well, of course. And you got one of the more important points, i.e. forcing new channels into more homes, so the content providers can seel teh ads for more. But I think you missed one of the key points - that by including at least one thing in each package that *someone* wants, the cable companies get paid for ALL the content, which they can then use to pay off all the providers. That's why package include, say "Lifetime Movie Network", "Speed" and "Sprout" all in one. People who are seriously interested in getting the Speed channel are not the target demo for LMN! But you can sell the entire package for a high cost to everyone who wants Speed, everyone who wants LMN, and everyone who wants Sprout, for far more than you could sell the individual channels al la Carte. The providers get the same money from the cable providers, and the cable companies get more money from subscribers, 3. PROFIT
Brett
I think those "Dual Action Cleanse" guys have some unresolved psychological issues.
Brett
It's not so much that it is inherently unstable, it's that it (and anything remotely like it) are so complex under the hood that you have no way of every testing or proving it works. Do you suppose that Windows contains a function from a library somewhere, that wasn't explicitly tested? Yes? BZZZT! Fail! At least for a truly life-critical system. It's not at all clear what the deal was here, but in the most critical situations the OS is written from scratch, and sometimes consists of "see clock leading edge, jump to location 80octal, run". Of course there's a break point where the risk of doing this sort of programming is greater than the risk of using something more complex with more history, but I would sure lean more towards the former than the latter, if it was my grandmother hooked up to it.
Brett
I have found the same thing. I just got my work Mac upgraded from a 8600/300 w/8.6 to a PowerMac Dual 1.23Ghz (Mirror Drive Door)/OS 10.4.11 and I have been pretty amazed at how quickly it runs some stuff compared to my Intel Core 2 Duo WinXP machine. I have a scientific simulation that runs in about 10 minutes on the PC, same code runs in less than a minute on the MDD Mac. Exactly the same FORTRAN source code, simple text-only console application, only difference is it targeted to PPC vice Intel. None too shabby for a 5-year-old machine. Other things, like launching applications, don't leap out at me as particularly fast but it's a very nice machine.
Brett
Agreed, I don't see how anyone could convince themselves that they have actually tested it sufficiently if it's running on Windows (or any other consumer-level OS). But once you have it on one version, and never change it, at least you haven't introduced any other variables, i.e. at least it's not a moving target.
Brett
For a life-critical system they probably shouldn't be running ANY version of Windows. But once you get past that issue, if you have tested it sufficiently to permit people's lives to depend on it, retesting it to the same standards on first Win2000 and then XP is a non-trivial effort, and might not even be possible without massive changes. So you would be sorely tempted to leave it alone. Presumably, since it's the same code, it doesn't need any more "features" or performance. So porting it provides no value.
A better question is whether or not it's a good idea to have the damn thing hooked up to the internet so it could *get* Conficker in the first place! Well, actually, that's not a question, since its obvious...
Brett
I am not sure what you are talking about, I have yet to find a site that won't function (if not render perfectly) with the current Safari release. Examples?
Brett
Most of the processors I have written embedded code for have multiple pages of errata, mostly instructions that don't work correctly in a few situations.
Brett
Actually, the worst spaghetti code I have ever seen (in 30+ years most of it in life-critical systems) is OO C++. It doesn't have to be that way, but I have seen examples that would embarrass the most hackish FORTRAN programmers.
I am alarmed at the religious fervor and non-functional dogma associated with modern programming practices. Even GOTOs have good applications - yes, you can always come up with some other way of doing it, by why and with how much extra futzing? But it's heresy.
Brett
Call me old-fashioned, I follow a quaint old tradition of *signing my posts*. Or close as I can manage
Brett
Into oblivion, I presume?
Brett
Not necessarily. The reason the 1918 version of H1N1 was so bad was that those with healthy immune systems were more likely to die because the immune system overreacted. You have a point about the antiviral medicine, but the other factors *favor* those in third-world countries.
Brett
You base your expert threat assessment on what, exactly? Darwin had a theory about you...
It's amazing how a sense of self-preservation kicks in when you see 3000 people killed by terrorists while sitting in their offices minding their own business. While some may have overreacted, it's not foolish to be consider the possiblities and pay attention. There is a very real threat and people are justifiably concerned.
Brett