I've been running various routers (Linksys, Asus) under DD-WRT or Tomato, but I'm finally just going to bite the bullet, and build a Mini-ITX machine with a flash drive and a wireless AP card. Then I can install a full pop Linux install without all the oddities I've experienced under DD-WRT and its cousins and derivatives. The worst one was a Tomato router that was supposed to run two segregated subnets with one subnet having full access to the other, but not visa-versa, but the iptables script would be overwritten after a minute or so, obviously because some other daemon was starting and resetting iptables. After an hour or two of kicking this around, I pulled out an old shitty desktop box, tossed another NIC in it and built a router with Debian. My time is money, so even if a mini-itx hits five hundred bucks, it represents a lot more functionality.
In the short term you may be right, but in the long term, oil is going to run out anyways. And if you think the worst case scenario is $10 a gallon for gasoline, then you're not considering what will happen to innumerable industrial and agricultural processes when we run out of easily obtained long-chain hydrocarbons. The absolutely most moronic, wasteful and short-sighted uses of oil is using it as the energy source for transportation. Nothing demonstrates the sheer awe-inspiring stupidity of the human race than the wasting of long-chain hydrocarbons by sticking them in a gas tank.
I'm unclear here. Since when did pharmacists suddenly get the right to override a doctor's prescription? How can Pfizer actually get a pharmacist to sign an exclusivity agreement.
Look pal, you won't make any money selling urine as a cancer therapy if you keep demonstrating that mainstream medicine has in fact made strides. You need to handwave away those kinds of numbers, talk a lot about Big Pharma conspiracies and get a pamphlet with a lot of anecdotal and unverifiable claims like "Before P. Wilson of Honolulu drank my frosty piss, he was at death's door with just days to live, but since his therapy, has fully recovered and is president of a small central African nation."
"Cure for cancer" as a general concept really annoys me, because cancer isn't a disease/disorder singular, but rather a large number of different diseases/disorders with certain common traits that lump them together, but for which therapies can be wildly different.
And yet, as I said elsewhere, five year survival rates for many cancers have been steadily climbing. Many cancers are very fucking bad and metastasize to all sorts of tissues, making treatment very fucking difficult. That means that the treatments will often be very fucking bad, and will do all sorts of damage to tissues. The alternative is often between living a few years longer with the help of these drugs and all their very fucking bad side-effects, or dying relatively quickly, and often far more awfully fucking bad than they would have if they had taken the treatments.
My wife survived thyroid cancer and is alive six years later because she had a total thyroidectomy, which is an awful fucking procedure that saw her in the hospital for six days just healing from basically having her neck cut open and large amounts of tissue yanked out just in case the tumor had spread to neighboring lymph glands. She faced radioactive iodine to kill off any potentially cancerous thyroid cells lurking elsewhere. It took her three or four months before she could even drive or go shopping again, because her neck was literally stapled together. She has to take synthetic thyroid hormone until the day she dies, and there's still no guarantee, even though she's made it over five years, that she might not get stricken again.
Cancer is fucking awful pal. So don't give this anti-pharmaceutical schizoid conspiracy theory bullshit.
Because testing requires manpower and money, both of which, sadly, are in short supply in medical research (or any research, for that matter). Wasting money on the claims of a quack means that some legitimate avenue of research either gets deprived or cut off.
If you want to pay to have his claims tested, you go right ahead.
WTF are you talking about? For most cancers, five year survival rates have been steadily climbing for decades. The fact is that this guy is displaying all the traits of quackery; refusal to publish or even to co-operate with researchers, taking money directly from patients and now attempting to silence critics. If he had something real, he'd go through the accepted channels and right now would likely be getting ready to cash his first massive check from some Big Pharma company.
If the large majority of critics weren't journalists, laymen, politicians are old men with credentials who are employed via the Heartland Institute, you might have a point.
The critic that you refer to made specific libelous claims. He isn't being sued because he's skeptical, he's being sued because he slandered a scientist by making claims of ill conduct. If the claimant had had any evidence of the scientist's ill conduct, he would have provided it, and thus (except in Britain) have walked away satisfied that he had taken down a climatologist. Instead, the claimant turned out to be a serial liar who had made false claims against other scientists.
Why would you watch a documentary to evaluate any claim, medical or otherwise? Let's see the peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals detailing out how the experiments were carried out and demonstrating the veracity of the claims.
And that's the problem with these evil bastards, they prey upon the most vulnerable, people and their families desperately trying to keep the flame burning. I remember years ago my grandmother's best friend was diagnosed with some inoperable terminal cancer, and her church got together and raised several thousand dollars to send her to some "clinic" in Greece which happily took her money, did some meaningless mumbo jumbo and sent her home still dying of cancer. These were poor people, and most members of the church were on the lower end of the middle class. It was very commendable that they pooled their resources together, but I still think the "doctor" who ran the "clinic" should have been taken out and shot. He stole a lot of money from a lot of people who could not really afford it, but who were bamboozled or guilted into donating to a dying woman's fantasy of a cure.
That's not really the issue here. The issue fundamentally isn't whether or not these lying quacks cure anybody or not, but rather whether real scientists are free to judge them by the scientific method. These lying quacks are trying to use the legal system to silence legitimate scientific inquiry into their scam.
That you're allowed to collect money from gullible morons if you can convince them of your quackery is not questioned, that you can try to hold the scientific community at bay through litigious behavior is.
Look at all the fletchers that had to find new lines of work when the cannon and flintlock were introduced. When cavalry abandoned horses and went to tanks and armored vehicles, I'm sure more than a few blacksmiths who had had a pretty fine job found themselves out on their asses.
Technology frequently reduces labor requirements. Civilization itself is built on that fact. The invention of agriculture allowed a certain percentage of the population the rather new and unique notion of "spare time", thus giving us writing, advanced mathematics, government and all the other trappings.
You still need somebody to deal with physical architecture, routers, and the like. The cloud takes at least some high-level services off your hands, but it sure doesn't do you much good when your router decides today is the day it's going to die.
As to open source costing jobs, it's a strange claim, as I get paid the same whether I install MS-Office or LibreOffice, or whether I'm using a Samba server or a Windows server for file sharing.
At the end of the day, while I'm ambivalent with this 21st century version of a client-server model (after all, that's all the "cloud" really is), I can see situations, particularly with schools, where administrators may not want large parts of their budgets going to server maintenance, licensing costs and the like looking to online solutions.
Definitely could be useful for line-of-site backbones, though. Years ago I worked for a guy and we set up some of proprietary 2.4ghz bridges for just that purpose.
And gets heavily diluted. It would take an awful lot of plutonium to cause any long term hike in the radioactivity in a body of water the size of an ocean. This relatively small amount of material, at those depths, is probably safer than any man-made facility could ever be at containing the material.
Maybe there's some aspect of radioactive decay I don't understand. I'm really unclear here. So what if the water moves? Obviously you have some greater knowledge than I on the subject, so do please elaborate on how the movement of water affects its ability to absorb decay products?
Yup. Where I work we've won a government contract which is going to mean a real overhaul of security requirements, as mandated by the contract. Users are going to get pissy about all sorts of things; either awkward new ways of doing certain things, or with the removal of some rights. I'm sure I'll get every manner of "I need this to do my job, evil IT guy!!!", but you know what, without that contract, a good chunk of the users wouldn't have jobs.
Users are perfectly free to go home, download viruses, view pr0n, or hell, light their computers on fire. But at work, well there are mandated policies, much of it from very high up the food chain, so live with it.
Look at it this way. If I'm in your IT department, I'd sooner see you go to jail for your cavalier self-serving attitude than me bending the rules and then having management come down on me because you're a careless fucktard.
You're not god. If you want to run a business your way, go start your own business.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been running various routers (Linksys, Asus) under DD-WRT or Tomato, but I'm finally just going to bite the bullet, and build a Mini-ITX machine with a flash drive and a wireless AP card. Then I can install a full pop Linux install without all the oddities I've experienced under DD-WRT and its cousins and derivatives. The worst one was a Tomato router that was supposed to run two segregated subnets with one subnet having full access to the other, but not visa-versa, but the iptables script would be overwritten after a minute or so, obviously because some other daemon was starting and resetting iptables. After an hour or two of kicking this around, I pulled out an old shitty desktop box, tossed another NIC in it and built a router with Debian. My time is money, so even if a mini-itx hits five hundred bucks, it represents a lot more functionality.
In the short term you may be right, but in the long term, oil is going to run out anyways. And if you think the worst case scenario is $10 a gallon for gasoline, then you're not considering what will happen to innumerable industrial and agricultural processes when we run out of easily obtained long-chain hydrocarbons. The absolutely most moronic, wasteful and short-sighted uses of oil is using it as the energy source for transportation. Nothing demonstrates the sheer awe-inspiring stupidity of the human race than the wasting of long-chain hydrocarbons by sticking them in a gas tank.
I'm unclear here. Since when did pharmacists suddenly get the right to override a doctor's prescription? How can Pfizer actually get a pharmacist to sign an exclusivity agreement.
Look pal, you won't make any money selling urine as a cancer therapy if you keep demonstrating that mainstream medicine has in fact made strides. You need to handwave away those kinds of numbers, talk a lot about Big Pharma conspiracies and get a pamphlet with a lot of anecdotal and unverifiable claims like "Before P. Wilson of Honolulu drank my frosty piss, he was at death's door with just days to live, but since his therapy, has fully recovered and is president of a small central African nation."
Either a troll or a kook. You decide...
"Cure for cancer" as a general concept really annoys me, because cancer isn't a disease/disorder singular, but rather a large number of different diseases/disorders with certain common traits that lump them together, but for which therapies can be wildly different.
And yet, as I said elsewhere, five year survival rates for many cancers have been steadily climbing. Many cancers are very fucking bad and metastasize to all sorts of tissues, making treatment very fucking difficult. That means that the treatments will often be very fucking bad, and will do all sorts of damage to tissues. The alternative is often between living a few years longer with the help of these drugs and all their very fucking bad side-effects, or dying relatively quickly, and often far more awfully fucking bad than they would have if they had taken the treatments.
My wife survived thyroid cancer and is alive six years later because she had a total thyroidectomy, which is an awful fucking procedure that saw her in the hospital for six days just healing from basically having her neck cut open and large amounts of tissue yanked out just in case the tumor had spread to neighboring lymph glands. She faced radioactive iodine to kill off any potentially cancerous thyroid cells lurking elsewhere. It took her three or four months before she could even drive or go shopping again, because her neck was literally stapled together. She has to take synthetic thyroid hormone until the day she dies, and there's still no guarantee, even though she's made it over five years, that she might not get stricken again.
Cancer is fucking awful pal. So don't give this anti-pharmaceutical schizoid conspiracy theory bullshit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/04/21/bc-andrew-weaver-national-post-lawsuit.html
Because testing requires manpower and money, both of which, sadly, are in short supply in medical research (or any research, for that matter). Wasting money on the claims of a quack means that some legitimate avenue of research either gets deprived or cut off.
If you want to pay to have his claims tested, you go right ahead.
WTF are you talking about? For most cancers, five year survival rates have been steadily climbing for decades. The fact is that this guy is displaying all the traits of quackery; refusal to publish or even to co-operate with researchers, taking money directly from patients and now attempting to silence critics. If he had something real, he'd go through the accepted channels and right now would likely be getting ready to cash his first massive check from some Big Pharma company.
If the large majority of critics weren't journalists, laymen, politicians are old men with credentials who are employed via the Heartland Institute, you might have a point.
The critic that you refer to made specific libelous claims. He isn't being sued because he's skeptical, he's being sued because he slandered a scientist by making claims of ill conduct. If the claimant had had any evidence of the scientist's ill conduct, he would have provided it, and thus (except in Britain) have walked away satisfied that he had taken down a climatologist. Instead, the claimant turned out to be a serial liar who had made false claims against other scientists.
Why would you watch a documentary to evaluate any claim, medical or otherwise? Let's see the peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals detailing out how the experiments were carried out and demonstrating the veracity of the claims.
And that's the problem with these evil bastards, they prey upon the most vulnerable, people and their families desperately trying to keep the flame burning. I remember years ago my grandmother's best friend was diagnosed with some inoperable terminal cancer, and her church got together and raised several thousand dollars to send her to some "clinic" in Greece which happily took her money, did some meaningless mumbo jumbo and sent her home still dying of cancer. These were poor people, and most members of the church were on the lower end of the middle class. It was very commendable that they pooled their resources together, but I still think the "doctor" who ran the "clinic" should have been taken out and shot. He stole a lot of money from a lot of people who could not really afford it, but who were bamboozled or guilted into donating to a dying woman's fantasy of a cure.
That's not really the issue here. The issue fundamentally isn't whether or not these lying quacks cure anybody or not, but rather whether real scientists are free to judge them by the scientific method. These lying quacks are trying to use the legal system to silence legitimate scientific inquiry into their scam.
That you're allowed to collect money from gullible morons if you can convince them of your quackery is not questioned, that you can try to hold the scientific community at bay through litigious behavior is.
Look at all the fletchers that had to find new lines of work when the cannon and flintlock were introduced. When cavalry abandoned horses and went to tanks and armored vehicles, I'm sure more than a few blacksmiths who had had a pretty fine job found themselves out on their asses.
Technology frequently reduces labor requirements. Civilization itself is built on that fact. The invention of agriculture allowed a certain percentage of the population the rather new and unique notion of "spare time", thus giving us writing, advanced mathematics, government and all the other trappings.
If the Cloud takes jobs away, the terrorists win!
You still need somebody to deal with physical architecture, routers, and the like. The cloud takes at least some high-level services off your hands, but it sure doesn't do you much good when your router decides today is the day it's going to die.
As to open source costing jobs, it's a strange claim, as I get paid the same whether I install MS-Office or LibreOffice, or whether I'm using a Samba server or a Windows server for file sharing.
At the end of the day, while I'm ambivalent with this 21st century version of a client-server model (after all, that's all the "cloud" really is), I can see situations, particularly with schools, where administrators may not want large parts of their budgets going to server maintenance, licensing costs and the like looking to online solutions.
Definitely could be useful for line-of-site backbones, though. Years ago I worked for a guy and we set up some of proprietary 2.4ghz bridges for just that purpose.
I can see it now. XXX websites dedicated to upskirt full body scan pr0n.
And gets heavily diluted. It would take an awful lot of plutonium to cause any long term hike in the radioactivity in a body of water the size of an ocean. This relatively small amount of material, at those depths, is probably safer than any man-made facility could ever be at containing the material.
Maybe there's some aspect of radioactive decay I don't understand. I'm really unclear here. So what if the water moves? Obviously you have some greater knowledge than I on the subject, so do please elaborate on how the movement of water affects its ability to absorb decay products?
What do you mean partially based on lies? Thailand is probably the most notorious country in the world for sex tourism.
Yup. Where I work we've won a government contract which is going to mean a real overhaul of security requirements, as mandated by the contract. Users are going to get pissy about all sorts of things; either awkward new ways of doing certain things, or with the removal of some rights. I'm sure I'll get every manner of "I need this to do my job, evil IT guy!!!", but you know what, without that contract, a good chunk of the users wouldn't have jobs.
Users are perfectly free to go home, download viruses, view pr0n, or hell, light their computers on fire. But at work, well there are mandated policies, much of it from very high up the food chain, so live with it.
Look at it this way. If I'm in your IT department, I'd sooner see you go to jail for your cavalier self-serving attitude than me bending the rules and then having management come down on me because you're a careless fucktard.
You're not god. If you want to run a business your way, go start your own business.