It's off my iGoogle homepage - replaced by tech reddit as suggested elsewhere. I guess I'll check back in a few years if it's even still here, but it's just irritating me these days.
You know what's even better? Not requiring creating an account at all.
Absolutely. But then you're faced with the problem of dealing with large quantities of spam. Captchas etc. can block most stuff but if people can find a way to post something to site they'll happily pay people to do that for them. You can use spam filters (Akismet etc.) and however many other. But then you find yourself spending a lot more time on beating spam than providing things for your users.
I wish there was some nice built-in standard in browsers to support log in without handing over personal details. BrowserID looked like it might do it - if coupled with a throwaway email - but now they've rebranded that to Mozilla Persona there is zero chance of it becoming cross-browser.
Your end isn't the problem. It's the social site's end that's the problem. If I want to use your site even despite requiring an account somewhere, why in the world would I want to bring a third party into it and allow them to know every time I log into your site? That's just between you and me.
I completely agree myself. I would never log into a site with an account from another site for exactly that reason - the thing most people would. It's the old security vs. convenience decision.
No it isn't, all content frameworks have a module for this, the cost is effectively zero and already exists.
This isn't about barrier to entry for developers but for users. Creating an account on a new website means going through a singup form (+/- captcha), getting an email, clicking a link in the email, and then remembering the details for future use. All before knowing if what you're signing up for is really worth it. In comparison signup via social networks require (at most) two clicks and no commitment. You can see what information the receiving site is going to get and Y/N appropriately.
I can attest the effectiveness of this. On a group of sites I've been working on the signup rate is considerably higher via social login (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) than regular login options.
The only information we get through from the services is email and avatar so I can't see the opportunities for targetted advertising (at least from our end). What do you mean?
A rundown of the content of the tweets written is here (Youtube warning). It's pretty offensive racism by any stretch of the imagination with equal measures of references to AIDS, 'picking cotton', stamping on people's faces, raping their mothers - along with use of the words 'nigger' and 'wog'. Very little of it is actually about Muamba. After the first tweet he could probably have still walked away from this if he hadn't continued to bait it and up the ante. After he realised it was getting out of control his first response was not to apologise but to lie to try and cover his tracks. Seems like a lovely young man.
Free speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech. Even in the US speech is restricted where it is reasonably believed to cause potential harm ('Fire!' in a crowded theatre). Hate-speech laws follow the same principle that exercise of speech with the intent to, or actually causing to, "stir up racial hatred" is likely to cause harm to the targetted group - and society as a whole. There are whole rafts of exceptions to the rules e.g. religious hatred laws come with the rider "(no) way [...] prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents". There is a long way from discussion and criticism to "go suck Muamba's dead black dick then you aids ridden twat!"
Twitter is a public platform - and as evidenced here things can get rapidly far more public than the original poster probably intended. That's the unfortunate thing here, that people outraged by what was said inevitably spread it wider by responding to it.
According to this Wired article the 7th graders work has been 'debunked' (or rather disproven) due to not actually testing power output but rather the 'open voltage on the circuit'. Unfortunately both the links in the Wired article point to Google webcache results that have expired so it's not possible to verify.
Apologies for the narky previous post - had a long day and was in a generally grumpy mood. Slashdot could do with a 'you sound like a dick' filter.
In that paper it refers to the quantity of sialicin (pro-drug) in willow bark being insufficient for the analgesic effect but doesn't make reference to the quantity of active siacylic acid which is odd. It's a component of normal metabolism so is going to be there. The conversion of siacylic acid to acetylsiacylic acid (as found in aspirin) is to protect the stomach lining and help absorbance. Although it states the willow bark has lower GI effects at doses for analgesia given the levels of sialicin (and siacylic acid?) are much lower then that's probably not surprising. Unfortunately I can't access the paper to find out how they configured the dosing. On the other mechanisms of anti-inflammatory action - that's great. It's worth investigating what those constituents are so we can understand them - and then synthesise them into a pill. Anti-inflammatory is usually good (especially in the realm of cancers) - but the OP was about the beneficial effects of aspirin itself (single active drug) not anti-inflammatories in general. So whether willow bark with it's low concentrations of sialicin/siacylic acid is equally effective is uncertain. I would agree it is definitely worth investigation - the position of aspirin in the study is solely due to it already being used regularly long term for all those other things.
Healthy distrust for any 'industry' is a good idea but aspirin is off patent and hardly a cash cow. Do you hold the same distrust for producers of herbal remedies? I'm assuming your not going to be growing the trees yourself. If we all switched over to using willow bark the companies wouldn't look very different at all. On the upside we would have a lot more trees.
Apologies again for the tone of the previous message.
Aspirin metabolism is outlined here, with a bit more here. Salicylic acid is derived from willow bark (the name Salix from Latin for willow) and is the active form of the drug, resulting predominantly from first pass metabolism in the liver - although some also occurs in the intestine.
Or, did you want a reference for my criticism of your wooly thinking? My only source for that was your post, which I referenced and quoted. For all I know you could be usually quite sharp. If you have other examples of misinformed decisions based on warm-and-fuzzy concepts I will of course be happy to take a look.
Or, were you looking for a reference to the suggestion that taking excessive quantities of some drugs may cause ill effects? I think that's well established fact. Even your own inference that willow bark would be 'better' was based on that very idea. If we're going to accept these things have pharmacological action (which they do) it follows that inconsistent or excessive dosing is either going to limit effectiveness or cause harm. Natural products are intrinsically variable, ergo replacing aspirin with willow bark is introducing variability with the potential to limit effectiveness or cause harm.
I'm not arguing that willow bark "wouldn't work" I'm arguing against your suggestion that it would be in any way better. If you still genuinely think it would be I think the onus is on you to provide both a coherent argument why that is the case - and references to support it.
Aspirin is already converted to salicylic acid (I think), so you may be better off (study this) with the natural precursor 'Willow Bark'.
You've got this exactly backwards (unfortunately this was also about the only time you were 'exact' in your entire post).
If I wanted to take aspirin daily, I'd take it that way instead, since it may be kinder and gentler on your system.
So you essentially have no idea. But it being natural feels all warm and fuzzy so you will do that instead of basing your decisions off nasty pointy facts.
You can die from other things besides cancer and heart disease...like a failed liver or thin blood.
Or self-medicating with incorrectly dosed quanties of active drugs derived from an poorly regulated source.
Humans are as much a "mass-produc[ed]...system[s]...that _will_ produce highly infectious diseases with a high efficiency against the Human immune system" as any mouse.
It might give a vector for mouse diseases to adapt - but that's about it - and arguably they'd be adapting to the wrong thing.
Migraines are a different matter that I covered separately in that same post BECAUSE they are nothing to do with headaches and because they have unique drugs that can combat them quite effectively if taken at the onset.
I understand what you're getting at - I myself won't take painkillers for mild headaches (drinking water usually does the trick - whether it's dehydration or placebo). However, in my early 20s I suffered from quite bad migraines (blindness aura, skin crawling insect feeling, crushing pain, and then a 'hangover' for 24 hours where I could barely get out of bed). After experimenting with a few variations of painkillers I found that the one thing that worked consistently for me was to take low dose paracetamol at the first onset of the aura - no headache and reduced 'hangover'.
The point is people respond differently to medication - and I'm very responsive to paracetamol (this extends to wisdom tooth pain - ibuprofen does nothing, paracetamol almost completely gone). Some people can manage quite horrendous pain with over the counter medication. Maybe your just not one of those people?
Interesting aside - for a long time I had difficulty sleeping and took to drinking Chamomile tea to help (which it did). After a while, making the tea was enough - I would make it, put it beside the bed, and promptly drop off to sleep. After a bit longer all I had to do was *think* about making it, and off I'd pop.
The 'placebo effect' (or, if it worked to begin with, Pavlov's dog) is often presented as a negative - but it's also an opportunity to programme yourself with something harmless. I saved a fortune on tea.
I've returned a couple myself. One I found under the bed in a hotel up in Prestwick, Scotland which turned out to belong to someone from Norway who'd been over on holiday. Sent a message to the most frequent called number 'pappa'. Turned out, rather obviously, to be Norwegian for 'dad' meaning I sent what I now imagine was a very confusing message addressing them as 'dad' from their son's lost phone. Got the address and popped it in the post to them.
The other I found in a sand dune on beach - turned out the owner lived a couple of streets over from me back home - 200 miles away from where I found it. Small world.
Both were extremely happy - the Norway one was actually a birthday present, only a month old. I was offered money to cover postage - and it cost about $15 to insure it for the post - but like you I would have a hard time accepting money for what is essentially 'doing the right thing'.
Honestly kind of sad that people miss out on the experience of doing something nice for the hell of it. Must be a very bleak world.
I put mine through a washing machine and all the pages ended up melded together. I separated what I could (including the important back page) with a knife and then ironed it flat. (Interestingly it had washed out all the visa stamps so it looked like new).
Got from one side of Europe to the other on that passport without a problem. Worst I got was a smirk.
Capitalism is an economic equivalent to Darwin's survival of the fittest. There are merits to this, despite the corruption.
This is repeated ad nauseum as an excuse for the excesses of capitalism at the expense of everything else. The suggestion is of the 'survival of fittest' (not a phrase Darwin ever used) and a fight to the death with every one for themselves. Sure. Capitalism can mimic that, but it's not an 'ideal' by any stretch of the imagination. Darwinism is associated with explosions, crashes and extinctions of entire species, communities and populations.
Unsuprisingly, Darwinian models are applied to economics as a glorified regulator of companies - not individuals, families and communities that just as equally 'survive' on the existence of these companies. Is a company going out business, that in turn destroys family livelihood, community and in some cases entire towns, dismissable as just 'survival of the fittest'? Evolution? If your answer is yes, you're basically a sociopath.
The advantage we have over evolution or nature is the ability to see and predict events in advance of when they happen. We should use it. Evolution is completely reactive - and as a result over and under compensates and bears the brunt. We have a choice. We can do better.
Statistically, a child born to a family that earned money is more likely to also be successful -- it's in their genes.
That is the biggest I have ever seen. You say 'statistically' so I assume you have some numbers? 'In their genes?' 'Mutants?!'...you're really not a biologist are you.
So if we've decided to instead build rambling arguments on vague assumptions here are a couple of my own... 1) people born from rich families have less incentive to work harder 2) people from poor families have less opportunities to access well paid jobs or education
So 'Statistically' it would make sense to provide considerably more money to individuals from poor backgrounds - since the combination of greater incentive and better (provided) funding would result in better results.
I mean 'Statistically' as in 'talking out my ass'.
Uh, you realize that even in communist Russia, where it was a crime to be homeless, and housing was provided for free, there were still homeless people?
Good point! If a systemically poor and inefficient country can't solve a problem like homelessness what hope does the United States of America have?
[ That reads like sarcasm, but I assure you it's not ]
Slashdot Mirror
I find it appsolutely apphorrent that you've approgated responsibility for appropriate appellation of Apps.
Sincerely,
Appalled of Appleby
It's off my iGoogle homepage - replaced by tech reddit as suggested elsewhere. I guess I'll check back in a few years if it's even still here, but it's just irritating me these days.
Absolutely. But then you're faced with the problem of dealing with large quantities of spam. Captchas etc. can block most stuff but if people can find a way to post something to site they'll happily pay people to do that for them. You can use spam filters (Akismet etc.) and however many other. But then you find yourself spending a lot more time on beating spam than providing things for your users.
I wish there was some nice built-in standard in browsers to support log in without handing over personal details. BrowserID looked like it might do it - if coupled with a throwaway email - but now they've rebranded that to Mozilla Persona there is zero chance of it becoming cross-browser.
I completely agree myself. I would never log into a site with an account from another site for exactly that reason - the thing most people would. It's the old security vs. convenience decision.
This isn't about barrier to entry for developers but for users. Creating an account on a new website means going through a singup form (+/- captcha), getting an email, clicking a link in the email, and then remembering the details for future use. All before knowing if what you're signing up for is really worth it. In comparison signup via social networks require (at most) two clicks and no commitment. You can see what information the receiving site is going to get and Y/N appropriately.
I can attest the effectiveness of this. On a group of sites I've been working on the signup rate is considerably higher via social login (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) than regular login options.
The only information we get through from the services is email and avatar so I can't see the opportunities for targetted advertising (at least from our end). What do you mean?
A rundown of the content of the tweets written is here (Youtube warning). It's pretty offensive racism by any stretch of the imagination with equal measures of references to AIDS, 'picking cotton', stamping on people's faces, raping their mothers - along with use of the words 'nigger' and 'wog'. Very little of it is actually about Muamba. After the first tweet he could probably have still walked away from this if he hadn't continued to bait it and up the ante. After he realised it was getting out of control his first response was not to apologise but to lie to try and cover his tracks. Seems like a lovely young man.
Free speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech. Even in the US speech is restricted where it is reasonably believed to cause potential harm ('Fire!' in a crowded theatre). Hate-speech laws follow the same principle that exercise of speech with the intent to, or actually causing to, "stir up racial hatred" is likely to cause harm to the targetted group - and society as a whole. There are whole rafts of exceptions to the rules e.g. religious hatred laws come with the rider "(no) way [...] prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents". There is a long way from discussion and criticism to "go suck Muamba's dead black dick then you aids ridden twat!"
Twitter is a public platform - and as evidenced here things can get rapidly far more public than the original poster probably intended. That's the unfortunate thing here, that people outraged by what was said inevitably spread it wider by responding to it.
Bad form to reply to oneself, but I found the discussion of the methods I believe the article was referencing in this comment on the Watts Up With That article.
According to this Wired article the 7th graders work has been 'debunked' (or rather disproven) due to not actually testing power output but rather the 'open voltage on the circuit'. Unfortunately both the links in the Wired article point to Google webcache results that have expired so it's not possible to verify.
Apologies for the narky previous post - had a long day and was in a generally grumpy mood. Slashdot could do with a 'you sound like a dick' filter.
In that paper it refers to the quantity of sialicin (pro-drug) in willow bark being insufficient for the analgesic effect but doesn't make reference to the quantity of active siacylic acid which is odd. It's a component of normal metabolism so is going to be there. The conversion of siacylic acid to acetylsiacylic acid (as found in aspirin) is to protect the stomach lining and help absorbance. Although it states the willow bark has lower GI effects at doses for analgesia given the levels of sialicin (and siacylic acid?) are much lower then that's probably not surprising. Unfortunately I can't access the paper to find out how they configured the dosing. On the other mechanisms of anti-inflammatory action - that's great. It's worth investigating what those constituents are so we can understand them - and then synthesise them into a pill. Anti-inflammatory is usually good (especially in the realm of cancers) - but the OP was about the beneficial effects of aspirin itself (single active drug) not anti-inflammatories in general. So whether willow bark with it's low concentrations of sialicin/siacylic acid is equally effective is uncertain. I would agree it is definitely worth investigation - the position of aspirin in the study is solely due to it already being used regularly long term for all those other things.
Healthy distrust for any 'industry' is a good idea but aspirin is off patent and hardly a cash cow. Do you hold the same distrust for producers of herbal remedies? I'm assuming your not going to be growing the trees yourself. If we all switched over to using willow bark the companies wouldn't look very different at all. On the upside we would have a lot more trees.
Apologies again for the tone of the previous message.
Sources for what?
Aspirin metabolism is outlined here, with a bit more here. Salicylic acid is derived from willow bark (the name Salix from Latin for willow) and is the active form of the drug, resulting predominantly from first pass metabolism in the liver - although some also occurs in the intestine.
Or, did you want a reference for my criticism of your wooly thinking? My only source for that was your post, which I referenced and quoted. For all I know you could be usually quite sharp. If you have other examples of misinformed decisions based on warm-and-fuzzy concepts I will of course be happy to take a look.
Or, were you looking for a reference to the suggestion that taking excessive quantities of some drugs may cause ill effects? I think that's well established fact. Even your own inference that willow bark would be 'better' was based on that very idea. If we're going to accept these things have pharmacological action (which they do) it follows that inconsistent or excessive dosing is either going to limit effectiveness or cause harm. Natural products are intrinsically variable, ergo replacing aspirin with willow bark is introducing variability with the potential to limit effectiveness or cause harm.
I'm not arguing that willow bark "wouldn't work" I'm arguing against your suggestion that it would be in any way better. If you still genuinely think it would be I think the onus is on you to provide both a coherent argument why that is the case - and references to support it.
You've got this exactly backwards (unfortunately this was also about the only time you were 'exact' in your entire post).
So you essentially have no idea. But it being natural feels all warm and fuzzy so you will do that instead of basing your decisions off nasty pointy facts.
Or self-medicating with incorrectly dosed quanties of active drugs derived from an poorly regulated source.
Humans are as much a "mass-produc[ed]...system[s]...that _will_ produce highly infectious diseases with a high efficiency against the Human immune system" as any mouse.
It might give a vector for mouse diseases to adapt - but that's about it - and arguably they'd be adapting to the wrong thing.
Arguably, the USA already has adopted the Greek model. That is to say, excessive overtime combined with low productivity, and resulting higher unemployment.
Facts, eh?
I understand what you're getting at - I myself won't take painkillers for mild headaches (drinking water usually does the trick - whether it's dehydration or placebo). However, in my early 20s I suffered from quite bad migraines (blindness aura, skin crawling insect feeling, crushing pain, and then a 'hangover' for 24 hours where I could barely get out of bed). After experimenting with a few variations of painkillers I found that the one thing that worked consistently for me was to take low dose paracetamol at the first onset of the aura - no headache and reduced 'hangover'.
The point is people respond differently to medication - and I'm very responsive to paracetamol (this extends to wisdom tooth pain - ibuprofen does nothing, paracetamol almost completely gone). Some people can manage quite horrendous pain with over the counter medication. Maybe your just not one of those people?
Interesting aside - for a long time I had difficulty sleeping and took to drinking Chamomile tea to help (which it did). After a while, making the tea was enough - I would make it, put it beside the bed, and promptly drop off to sleep. After a bit longer all I had to do was *think* about making it, and off I'd pop.
The 'placebo effect' (or, if it worked to begin with, Pavlov's dog) is often presented as a negative - but it's also an opportunity to programme yourself with something harmless. I saved a fortune on tea.
I've returned a couple myself. One I found under the bed in a hotel up in Prestwick, Scotland which turned out to belong to someone from Norway who'd been over on holiday. Sent a message to the most frequent called number 'pappa'. Turned out, rather obviously, to be Norwegian for 'dad' meaning I sent what I now imagine was a very confusing message addressing them as 'dad' from their son's lost phone. Got the address and popped it in the post to them.
The other I found in a sand dune on beach - turned out the owner lived a couple of streets over from me back home - 200 miles away from where I found it. Small world.
Both were extremely happy - the Norway one was actually a birthday present, only a month old. I was offered money to cover postage - and it cost about $15 to insure it for the post - but like you I would have a hard time accepting money for what is essentially 'doing the right thing'.
Honestly kind of sad that people miss out on the experience of doing something nice for the hell of it. Must be a very bleak world.
I put mine through a washing machine and all the pages ended up melded together. I separated what I could (including the important back page) with a knife and then ironed it flat. (Interestingly it had washed out all the visa stamps so it looked like new).
Got from one side of Europe to the other on that passport without a problem. Worst I got was a smirk.
When the feelings gone and you can't go on?
And they'll change the order of the pedals.
This is repeated ad nauseum as an excuse for the excesses of capitalism at the expense of everything else. The suggestion is of the 'survival of fittest' (not a phrase Darwin ever used) and a fight to the death with every one for themselves. Sure. Capitalism can mimic that, but it's not an 'ideal' by any stretch of the imagination. Darwinism is associated with explosions, crashes and extinctions of entire species, communities and populations.
Unsuprisingly, Darwinian models are applied to economics as a glorified regulator of companies - not individuals, families and communities that just as equally 'survive' on the existence of these companies. Is a company going out business, that in turn destroys family livelihood, community and in some cases entire towns, dismissable as just 'survival of the fittest'? Evolution? If your answer is yes, you're basically a sociopath.
The advantage we have over evolution or nature is the ability to see and predict events in advance of when they happen. We should use it. Evolution is completely reactive - and as a result over and under compensates and bears the brunt. We have a choice. We can do better.
We are not 'Darwinian' except through negligence.
That is the biggest I have ever seen. You say 'statistically' so I assume you have some numbers? 'In their genes?' 'Mutants?!' ...you're really not a biologist are you.
So if we've decided to instead build rambling arguments on vague assumptions here are a couple of my own...
1) people born from rich families have less incentive to work harder
2) people from poor families have less opportunities to access well paid jobs or education
So 'Statistically' it would make sense to provide considerably more money to individuals from poor backgrounds - since the combination of greater incentive and better (provided) funding would result in better results.
I mean 'Statistically' as in 'talking out my ass'.
You mean, psychiatric patients for which there is inadequate support? Yes. I've seen a lot of those on the streets in America.
Or individuals who have suffered abuse in the poorly regulated and underfunded state welfare system? Yes, lots of those too.
But you're right... they prefer it like that. I assume you've spoken to them too?
Good point! If a systemically poor and inefficient country can't solve a problem like homelessness what hope does the United States of America have?
[ That reads like sarcasm, but I assure you it's not ]
I think you mean 'neither'.
Most people are just not that interesting.
Quite right. It needs healthy people.
That would be the right to own a castle and wear t-shirts right?
Executive summary
Some of us have jobs to do you know.