Have you tried natural alternatives such as DPA/EPA (Omega3), 5-HTP (natural precursor to serotonin), and what were your results?
The neurotransmitter that is primarily associated with the ability to concentrate is norepinephrine, not 5-HT (also known as "serotonin") or dopamine. Most drugs that are effective in treating ADD are noradrenergic, meaning that they increase the supply of norepinephrine in the brain. I tried serotonergic drugs (ones that increase the supply of serotonin) and found them to be ineffective, at least in my case. By contrast, the noradrenergic drugs have been mostly effective (for me), although in widely varying degrees. Strattera is effective consistently, but Wellbutrin's efficacy varied greatly from one day to the next.
In your listing of drugs that are effective against ADD, you overlooked Strattera, which the FDA approved for sale in January, 2003. AFAIK, it's the first non-psychostimulant approved specifically for treating ADD. Other non-psychostimulants can be used to treat ADD (e.g., Wellbutrin, a/k/a Zyban or buproprion hydrocholride), but the FDA originally approved them for treating disorders other than ADD (in the case of Wellbutrin, depression).
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Theres no scientific proof that ADHD even exists. This is all experienced based. People with ADHD reporting to so called experts, experts watching people with ADHD and conducting studies and tests.
Doctors Alan Zametkin and Judith Rapport (among others) have done considerable research on the pathophysiology of ADD, and that research has been published in prestigious medical journals (e.g., The New England Journal of Medicine). I regret that I do not have any URLs to which to link.
Re:I can't recommend that sort of confidence in M.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
You must fully engage in your medical care, and be the main person driving it. Not your doctor, you.
I agree. After doing considerable research, I realized that my first psychiatrist was not giving me sufficient information and that he was not well informed on the current state of psychopharmacology, including which drugs are the best for treating ADD. Furthermore, some of the diagnoses that that psychiatrist made were wildly inaccurate, which I realized only after I became better versed in psychiatry (by reading, e.g., the DSM). Each patient must bear ultimate responsibility for his own diagnosis and treatment -- relying exclusively on your doctor is not wise. This advice applies especially in any field that relates to neuroscience, where the pace of new findings from research is extraordinarily rapid. In recent years, the amount of our knowledge of neuroscience has grown exponentially, not merely geometrically. Many psychiatrists cannot stay abreast of the many developments in psychiatry, neuroscience, and psychopharmacology.
Caffeine and Ritalin are both psychostimulants
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
According to one of my psychiatrists, caffeine and Ritalin are both psychostimulants, but Ritalin is a much more powerful psychostimulant, which accounts for its greater efficacy. Other psychostimulants used to treat ADD include Dexedrine and Cylert (pemoline).
According to the same psychiatrist, using caffeine to treat ADD is generally undesirable because caffeine affects so many different receptors, in a "shotgun" fashion. The trend in psychopharmacology is to develop and prescribe drugs that affect neurotransmitters selectively, e.g., norepinephrine alone or serotonin alone.
I diagnosed myself as having ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) in 1995.
Tell the doctor you want Wellbutrin
For many, the best drugs for ADD these days in neither the psychostimulants (e.g., Ritalin, Dexedrine) nor Wellbutrin, but Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochorlide), which received FDA approval for sale in January, 2003. For me, Strattera has been considerably better than the medication that I had been taking before, Edronax (reboxetine hydrochloride). The side effects are generally worse, but I have no choice -- I have to take it in order to maximize my ability to concentrate. I got some interesting information about Strattera from HealthBoards (a section of the site is devoted to ADD).
If I have a choice between following the latest activities (with respect to developing new programming languages) of Gosling or Van Rossum, I shall choose the latter. The opinion of those who know Java and Python equally well (e.g., Bruce Eckel) is that Python is much better designed.
I used to be a server-side Java bigot, but now I am older and wiser.
Yes, but better still is a Zope-based, CMS framework called "Plone". You should categorize Zope as an application server, not as a web server or as a CMS proper.
I am astonished at the lack of commentary on this subject. I cannot believe that I am the only person on Slashdot who cares about CMS (Content Mgmt. systems). Isn't there at least one Plone, OpenCMS, or Bricolage afficiando here?
Even if you have signed over the rights, if they breach the contract that transfers the rights by not paying you, then the whole contract might be thrown out.
Nope. In a typical Chapter 11 bankruptcy (a "reorganization," as distinguished from a Chapter 7 liquidation), the court generally reduces the debtor's debts substantially, including debts arising from, say, contracts. These days, a business debtor typically pays just 20 cents per dollar of debt. A bankruptcy court has broad and substantial powers, including the power to reform contracts, but this extraordinary power is generally wielded, if at all, to the benefit of the debtor, not the creditors.
FWIW, yes, IAAL (now turned technologist), but I have been out of the legal field for years now. Furthermore, I was in taxation and public utility law, not bankruptcy. For self-help, try www.nolo.com (Nolo Press) or a damned good trade association bankruptcy site: www.abiworld.org.
The coming "Age of Virtual Machines"
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Traditionally, computer programming languages have competed against one another, but now we seem to be moving towards a world in which a programmer will be able to choose from a set of virtual machines (VM's) as well as from a set of programming languages. The Perl 6 VM (dubbed "Parrot?") can execute Java source-code (because Java source can be compiled into Perl 6 bytecode) as well as Perl source-code, and, indeed, almost any programming language can be compiled into Perl 6 bytecode. The same is roughly true of Java. Because the source-code of nearly any programming language can be compiled into Java bytecode, a JVM can execute code written in nearly any programming language provided that a compiler has been written to transform the source code into Java bytecode. Examples of such compilers include Jython (which compiles Python source-code into Java bytecode), NetRexx (which compiles Rexx into Java bytecode), and JRuby. And, of course, there is Microsoft's.Net, which, IIRC, also contemplates (or at least permits?) the compilation of nearly any source-code into a bytecode specified by MS (of course, MS wants the bytecode's execution to take place on a MS O/S exclusively). Furthermore, there's no reason (that I can think of) that would prevent, say, Java or Perl from being compiled into Python bytecode and executed by a Python VM.
There are many implications and consequences of giving software developers this degree of choice. In your opinion, what are the most significant of these consequences?
          I am amazed at the paucity of posts relating to this story. I thought that there were many thousands of Debian users on Slashdot. And I thought that nearly everyone would have an opinion on why Woody was delayed so. Am I wrong?
I agree with your overall assessment, but have a cavil. You state that
3. The current CEO [John Sidgemore] basically founded UUNet - it's his baby - it's not going away. The networks are owned by UUNet Worldcom - they're not going away either.
Actually, Sidgemore did not found UUnet -- Rick Adams did. Adams brought Sidgemore on board UUNet because Adams realized that he needed someone with Sidgemore's track record in running telephonic and networking businesses. I think that Adams became CTO of UUnet when he made Sidgemore the CEO.
      The liberal economist Galbraith made this claim decades ago because he wanted to persuade readers that the nature of one of the traditional engines of economic growth in America (i.e., technological innovation) had changed irrevocably. He hoped to further persuade readers that only socialism (and the abandonment of entrepreneurialism (the friend of the "lone inventor") and capitalism) could save America's economy. I wonder whether Gladwell has a similarly liberal agenda, and I note that The New Yorker is one of the most liberal periodicals in the U.S.
      You can find an enormous amount of open-source, medical software at the VISTA and Hard Hats site. Some of the software apparently pertains to billing (see "integrated billing," about half-way down the page), but I cannot attest as to its quality or applicability to your needs.
Nearly all of the VISTA software is written in the Mumps programming language, with which comparatively few programmers are familiar these days (that's my impression -- I could be wrong).
      I have recently found several good resources for those who are interested in CMS's (content management systems):
CMS Watch is probably the best single source. It's fairly new, apparently having begun in August, 2001. It lead me to the next two best Web sources on CMS's, which are the next two items in this list  . . .
CamWorld by Cameron Barrett, who has listed, in tabular format, several "leading" CMS's, including one or two open-source ones.
CMSwatch also lead me to Phil Suh's CMS site, which posts discussions among CMS users and those looking to implement a CMS. The only thing that I don't like about these discussions is that so many of the participants have never heard the terms "open source" or "free software." Too many of them think that they have to buy an expensive Vignette (for example) solution.
A recent poll at LinnuxLookup was informative. The January, 2002, poll indicated that PostNuke was far-and-away the most popular among those polled, as it bested both PHP Nuke and SlashCode. PostNuke won as to each of the eleven categories/questions, including "Best overall CMS." Zope was not among the choices available on the poll, however, and other good, open source alternatives were also missing, including most of the ones that are to be discussed at the open-source CMS developers' conference.
Drupal has a good discussion of CMS's, to wit, open-source versus commercial.
Of the commercial CMS's, Frontier is one of the most interesting and most promising. It's also reasonably priced, at least as compared to some of the other commercial CMS's.
Key developer: "Two-oh won't release 4 months"
on
Apache Server Nears 2.0
·
· Score: 1, Troll
      In early December, 2001, I sent an email to Ken Coar, one of the lead Apache developers, regarding Apache 2.0. Here is his telling reply.
To: Paul Bain
Subject: Re: Apache modules book
Paul Bain wrote:
>
> Will your book on writing Apache modules cover the Apache
> 2.0 API as well as the 1.3 API?
No. It was originally [meant to cover 2.0], but it had to be scaled back [to cover just 1.3].
> Is there much difference between the two API's, so much
> so that rewriting existing 1.3 modules will be inordinately
> time-consuming (and modules for 2.0 should instead be
> written from scratch)?
It depends on your definition of 'inordinately'. Unless it's
something like mod_php, a few hours should probably suffice
to convert pretty much anything. For best results, a
complete rework of any content routines would be best, but
much of the 1.3 API is still available -- but not as efficient
nor as featureful.
It's still going to be months (IMHO) before the 2.0 API is
stable and the server released.  [emphasis added]
--
#ken      P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini    http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/
IOW, don't hold your breath waiting for the non-beta release of 2.0.
I did not have any wish to  . . .  [be] explicitly confrontational.
I have a great deal of respect for Stallman and laud his accomplishments on the behalf of free software. I have read many quotes (some lengthy) by him, however, and cannot characterize them as anything less than confrontational. His remarks also tend to have a sanctimonious tone. In this vein, I once saw an interesting photograph of Stallman, one that I am sure was taken and distributed with his consent. The photo showed a glowing halo over Stallman's head and his affecting the posture of a saint.
Slashcode may not be the most scalable open source
on
Slash 2.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Commander Taco wrote that Slashcode contains
a variety of optimizations that continue to make it possible to serve a quantity of pages that no other open source package
like this can even touch:) [emphasis added]
I am not an expert on improving the scalability of web applications (especially those written in Perl, as is Slashcode), but, from what I read, I understand that Java generally scales much better, especially when it has been tweaked for that purpose. Recently, an open source discussion board (written in Java) appeared that its creators say is one of the most scalable on the planet: Jive. Even in Jive's old, version 1.24 form, it was so scalable that Sun Microsystems decided to use it as its main web discussion software, replacing discussion software that they had written themselves (in Java). Sun employee Eric Larson wrote (in article's last paragraph) that
Jive has proven itself at Sun by supporting 94 forums with more than 358,000 messages, and about 2 million users. And the current infrastructure is not even close to capacity. As more developers try the software and contribute to the project, Jive's success will only continue.
Jive's developers swear that it can serve a million page views per day without a problem. On the other hand, Jive doesn't support the posting of news items in a manner similar to Slashcode. Maybe that's what Taco meant when he wrote "like this" (above). Of course, the open source developers at Meinds may decide to alter the Jive source to permit the posting of news items. Then Slashcode might have been bested in terms of features as well as scalability.
      The poster (hillct) and Slashdot employee Michael state that
"Most disturbing among these recommendations was a call for "Establishment of a special 'Cyber Court' patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]." . . . . Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?
I am a lawyer-shyster. I think that hillct and Michael (in addition to everyone mentioning the term "Star Chamber," a synonym for a secret trial) may have overreacted or misinterpreted this news. First, secret trials contravene the U.S. Constitution. Any statute (federal or state) purporting to empower a court to hear and decide crimial liability in secret would be unconstitutional. A judicial hearing is not a trial, however, and the hearings contemplated under FISA are only those relating to whether law enforcement agents may surveil a particular communication or party/parties.
      And secrecy in the judicial branch is not always undesirable. Nearly ALL grand juries meet, hear evidence (while a judge presides), and deliberate in secret. But they make no determination as to criminal liability. They simply indict (or fail to indict), a step necessary to having a person tried. Secrecy in certain judicial proceedings is absolutely necessary -- secrecy is not always undesirable.
      I am a lawyer-shyster. To the extent that the decisions of most federal courts are appealable to a higher federal court (and may be reversed therein), those courts are accountable. Furthermore, the Senate may remove federal judges who abuse their power, even the Justices of the U.S. Supreme court. That's a point sometimes cited by jurists who refer to the judicial branch of our system of government as "the least dangerous branch."
Slashdot Mirror
In your listing of drugs that are effective against ADD, you overlooked Strattera, which the FDA approved for sale in January, 2003. AFAIK, it's the first non-psychostimulant approved specifically for treating ADD. Other non-psychostimulants can be used to treat ADD (e.g., Wellbutrin, a/k/a Zyban or buproprion hydrocholride), but the FDA originally approved them for treating disorders other than ADD (in the case of Wellbutrin, depression).
According to the same psychiatrist, using caffeine to treat ADD is generally undesirable because caffeine affects so many different receptors, in a "shotgun" fashion. The trend in psychopharmacology is to develop and prescribe drugs that affect neurotransmitters selectively, e.g., norepinephrine alone or serotonin alone.
For many, the best drugs for ADD these days in neither the psychostimulants (e.g., Ritalin, Dexedrine) nor Wellbutrin, but Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochorlide), which received FDA approval for sale in January, 2003. For me, Strattera has been considerably better than the medication that I had been taking before, Edronax (reboxetine hydrochloride). The side effects are generally worse, but I have no choice -- I have to take it in order to maximize my ability to concentrate. I got some interesting information about Strattera from HealthBoards (a section of the site is devoted to ADD).
I used to be a server-side Java bigot, but now I am older and wiser.
Yes, but better still is a Zope-based, CMS framework called "Plone". You should categorize Zope as an application server, not as a web server or as a CMS proper.
I am astonished at the lack of commentary on this subject. I cannot believe that I am the only person on Slashdot who cares about CMS (Content Mgmt. systems). Isn't there at least one Plone, OpenCMS, or Bricolage afficiando here?
Uh, you forgot MySQL versus PostgreSQL, GNOME versus KDE, RPM versus .deb, etc.
Struts is but one presentation framework. A discussion comparing Struts and other frameworks is informative, and, indeed, there is an entire website devoted to such a comparison. For Struts links, try the home page of Ted Husted, the lead Struts developer.
Nope. In a typical Chapter 11 bankruptcy (a "reorganization," as distinguished from a Chapter 7 liquidation), the court generally reduces the debtor's debts substantially, including debts arising from, say, contracts. These days, a business debtor typically pays just 20 cents per dollar of debt. A bankruptcy court has broad and substantial powers, including the power to reform contracts, but this extraordinary power is generally wielded, if at all, to the benefit of the debtor, not the creditors.
FWIW, yes, IAAL (now turned technologist), but I have been out of the legal field for years now. Furthermore, I was in taxation and public utility law, not bankruptcy. For self-help, try www.nolo.com (Nolo Press) or a damned good trade association bankruptcy site: www.abiworld.org.
Traditionally, computer programming languages have competed against one another, but now we seem to be moving towards a world in which a programmer will be able to choose from a set of virtual machines (VM's) as well as from a set of programming languages. The Perl 6 VM (dubbed "Parrot?") can execute Java source-code (because Java source can be compiled into Perl 6 bytecode) as well as Perl source-code, and, indeed, almost any programming language can be compiled into Perl 6 bytecode. The same is roughly true of Java. Because the source-code of nearly any programming language can be compiled into Java bytecode, a JVM can execute code written in nearly any programming language provided that a compiler has been written to transform the source code into Java bytecode. Examples of such compilers include Jython (which compiles Python source-code into Java bytecode), NetRexx (which compiles Rexx into Java bytecode), and JRuby. And, of course, there is Microsoft's .Net, which, IIRC, also contemplates (or at least permits?) the compilation of nearly any source-code into a bytecode specified by MS (of course, MS wants the bytecode's execution to take place on a MS O/S exclusively). Furthermore, there's no reason (that I can think of) that would prevent, say, Java or Perl from being compiled into Python bytecode and executed by a Python VM.
There are many implications and consequences of giving software developers this degree of choice. In your opinion, what are the most significant of these consequences?
          I am amazed at the paucity of posts relating to this story. I thought that there were many thousands of Debian users on Slashdot. And I thought that nearly everyone would have an opinion on why Woody was delayed so. Am I wrong?
Actually, Sidgemore did not found UUnet -- Rick Adams did. Adams brought Sidgemore on board UUNet because Adams realized that he needed someone with Sidgemore's track record in running telephonic and networking businesses. I think that Adams became CTO of UUnet when he made Sidgemore the CEO.
      The liberal economist Galbraith made this claim decades ago because he wanted to persuade readers that the nature of one of the traditional engines of economic growth in America (i.e., technological innovation) had changed irrevocably. He hoped to further persuade readers that only socialism (and the abandonment of entrepreneurialism (the friend of the "lone inventor") and capitalism) could save America's economy. I wonder whether Gladwell has a similarly liberal agenda, and I note that The New Yorker is one of the most liberal periodicals in the U.S.
Timothy wrote that
How does a single writer "dominate" a particular genre of literature that counts its writers in the thousands?      Here's a description of the "integrated billing" module of the VISTA software.
      You can find an enormous amount of open-source, medical software at the VISTA and Hard Hats site. Some of the software apparently pertains to billing (see "integrated billing," about half-way down the page), but I cannot attest as to its quality or applicability to your needs.
Nearly all of the VISTA software is written in the Mumps programming language, with which comparatively few programmers are familiar these days (that's my impression -- I could be wrong).
IOW, don't hold your breath waiting for the non-beta release of 2.0.
I have a great deal of respect for Stallman and laud his accomplishments on the behalf of free software. I have read many quotes (some lengthy) by him, however, and cannot characterize them as anything less than confrontational. His remarks also tend to have a sanctimonious tone. In this vein, I once saw an interesting photograph of Stallman, one that I am sure was taken and distributed with his consent. The photo showed a glowing halo over Stallman's head and his affecting the posture of a saint.
I am not an expert on improving the scalability of web applications (especially those written in Perl, as is Slashcode), but, from what I read, I understand that Java generally scales much better, especially when it has been tweaked for that purpose. Recently, an open source discussion board (written in Java) appeared that its creators say is one of the most scalable on the planet: Jive. Even in Jive's old, version 1.24 form, it was so scalable that Sun Microsystems decided to use it as its main web discussion software, replacing discussion software that they had written themselves (in Java). Sun employee Eric Larson wrote (in article's last paragraph) that
Jive's developers swear that it can serve a million page views per day without a problem. On the other hand, Jive doesn't support the posting of news items in a manner similar to Slashcode. Maybe that's what Taco meant when he wrote "like this" (above). Of course, the open source developers at Meinds may decide to alter the Jive source to permit the posting of news items. Then Slashcode might have been bested in terms of features as well as scalability.
I am a lawyer-shyster. I think that hillct and Michael (in addition to everyone mentioning the term "Star Chamber," a synonym for a secret trial) may have overreacted or misinterpreted this news. First, secret trials contravene the U.S. Constitution. Any statute (federal or state) purporting to empower a court to hear and decide crimial liability in secret would be unconstitutional. A judicial hearing is not a trial, however, and the hearings contemplated under FISA are only those relating to whether law enforcement agents may surveil a particular communication or party/parties.
      And secrecy in the judicial branch is not always undesirable. Nearly ALL grand juries meet, hear evidence (while a judge presides), and deliberate in secret. But they make no determination as to criminal liability. They simply indict (or fail to indict), a step necessary to having a person tried. Secrecy in certain judicial proceedings is absolutely necessary -- secrecy is not always undesirable.
      I am a lawyer-shyster. To the extent that the decisions of most federal courts are appealable to a higher federal court (and may be reversed therein), those courts are accountable. Furthermore, the Senate may remove federal judges who abuse their power, even the Justices of the U.S. Supreme court. That's a point sometimes cited by jurists who refer to the judicial branch of our system of government as "the least dangerous branch."