Driver to drive?

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 3:41:29 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Vitamin C is produced by most animals as it is essential, humans have
a genetic defect in one of the four genes that are required to
synthesize vitamin C, so the only source is through diet. Animals under
stress or illness apparently greatly increase the rate of synthesis of
vitamin C, up to hundreds of grams per day in some cases I have heard,
ie goats.


It makes sense that this could be beneficial when given to people in
large doses during illness, and to prevent chronic low grade scurvy
like symptoms, ie vitamin C is required for collagen connective tissue
to form, and low grade lack of vitamin C can cause undiagnosed scurvy
symptoms, such as improperly formed connective tissue. Also taking
vitamin C supplements can strengthen and thicken blood vessel tissue,
in one study medical scans showed thickening of blood vessel walls in
the neck after taking vitamin C supplementation, which some would
interpret as bad, but is actually a good thing in this case as it is
the wall and not arterial plaques causing the thickening.

Vitamin C is one of the most active compounds in the body involved in
many reactions. If humans could synthesize it and produced in the
amounts as required we would be much healthier I think!

My Mom worked for a glam doctor, catering to the ultra-elites.
She'd regularly infuse 50-75g vitamin C, I.V. He was a good
man and a good doctor--and the patients insisted it did them
good--but I never saw the evidence to support it.

In fact, giving lovely anti-oxidant supplements to lungcancer
patients makes their cancer cells much healthier, which is
not exactly what the patients were hoping for.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/12/2013 6:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, 13 October 2013 06:02:41 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snipped stuff the Jamie may have read but clearly didn't understand

That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard Most people
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle
to fix ya and prevent arthritis.

The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other auto-immune diseases more

likely.

The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this generation's arthritis.

And the same corporations injecting
vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful
lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.

And your evidence for this implausible claim is?

Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of bandwidth reminding us

of this all too obvious fact.
>

Hi,

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the
problem. Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered
by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through
high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing
dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2
metabolic syndrome.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, October 14, 2013 7:51:28 AM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/12/2013 6:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 06:02:41 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snipped stuff the Jamie may have read but clearly didn't understand

That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard Most people
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle
to fix ya and prevent arthritis.

The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other auto-immune diseases more likely.

The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this generation's arthritis.

And the same corporations injecting
vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful
lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.

And your evidence for this implausible claim is?

Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of bandwidth reminding us of this all too obvious fact.

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the
problem.

This is a spectacular - and false - generalisation based on total ignorance..

For example, diabetes is not one but two diseases. Type 1 diabetes is congenital, and isn't cause either by poor nutrition or stress. Taking insulin keeps the patient alive - which solves the short term problem, and looks anything but counter-productive to the sufferer and their relatives.

Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can be controlled by drugs.

Heart disease is a much bigger catch-all. I've got three different heart diseases, only one of which - a very minor coronary artery occlusion - could be blamed on a "poor" - which is to say a Western relatively high-fat - diet.

Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered
by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through
high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing
dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2
metabolic syndrome.

But you can't cite the study. Most of this kind of stuff turns out to be correlation rather than causation.

Early dementia is just the kind of mental change that makes divorce, mid-life crises and compulsive over-eating more likely. If your study hasn't worked out how to control for that it's unlikely to be worth the pixels that display it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Mike Perkins]

On 13/10/2013 21:51, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/12/2013 6:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 06:02:41 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snipped stuff the Jamie may have read but clearly didn't understand

That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard Most people
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle
to fix ya and prevent arthritis.

The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future
generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other
auto-immune diseases more

likely.

The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this
generation's arthritis.

And the same corporations injecting
vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful
lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.

And your evidence for this implausible claim is?

Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate
that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of
bandwidth reminding us

of this all too obvious fact.


Hi,

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the
problem. Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered
by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through
high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing
dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2
metabolic syndrome.

I'm not sure how relevant ageing illnesses like those you mention when
discussing evolution? When until 200 years ago life expectancy was
generally the mid 30s?

Can't you see we take drug to fix the problems evolution has given us?

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/13/2013 5:49 PM, Mike Perkins wrote:

On 13/10/2013 21:51, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/12/2013 6:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 06:02:41 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snipped stuff the Jamie may have read but clearly didn't understand

That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard Most people
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle
to fix ya and prevent arthritis.

The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future
generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other
auto-immune diseases more

likely.

The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this
generation's arthritis.

And the same corporations injecting
vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful
lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.

And your evidence for this implausible claim is?

Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate
that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of
bandwidth reminding us

of this all too obvious fact.


Hi,

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the
problem. Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered
by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through
high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing
dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2
metabolic syndrome.


I'm not sure how relevant ageing illnesses like those you mention when
discussing evolution? When until 200 years ago life expectancy was
generally the mid 30s?

Can't you see we take drug to fix the problems evolution has given us?

Hi,

Those aren't ageing illnesses, they are illnesses of modern society, as
can be seen by the rising incidence of these illnesses. Also almost all
drugs aren't for fixing genetic problems, most are band-aid solutions
for poor diet/stress. Genetically humans life expectancy hasn't
changed probably, the lower life expectancy you mention, ie. mid
30's, reflects much higher infant mortality which when averaged with
older people dying brought average life expectancy way down, if you
don't take into account infant mortality the life expectancy of adults
over time has been a lot more constant. Drugs are mostly taken to mask
avoidable problems.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/13/2013 9:37 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2013 7:51:28 AM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/12/2013 6:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 06:02:41 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snipped stuff the Jamie may have read but clearly didn't understand

That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard Most people
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle
to fix ya and prevent arthritis.

The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other auto-immune diseases more

likely.

The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this generation's arthritis.

And the same corporations injecting
vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful
lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.

And your evidence for this implausible claim is?

Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of bandwidth reminding

us of this all too obvious fact.

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the
problem.

This is a spectacular - and false - generalisation based on total ignorance.

For example, diabetes is not one but two diseases. Type 1 diabetes is congenital, and isn't cause either by poor nutrition or stress. Taking insulin keeps

the patient alive - which solves the short term problem, and looks
anything but counter-productive to the sufferer and their relatives.

Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can be controlled

by drugs.

Heart disease is a much bigger catch-all. I've got three different heart diseases, only one of which - a very minor coronary artery occlusion - could be

blamed on a "poor" - which is to say a Western relatively high-fat - diet.


Hi,

I was referring to type 2 "adult onset" diabetes which is at epidemic
proportions when you include the metabolic syndrome early stage of type
2 diabetes. Metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes are linked to
dementia, arthritis and many other diseases. The majority of these
linked diseases are treatable with proper nutrition, and treating them
individually with drugs is what is counter productive.

cheers,
Jamie

Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered
by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through
high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing
dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2
metabolic syndrome.

But you can't cite the study. Most of this kind of stuff turns out to be correlation rather than causation.

Early dementia is just the kind of mental change that makes divorce, mid-life crises and compulsive over-eating more likely. If your study hasn't worked

out how to control for that it's unlikely to be worth the pixels that
display it.
>

 

[Tim Williams]

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2168babb-8c6f-4325-b413-e27484d54468@googlegroups.com...

Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You
won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can
be controlled by drugs.

Cite? That seems remarkable; even healthy people are at some risk,
certainly not zero.

I found an article quite quickly which seems to show a "reasonable" risk:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/6/1562.full
In particular, Figure 1.

All their data show a monotonous mapping of risk to BMI, but even for the
lowest risk category, it's hardly less than 10 percent (except for the
older age group, which I expect can be explained as, having more life to
live produces a higher remaining-lifetime risk).

Likewise, their data shows that being morbidly obese doesn't guarantee you
to have diabetes, though if you had just a handful of such people in
question, you'd very likely have several sufferers among them.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 14 October 2013 16:35:33 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/13/2013 9:37 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 7:51:28 AM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/12/2013 6:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 06:02:41 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snipped stuff the Jamie may have read but clearly didn't understand

That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard Most people
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle
to fix ya and prevent arthritis.

The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other auto-immune diseases more likely.

The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this generation's arthritis.

And the same corporations injecting
vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful
lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.

And your evidence for this implausible claim is?

Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of bandwidth reminding us of this all too obvious fact.

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the

problem.

This is a spectacular - and false - generalisation based on total ignorance.

For example, diabetes is not one but two diseases. Type 1 diabetes is congenital, and isn't cause either by poor nutrition or stress. Taking insulin keeps the patient alive - which solves the short term problem, and looks anything but counter-productive to the sufferer and their relatives.

Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can be controlled by drugs.

Heart disease is a much bigger catch-all. I've got three different heart diseases, only one of which - a very minor coronary artery occlusion - could be blamed on a "poor" - which is to say a Western relatively high-fat - diet.

I was referring to type 2 "adult onset" diabetes which is at epidemic
proportions when you include the metabolic syndrome early stage of type
2 diabetes.

You'd like us to believe that, but what you wrote was "diabetes".

<snipped the usual half-baked drivel>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 14 October 2013 17:37:32 UTC+11, Tim Williams wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2168babb-8c6f-4325-b413-e27484d54468@googlegroups.com...

Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You
won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can
be controlled by drugs.

Cite? That seems remarkable; even healthy people are at some risk,
certainly not zero.

Oops. I was quoting a medico I know, who is usually well-informed. A bit of googling suggests that it is the medical equivalent of an urban myth. I should have known that it was too neat to be true.

Specifically, if you have an Indian-type "thin-fat" physique, with lots of fat around the abdominal organs, and not much muscle or fat anywhere else, you can have a BMI of 22 and an excellent chance of getting type 2 diabetes.

Abdominal circumference is often touted as a better guide to health than BMI, and now I see one case where it works a lot better.

I found an article quite quickly which seems to show a "reasonable" risk:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/6/1562.full

In particular, Figure 1.

All their data show a monotonic mapping of risk to BMI, but even for the
lowest risk category, it's hardly less than 10 percent (except for the
older age group, which I expect can be explained as, having more life to
live produces a higher remaining-lifetime risk).

Likewise, their data shows that being morbidly obese doesn't guarantee you
to have diabetes, though if you had just a handful of such people in
question, you'd very likely have several sufferers among them.

Thanks, that looks like good data. If I'd gone to the trouble of searching for myself, rather than relying on what has turned out to be medical mythology, I hope that I'd have managed to find it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:22:45 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/14/2013 6:07 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, 14 October 2013 17:37:32 UTC+11, Tim Williams wrote:

"Bill Sloman"<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2168babb-8c6f-4325-b413-e27484d54468@googlegroups.com...



Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You

won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can

be controlled by drugs.



Cite? That seems remarkable; even healthy people are at some risk,

certainly not zero.



Oops. I was quoting a medico I know, who is usually well-informed. A bit of googling suggests that it is the medical equivalent of an urban myth. I should



have known that it was too neat to be true.



Specifically, if you have an Indian-type "thin-fat" physique, with lots of fat around the abdominal organs, and not much muscle or fat anywhere else, you



can have a BMI of 22 and an excellent chance of getting type 2 diabetes.



Abdominal circumference is often touted as a better guide to health than BMI, and now I see one case where it works a lot better.



I found an article quite quickly which seems to show a "reasonable" risk:



http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/6/1562.full



In particular, Figure 1.



All their data show a monotonic mapping of risk to BMI, but even for the

lowest risk category, it's hardly less than 10 percent (except for the

older age group, which I expect can be explained as, having more life to

live produces a higher remaining-lifetime risk).



Likewise, their data shows that being morbidly obese doesn't guarantee you

to have diabetes, though if you had just a handful of such people in

question, you'd very likely have several sufferers among them.



Thanks, that looks like good data. If I'd gone to the trouble of searching for myself, rather than relying on what has turned out to be medical



mythology, I hope that I'd have managed to find it.





Hi Bill,



Off topic again, but here is something interesting on Columbus day for
how society lies to itself about things, health, history etc:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/you_are_still_being_lied_to_howard_zinns_columbus_and_the_myth_of_human_progress/

People are still told Columbus was a good guy when in history he was
terrible. Its the same thing for diet, we are told lies about what is
healthy as human health isn't a priority for the industrial medical complex.

Perhaps not, but since you know as much about human health as the average school-child knows about Columbus, what you tell us is misleading.

If you did know a bit more, you'd be a liar, but since your intention is to propagate your own dismal state of misinformation rather than to maliciously misinform, you are merely a fool rather than a rogue.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/14/2013 6:07 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, 14 October 2013 17:37:32 UTC+11, Tim Williams wrote:
"Bill Sloman"<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2168babb-8c6f-4325-b413-e27484d54468@googlegroups.com...

Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You
won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can
be controlled by drugs.

Cite? That seems remarkable; even healthy people are at some risk,
certainly not zero.

Oops. I was quoting a medico I know, who is usually well-informed. A bit of googling suggests that it is the medical equivalent of an urban myth. I should

have known that it was too neat to be true.

Specifically, if you have an Indian-type "thin-fat" physique, with lots of fat around the abdominal organs, and not much muscle or fat anywhere else, you

can have a BMI of 22 and an excellent chance of getting type 2 diabetes.

Abdominal circumference is often touted as a better guide to health than BMI, and now I see one case where it works a lot better.

I found an article quite quickly which seems to show a "reasonable" risk:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/6/1562.full

In particular, Figure 1.

All their data show a monotonic mapping of risk to BMI, but even for the
lowest risk category, it's hardly less than 10 percent (except for the
older age group, which I expect can be explained as, having more life to
live produces a higher remaining-lifetime risk).

Likewise, their data shows that being morbidly obese doesn't guarantee you
to have diabetes, though if you had just a handful of such people in
question, you'd very likely have several sufferers among them.

Thanks, that looks like good data. If I'd gone to the trouble of searching for myself, rather than relying on what has turned out to be medical

mythology, I hope that I'd have managed to find it.
>

Hi Bill,

Off topic again, but here is something interesting on Columbus day for
how society lies to itself about things, health, history etc:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/you_are_still_being_lied_to_howard_zinns_columbus_and_the_myth_of_human_progress/

People are still told Columbus was a good guy when in history he was
terrible. Its the same thing for diet, we are told lies about what is
healthy as human health isn't a priority for the industrial medical complex.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Peter McMullin]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:37:27 +0100, Paul E Bennett
<Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> wrote:

Roberto Waltman wrote:

Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

R.


I have used Mandrake, Mandriva and am now on Mageia 3. The last one is the
best implentation of the line-up I have ever used and it is running on my
Acer Iconia 700 slate as well (formerly a Win8 machine for about 5 minutes
after unwrapping).

OS aside, I suppose it would be more interesting to know what people use for
development tools. Here it is currently Eagle CAD, Libre Office, Kwrite and
VfX Forth. Looking at adding VariCAD for the mechanical work and a decent
version management and change tracking system (that can manage all files).

I've been happily running PCLinuxOS for about 5 years. It's a fork of
Mandriva. Back around the turn of the century, I played with Fedora
for a while. Then went on a distro-hopping adventure, playing with
SuSe, *buntu, Mint, Gentoo, FreeBSDs, Debians, Slackware, CentOS and
many others. At this point, I was running a Dell XPS laptop, and
hardware setup was a nightmare. After several years of Micro$oft
indoctrination, I concluded that they were all half-baked and far too
DIY. (This from someone who used to write video and printer-driver
routines in Z80 Assembler)

Then, around 2007, I downloaded a PCLinuxOS live cd iso, did the
install, and <Everything Just Works (tm)>. Never looked back. Since
then, I've installed various versions of PCLinuxOS on several friends
computers (KDE, LXDE, and XFCE) who had malware and registry problems
with windoze. Everybody Happy.

It's a rolling distribution, so do the weekly update and everything
rolls along. I have yet to find a piece of software I want to run,
that I can't run. Automatic hardware installation makes the Micro$oft
model look like the dark ages.

Micro$oft: Would you like us to find the driver? Sorry, we can't find
the driver. Can't find our ass with both hands. Retry/Fail/Ignore?
PCLinuxOS: Just found your new device. Would you like to use it?

Back to the point, I run the last DOS versions of OrCAD-- SDT and
PCB386+ trouble-free under DOSBOX in a 1024 window, LTSpice runs just
fine under Wine. And so on with anything else I really care about,
including Forte Agent.

And yes, Grub still lets me boot XP in case I feel like getting
frustrated.

-Peter
(Running PcLinuxOS FullMonty on an aging AMD 64 bit single core box
with great satisfaction)

 

[Peter McMullin]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:06:08 -0400, Peter McMullin
<pmcmullin@3web.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:37:27 +0100, Paul E Bennett
Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> wrote:

Roberto Waltman wrote:

Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

R.


I have used Mandrake, Mandriva and am now on Mageia 3. The last one is the
best implentation of the line-up I have ever used and it is running on my
Acer Iconia 700 slate as well (formerly a Win8 machine for about 5 minutes
after unwrapping).

OS aside, I suppose it would be more interesting to know what people use for
development tools. Here it is currently Eagle CAD, Libre Office, Kwrite and
VfX Forth. Looking at adding VariCAD for the mechanical work and a decent
version management and change tracking system (that can manage all files).

I've been happily running PCLinuxOS for about 5 years. It's a fork of
Mandriva. Back around the turn of the century, I played with Fedora
for a while. Then went on a distro-hopping adventure, playing with
SuSe, *buntu, Mint, Gentoo, FreeBSDs, Debians, Slackware, CentOS and
many others. At this point, I was running a Dell XPS laptop, and
hardware setup was a nightmare. After several years of Micro$oft
indoctrination, I concluded that they were all half-baked and far too
DIY. (This from someone who used to write video and printer-driver
routines in Z80 Assembler)

Then, around 2007, I downloaded a PCLinuxOS live cd iso, did the
install, and <Everything Just Works (tm)>. Never looked back. Since
then, I've installed various versions of PCLinuxOS on several friends
computers (KDE, LXDE, and XFCE) who had malware and registry problems
with windoze. Everybody Happy.

It's a rolling distribution, so do the weekly update and everything
rolls along. I have yet to find a piece of software I want to run,
that I can't run. Automatic hardware installation makes the Micro$oft
model look like the dark ages.

Micro$oft: Would you like us to find the driver? Sorry, we can't find
the driver. Can't find our ass with both hands. Retry/Fail/Ignore?
PCLinuxOS: Just found your new device. Would you like to use it?

Back to the point, I run the last DOS versions of OrCAD-- SDT and
PCB386+ trouble-free under DOSBOX in a 1024 window, LTSpice runs just
fine under Wine. And so on with anything else I really care about,
including Forte Agent.

And yes, Grub still lets me boot XP in case I feel like getting
frustrated.

-Peter
(Running PcLinuxOS FullMonty on an aging AMD 64 bit single core box
with great satisfaction)

No, I wasn't paid to write that In fact, I've donated.
-Peter

 

[josephkk]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 01:49:16 +0100, Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Hi,

Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health
problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs
to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the
problem. Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered
by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through
high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing
dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2
metabolic syndrome.


I'm not sure how relevant ageing illnesses like those you mention when
discussing evolution? When until 200 years ago life expectancy was
generally the mid 30s?

Can't you see we take drug to fix the problems evolution has given us?

That silly poppycock again? First, get the crud out of the data starting
with infant mortality due to now commonly vaccinated diseases. It really
distorts the data. Next remove accidents, and surprise, life expectancy
200 to 300 years ago was about 60 years. Just removing childhood disease
mortality boosts to 50+. Shame on you for not knowing the data or the
assumptions any better. There are still cultures on this planet that do
not count live birth until the child reaches one year.

?-)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 10:30:09 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 02:33:56 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 05:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 21:52:05 UTC+11, Greegor wrote:

Tell the truth.

I never do anything else.

Your claim is fatuous,

Scarcely. I could have written that I never post anything that I don't believe to be true, which has exactly the same information content.

It certainly does not, since the first case is unconditional and
states that you always tell the truth, while in the second you admit
that your belief that something is true might be flawed.

Since I'm the one that's deciding whether what I post is true, this is an academic distinction.

In your rather pedestrian way you've chosen to dodge the issue by
clipping and falsifying, so here, for your perusal, is my reply t
your earlier post where you state that you never do anything else but
tell the truth.

The word you should have found was pedantic, rather than pedestrian, since it is based on a rather better grasp of discourse theory than you have mastered.

"Your claim is fatuous, since being as intelligent as you claim to be
should make you aware that one's personal idiosyncrazies often filter
one's inputs in order to make them more palatable to - and thus mask
their real content from - the viewer."

Of course I'm aware that one's personal idiosyncrasies filter one's inputs.

I don't happen to spend much time making my output more palatable to the reader, and I certainly don't spend time masking the content - if anything I'm careful to make it difficult for the reader to misconstrue what I write.

The English term for this is "calling a spade a bloody shovel".

If you haven't noticed this, you need to go to reading comprehension classes - as I seem to suggested in times past.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 13 October 2013 02:33:56 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 05:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 21:52:05 UTC+11, Greegor wrote:

Tell the truth.

I never do anything else.

Your claim is fatuous,

Scarcely. I could have written that I never post anything that I don't believe to be true, which has exactly the same information content.

---
It certainly does not, since the first case is unconditional and
states that you always tell the truth, while in the second you admit
that your belief that something is true might be flawed.

In your rather pedestrian way you've chosen to dodge the issue by
clipping and falsifying, so here, for your perusal, is my reply to
your earlier post where you state that you never do anything else but
tell the truth.

"Your claim is fatuous, since being as intelligent as you claim to be
should make you aware that one's personal idiosyncrazies often filter
one's inputs in order to make them more palatable to - and thus mask
their real content from - the viewer."

---
What that means is that many of us - either intentionally or not -
filter the truth and then call the filtered version THE TRUTH and
preach it as if it were.
---


"That being the case, it becomes _impossible_ to distinguish between
truth and falsehood, and reports made as to the veracity of the hues
of colors viewed through one's filters will be what one chooses to
_see_, not what _is_."


>You have chosen to interpret what I wrote as if I thought that I had some private access to a perfect verification service, but I've never made any such claim, and the implication that I might be making such a claim is libellous.

---
When Greegor wrote: "Tell the truth." and you responded with the
unconditional: "I never do anything else.", implicit in that reply was
the claim that you're your own perfect verification service.
---

>You may not think so, but you can't think straight.

---
If I don't think that I can't think straight, then that's quite a
roundabout double-negative way of saying that I _can_ think straight.

Thanks for the compliment!

--
JF

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/14/2013 5:42 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:22:45 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/14/2013 6:07 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, 14 October 2013 17:37:32 UTC+11, Tim Williams wrote:

"Bill Sloman"<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2168babb-8c6f-4325-b413-e27484d54468@googlegroups.com...



Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You

won't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can

be controlled by drugs.



Cite? That seems remarkable; even healthy people are at some risk,

certainly not zero.



Oops. I was quoting a medico I know, who is usually well-informed. A bit of googling suggests that it is the medical equivalent of an urban myth. I should



have known that it was too neat to be true.



Specifically, if you have an Indian-type "thin-fat" physique, with lots of fat around the abdominal organs, and not much muscle or fat anywhere else, you



can have a BMI of 22 and an excellent chance of getting type 2 diabetes.



Abdominal circumference is often touted as a better guide to health than BMI, and now I see one case where it works a lot better.



I found an article quite quickly which seems to show a "reasonable" risk:



http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/6/1562.full



In particular, Figure 1.



All their data show a monotonic mapping of risk to BMI, but even for the

lowest risk category, it's hardly less than 10 percent (except for the

older age group, which I expect can be explained as, having more life to

live produces a higher remaining-lifetime risk).



Likewise, their data shows that being morbidly obese doesn't guarantee you

to have diabetes, though if you had just a handful of such people in

question, you'd very likely have several sufferers among them.



Thanks, that looks like good data. If I'd gone to the trouble of searching for myself, rather than relying on what has turned out to be medical



mythology, I hope that I'd have managed to find it.





Hi Bill,



Off topic again, but here is something interesting on Columbus day for
how society lies to itself about things, health, history etc:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/you_are_still_being_lied_to_howard_zinns_columbus_and_the_myth_of_human_progress/

People are still told Columbus was a good guy when in history he was
terrible. Its the same thing for diet, we are told lies about what is
healthy as human health isn't a priority for the industrial medical complex.

Perhaps not, but since you know as much about human health as the average school-child knows about Columbus, what you tell us is misleading.

If you did know a bit more, you'd be a liar, but since your intention is to propagate your own dismal state of misinformation rather than to

maliciously misinform, you are merely a fool rather than a rogue.
>

Hi Bill,

Check out this link, it shows how modern science based agriculture has
been proven to be inefficient and destructive compared to natural
grassland feeding animals. It has a reference to scientific american in
there.

http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/grass-fed-beef-and-global-warming/

Its the same for the immune system, engineered solutions like vaccines
are inefficient and destructive too. There are epidemics of illness
everywhere you look now, diabetes, dementia, autism.. these are all the
products of what you consider "intelligent".

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/10/2013 08:30, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/14/2013 5:42 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:22:45 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/14/2013 6:07 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

If you did know a bit more, you'd be a liar, but since your intention
is to propagate your own dismal state of misinformation rather than to

maliciously misinform, you are merely a fool rather than a rogue.


Hi Bill,

Check out this link, it shows how modern science based agriculture has
been proven to be inefficient and destructive compared to natural
grassland feeding animals. It has a reference to scientific american in
there.

http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/grass-fed-beef-and-global-warming/

Whilst grass fed beef certainly tastes better and massive overuse of
prophylactic antibiotics and growth hormones by US industrial meat
production is causing problems that report is strongly biassed.

US monoculture will come badly unstuck sooner or later since farmers are
wilfully ignoring good crop rotation practices and as a result soils are
damaged and weeds are also becoming RoundUp Ready(TM).

Minimum inputs farming is a rational solution to maximising yield and
minimising environmental damage. Anything else is faddish junk science.

Its the same for the immune system, engineered solutions like vaccines
are inefficient and destructive too. There are epidemics of illness

Vaccines are highly efficient. They were discovered as a result of the
anecdotal evidence that milk maids who got cowpox didn't get smallpox.
One of my maths teachers was one of the last people in the UK to catch
smallpox. He bore the scars for the rest of his life.

Variolation - a much higher risk method of crude vaccination against
smallpox was known to the Chinese and Indian cultures since the 10th
century. Jenner perfected it in the west from cowpox. His verification
of its efficacy would not be permitted under modern medical ethics.

everywhere you look now, diabetes, dementia, autism.. these are all the
products of what you consider "intelligent".

cheers,
Jamie

Diabetes is mainly due to the US habit of vastly overeating junk food
and huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup with everything. Dementia
increasing because we are living longer. You don't have to go too far
back to have infantile diseases killing a high proportion of all
children and TB and malaria seeing off the rest by about 40. The few
that were left standing after that tended to live to a ripe old age.
(unless cholera or typhoid from contaminated water got them first)

UK is seeing a resurgence of measles mumps and rubella in the teenage
population of the worried well who were not immunised due to the last
big vaccine scare over MMR. This will be hardline Darwinism in action.
Kids who have no protection against these nasty childhood diseases are
at serious risk of lasting damage from infection. Certain regions herd
immunity has broken down and outbreaks are proving hard to control.

Vaccines have eliminated smallpox and nearly got TB and polio under
control until religious zealots started killing the medical teams.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Greegor]

Vaccines have eliminated smallpox and nearly
got TB and polio under control until
religious zealots started killing the medical teams.

Those deaths were only because spooks got caught
actually using a vaccination team as a spy cover.

Blaming that onto religious zealots
or anti-vaccination people is wrong.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 17:54:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 10:30:09 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 02:33:56 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 05:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 21:52:05 UTC+11, Greegor wrote:

Tell the truth.

I never do anything else.

Your claim is fatuous,

Scarcely. I could have written that I never post anything that I don't believe to be true, which has exactly the same information content.

It certainly does not, since the first case is unconditional and
states that you always tell the truth, while in the second you admit
that your belief that something is true might be flawed.

Since I'm the one that's deciding whether what I post is true, this is an academic distinction.

---
Ah, then, since later on in your post you admit that: "Of course I'm
aware that one's personal idiosyncrasies filter one's inputs.", you
should realize that that applies to you as well as to everyone else
and that your own idiosyncrazies may make you post what seems to you
to be true, but which - in reality - isn't.

Therefore, your statement that you never do anything but tell the
truth could be wrong.
---

In your rather pedestrian way you've chosen to dodge the issue by
clipping and falsifying, so here, for your perusal, is my reply t
your earlier post where you state that you never do anything else but
tell the truth.

The word you should have found was pedantic, rather than pedestrian, since it is based on a rather better grasp of discourse theory than you have mastered.

---
The word 'pedestrian' exquisitely conveyed my meaning, so it may be
your filters' settings which led to your errant conclusion.
---

"Your claim is fatuous, since being as intelligent as you claim to be
should make you aware that one's personal idiosyncrazies often filter
one's inputs in order to make them more palatable to - and thus mask
their real content from - the viewer."

Of course I'm aware that one's personal idiosyncrasies filter one's inputs.

I don't happen to spend much time making my output more palatable to the reader,

---
Read a little more critically and you may find that it wasn't the
reader I was referring to, it was the writer.
---

>and I certainly don't spend time masking the content - if anything I'm careful to make >it difficult for the reader to misconstrue what I write.

---
Please...

If you're about anything you're about sophistry, so your attempts at
making it difficult for the reader to misconstrue what you write are
attempts to bamboozle.
---

The English term for this is "calling a spade a bloody shovel".

If you haven't noticed this, you need to go to reading comprehension classes - as I seem to suggested in times past.

---
Don't you mean: "to have suggested"?

--
JF