Driver to drive?

[George Neuner]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:07:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/09/2013 11:04 PM, George Neuner wrote:
VMware also runs *on* Linux hosts

Of course. But that won't preserve an existing installation.

VMware Converter creates VM images from existing installations. Note
that I have only used it on Windows and have *not* tried it on a Linux
box, but I have been told it is pretty straightforward with most
systems.

Whether it is worthwhile depends on the devices involved. Obviously
there is no point if you depend on some bus card device that can't be
transported to a newer host. But VMware has no problem with USB,
serial, parallel and most SCSI devices - it even handles many of the
partial SCSI implementations typical of printers and scanners.

George

 

[Greegor]

BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence.

G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man.

BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time.

Pointing out the long term evolution of immunity
is exactly the opposite of social darwinism.

It's not "social" at all.

So much so that in this particular issue, man's
immediate personal emotional (social) needs run
counter to the stated goal if observed from an
evolutionary (hard science) perspective.

The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents
supposedly "hard science" arguments based
on short term statistical results.

I merely pointed out that the short term
gains of vaccination could easily backfire
when considered from a really long term
evolutionary perspective.

Hard science supports vaccination ONLY
in the short term, but supports the
anti-vaccine people very well on an
evolutionary time scale.

Isn't it cheating to look only at the
short term outcome and ignore the
evolutionary effects?

I just searched and it appears that
epidemiology has been forced to address
evolution in parasites (diseases)
because of the shorter time scale.

So far it looks like epidemiology
totally ignores evolution of our
human immune system.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 10/10/2013 7:36 PM, George Neuner wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:07:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/09/2013 11:04 PM, George Neuner wrote:
VMware also runs *on* Linux hosts

Of course. But that won't preserve an existing installation.

VMware Converter creates VM images from existing installations. Note
that I have only used it on Windows and have *not* tried it on a Linux
box, but I have been told it is pretty straightforward with most
systems.

That's interesting. You and I seem to be having an interated failure to
communicate on some of the other issues, though. It's hard enough
future-proofing one's computing installations without having the tools
decide that they won't cooperate.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 11 October 2013 15:28:09 UTC+11, Greegor wrote:

BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence.

G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man.

BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time.

Pointing out the long term evolution of immunity
is exactly the opposite of social darwinism.

It's not "social" at all.

Like "social darwinism" you "evolutionary argument" was based on a grossly over-simplified idea of what was going one. It was an example of the same kind intellectual defect, nothing more.

So much so that in this particular issue, man's
immediate personal emotional (social) needs run
counter to the stated goal if observed from an
evolutionary (hard science) perspective.

The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents
supposedly "hard science" arguments based
on short term statistical results

I merely pointed out that the short term
gains of vaccination could easily backfire
when considered from a really long term
evolutionary perspective.

Hard science supports vaccination ONLY
in the short term, but supports the
anti-vaccine people very well on an
evolutionary time scale.

Isn't it cheating to look only at the
short term outcome and ignore the
evolutionary effects?

I just searched and it appears that
epidemiology has been forced to address
evolution in parasites (diseases)
because of the shorter time scale.

So far it looks like epidemiology
totally ignores evolution of our
human immune system.

That doesn't seem to be true. The subject is of interest to evolutionary biologists, and we do know how our immune system differs significantly from that of the jawless vetebrates. Ours is - in fact - very similar to that of the higher primates.

http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00011732.pdf

The human immune system produces a lot of different antibodies which react to the surface proteins of bacteria and viruses. The number is large, if necessarily finite but seems to be big enough to cover the possible range of pathogens. Any antibody that recognises a foreign protein starts off a process that generates a lot more antibodies which direct killer T-cells to dispose of the invaders.

Vaccination exploits this feature by providing enough foreign protein to kick-start this process, so that there are lots of antibodies around when a real target pathogen appears.

The fine-tuning of the immune system that has been going on in recent human evolution seems have been confined to adjusting the speed and specificity of the antibody response - we've opted for a faster, less specific, response which stops pathogens faster, at the cost of lumbering us with more false positives in terms of auto-immune disease.

Your enthusiasm for giving up on vaccines would push us further down that path.

You think that a population that had to mount it's own immune response, rather than taking advantage of vaccination would evolve a "better" immune system, but in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher risk of auto-immune disease, including arthritis.

Vaccination, in fact, just deals with a very narrow spectrum of the diseases to which we are exposed - in practice just the ones that make us very sick (which evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary advantage in killing your host and the ideal condition for the pathogen to induce is one where the host is infectious and mobile for as long as possible).

Claiming that vaccination is preserving the "less fit" is a very superficial and misleading way of looking at what's going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Paul E Bennett]

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).

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:36:01 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<52577221.403@electrooptical.net>:

That's interesting. You and I seem to be having an interated failure to
communicate on some of the other issues, though. It's hard enough
future-proofing one's computing installations without having the tools
decide that they won't cooperate.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

mm is anybody stopping you from writing a version of fdisk that does stick
to your concept of how partitions should be divided?

Linux has always been, at least for me, 'if it does not exist write it'.
or sometimes 'I cannot be bothered to learn this ..i*t' so I will write my own app.

Old Dutch saying (and I am sure it is universal):
One should not look a given horse in the mouth.

And 'I want Linux to be compatible with Microsoft <whatever>' is NOT on MY list of priorities.

As to 'future proof', not one new kernel I tried had the same bugs as the previous ones.
And the driver API changes, video4linux, the DVB driver, OSS , Alsa, etc etc,
changes every year or moon phase or sunspot,
have not figured out when exactly ..
Meaning you have to rewrite your apps every time in many cases,
including all scripts (command line flags change...).
Now YOU did chose Linux, so get used to it.

All that, mind you, I ONLY run Linux, except for an old win98 but that seems to not understand
the new graphics card, so its screen is now so messed up... should delete it..
but has my scanner driver....
Not that I use the scanner, I use the camera...
Anyways future proof what year did you have in mind?
In the computer world 6 month is already an unknown,
6 years ? 60? Maybe we all have a chip implant by then, and only need to _think_ to partition our brains.

 

[John Devereux]

Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> writes:

BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was
in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence.

G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man.

BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time.

Pointing out the long term evolution of immunity
is exactly the opposite of social darwinism.

It's not "social" at all.

So much so that in this particular issue, man's
immediate personal emotional (social) needs run
counter to the stated goal if observed from an
evolutionary (hard science) perspective.

The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents
supposedly "hard science" arguments based
on short term statistical results.

I merely pointed out that the short term
gains of vaccination could easily backfire
when considered from a really long term
evolutionary perspective.

Hard science supports vaccination ONLY
in the short term, but supports the
anti-vaccine people very well on an
evolutionary time scale.

Isn't it cheating to look only at the
short term outcome and ignore the
evolutionary effects?

I just searched and it appears that
epidemiology has been forced to address
evolution in parasites (diseases)
because of the shorter time scale.

So far it looks like epidemiology
totally ignores evolution of our
human immune system.

That is what medicine does in general - it tries to save people who
would otherwise die. Yes, if they were just allowed to die (or be
euthanized or sterilized in the case of non-fatal defects) the gene pool
would be "stronger", in the sense that a descendant would be more likely
to survive in some post-apocalyptic fall-of-civilization scenario. But
that is not what a civilized society does.

The idea was more popular during the first part of the last century, but
seems to have fallen out of favour these days. Due to some unfortunate
misunderstandings and implementation issues in the 30's I think.


--

John Devereux

 

[John Devereux]

Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> writes:

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).

VUTRAX PCB CAD, libre office, emacs, gcc-arm, gdb, openocd, git.


--

John Devereux

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 10/11/2013 05:08 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:36:01 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
52577221.403@electrooptical.net>:

That's interesting. You and I seem to be having an interated failure to
communicate on some of the other issues, though. It's hard enough
future-proofing one's computing installations without having the tools
decide that they won't cooperate.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

mm is anybody stopping you from writing a version of fdisk that does stick
to your concept of how partitions should be divided?

Linux has always been, at least for me, 'if it does not exist write it'.
or sometimes 'I cannot be bothered to learn this ..i*t' so I will write my own app.

Old Dutch saying (and I am sure it is universal):
One should not look a given horse in the mouth.

And 'I want Linux to be compatible with Microsoft <whatever>' is NOT on MY list of priorities.

As to 'future proof', not one new kernel I tried had the same bugs as the previous ones.
And the driver API changes, video4linux, the DVB driver, OSS , Alsa, etc etc,
changes every year or moon phase or sunspot,
have not figured out when exactly ..
Meaning you have to rewrite your apps every time in many cases,
including all scripts (command line flags change...).
Now YOU did chose Linux, so get used to it.

All that, mind you, I ONLY run Linux, except for an old win98 but that seems to not understand
the new graphics card, so its screen is now so messed up... should delete it..
but has my scanner driver....
Not that I use the scanner, I use the camera...
Anyways future proof what year did you have in mind?
In the computer world 6 month is already an unknown,
6 years ? 60? Maybe we all have a chip implant by then, and only need to _think_ to partition our brains.

In other words, if one has any complaints about Linux, it's proof
positive that one is a lazy asshole. And here I thought that the
communication failure was accidental.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:20:22 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<52580926.1060500@electrooptical.net>:

On 10/11/2013 05:08 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:36:01 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
52577221.403@electrooptical.net>:

That's interesting. You and I seem to be having an interated failure to
communicate on some of the other issues, though. It's hard enough
future-proofing one's computing installations without having the tools
decide that they won't cooperate.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

mm is anybody stopping you from writing a version of fdisk that does stick
to your concept of how partitions should be divided?

Linux has always been, at least for me, 'if it does not exist write it'.
or sometimes 'I cannot be bothered to learn this ..i*t' so I will write my own app.

Old Dutch saying (and I am sure it is universal):
One should not look a given horse in the mouth.

And 'I want Linux to be compatible with Microsoft <whatever>' is NOT on MY list of priorities.

As to 'future proof', not one new kernel I tried had the same bugs as the previous ones.
And the driver API changes, video4linux, the DVB driver, OSS , Alsa, etc etc,
changes every year or moon phase or sunspot,
have not figured out when exactly ..
Meaning you have to rewrite your apps every time in many cases,
including all scripts (command line flags change...).
Now YOU did chose Linux, so get used to it.

All that, mind you, I ONLY run Linux, except for an old win98 but that seems to not understand
the new graphics card, so its screen is now so messed up... should delete it..
but has my scanner driver....
Not that I use the scanner, I use the camera...
Anyways future proof what year did you have in mind?
In the computer world 6 month is already an unknown,
6 years ? 60? Maybe we all have a chip implant by then, and only need to _think_ to partition our brains.


In other words, if one has any complaints about Linux, it's proof
positive that one is a lazy asshole. And here I thought that the
communication failure was accidental.

The communication failure was possibly the channel that told you Linux does everything, and you believed it.

BTW if you dont want some scripts to call some routine (program) (say fdisk),
rename the orignal mv fdisk not_today_fdisk , make a small script called fdisk that returns OK (exit 0),
and see what happens (if anything).
I do things like that sometimes to 'stay in control', you can make it log to with 'echo'.
Sometimes it helps, and sometimes it does not, modifying the source a bit does the same.
Yes it is hard work, I spend a full day programming asm, it is hard work too, especially if you want zero errors.
Maybe it will erase all your disks, YMMV
;-)

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:32:46 -0400, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com>
wrote:

Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

R.


Roberto Waltman wrote:
David Brown wrote:
... I use Linux for most of my work and play.

Just curious - Which Linux distribution do you use?

I used Ubuntu for several years, but I'm not sure I want to follow
Canonical in whatever path they want to take it.

Thinking of switching to Scientific Linux (Fedora) when I get back to
"work and play." (Crunchbang Linux is also in the run.)

I have used openSuse for quite a while. If you want better EDA tools
fedora may be best. *buntu make me uncomfortable about security. Maybe
it is time to try Debian or a derivative again. I prefer package
(dependency) manager style Linuxes currently, though i can and will at
need install from source.

?-)

 

[Don Y]

Hi Paul,

On 10/11/2013 12:37 AM, Paul E Bennett wrote:

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 set up different VCS's for several of the projects I am
working on, currently. I figured that was the only way I would see
the *real* cost of using a particular VCS for an *entire* project
(not just "coding"). Presently, I'm trying to build a server for
Perforce (taking advantage of their "free" download) but the machine
I had earmarked for that purpose only has about 700G spinning so
I need to find a bigger server (hopefully in the next couple of weeks).
I'm not keen on having to set up a system *twice* if I don't have to!

 

[Greegor]

BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was
BS > in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence.
G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man.
BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was
BS > superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time.
G > Pointing out the long term evolution of immunity
G > is exactly the opposite of social darwinism.
G > It's not "social" at all.

BS > Like "social darwinism" you "evolutionary argument"
BS > was based on a grossly over-simplified idea of what
BS > was going one. It was an example of the same kind
BS > intellectual defect, nothing more.

You likened two things that were opposite.
Then you accuse me of an intellectual defect?

Slow man, you are a hoot!

G > So much so that in this particular issue, man's
G > immediate personal emotional (social) needs run
G > counter to the stated goal if observed from an
G > evolutionary (hard science) perspective.
G >
G > The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents
G > supposedly "hard science" arguments based
G > on short term statistical results.
G >
G > I merely pointed out that the short term
G > gains of vaccination could easily backfire
G > when considered from a really long term
G > evolutionary perspective.
G >
G > Hard science supports vaccination ONLY
G > in the short term, but supports the
G > anti-vaccine people very well on an
G > evolutionary time scale.
G >
G > Isn't it cheating to look only at the
G > short term outcome and ignore the
G > evolutionary effects?
G >
G > I just searched and it appears that
G > epidemiology has been forced to address
G > evolution in parasites (diseases)
G > because of the shorter time scale.
G >
G > So far it looks like epidemiology
G > totally ignores evolution of our
G > human immune system.

John Devereux wrote

That is what medicine does in general - it tries to save people who
would otherwise die. Yes, if they were just allowed to die (or be
euthanized or sterilized in the case of non-fatal defects) the gene pool
would be "stronger", in the sense that a descendant would be more likely
to survive in some post-apocalyptic fall-of-civilization scenario. But
that is not what a civilized society does.

The idea was more popular during the first part of the last century, but
seems to have fallen out of favour these days. Due to some unfortunate
misunderstandings and implementation issues in the 30's I think.
John Devereux

See bottom response to Slow Man.

G > I just searched and it appears that
G > epidemiology has been forced to address
G > evolution in parasites (diseases)
G > because of the shorter time scale.
G >
G > So far it looks like epidemiology
G > totally ignores evolution of our
G > human immune system.

[...]

BS > Vaccination exploits this feature by providing enough
BS > foreign protein to kick-start this process, so that
BS > there are lots of antibodies around when a real target
BS > pathogen appears.
BS >
BS > The fine-tuning of the immune system that has been going
BS > on in recent human evolution seems have been confined
BS > to adjusting the speed and specificity of the antibody
BS > response - we've opted for a faster, less specific,
BS > response which stops pathogens faster, at the cost
BS > of lumbering us with more false positives in terms
BS > of auto-immune disease.

It's astounding that you brought up auto-immune
disease connected with false positives yet you
didn't consider that as a result of vaccines
representing a false positive and possibly
causing auto-immune disease.

BS > Your enthusiasm for giving up on vaccines
BS > would push us further down that path.

I proposed no such thing, Slow man.

I mostly objected to the pro-vaccination people
using "hard science" to steamroller the tiny
voice of concern that we must maintain.

You think that anti-vaccine concerns are kooky.
I see both extremes as KOOKY.
Placing "blind faith" in vaccines carte blanche
is AT LEAST as dangerous as vaccine conspiracy
theory people.

But you're a stateist and a Socialist, Slow Man.
Of course you have blind faith in huge bureaucroacy.

BS > You think that a population that had to mount it's own
immune response, rather than taking advantage of
vaccination would evolve a "better" immune system, but
in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher
risk of auto-immune disease, including arthritis.

BS > Vaccination, in fact, just deals with a very narrow
spectrum of the diseases to which we are exposed - in
practice just the ones that make us very sick (which
evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary
advantage in killing your host and the ideal condition
for the pathogen to induce is one where the host is
infectious and mobile for as long as possible).

BS > Claiming that vaccination is preserving
BS > the "less fit" is a very superficial and
BS > misleading way of looking at what's going on.

Bull Squat BS. Just wicked "hard science".

I didn't say it was nice.
I didn't say I advocate it.
You of all people should have recognized
the hard science that socialists LOVE so
very much!

You didn't even name it!

It's called Eugenics!

Hard Science, yet evil.

And by the way, it was practiced by those
evil people from the 1940's with your
ideology whom you claim stole the NAME
ONLY of your beloved Socialism.

But even more astoundingly, even after
all of that nightmare, Eugenics was still
practiced globally well into the 1980's
though it was usually not called by that
name to avoid the stigma.

Sloman, Did you ever see the movies:
Rabbit Proof Fence?
The Gods Must Be Crazy?

Tell me what you know of the treatment
of Abo's in your current homeland?

How their kids were stolen by the STATE
to try to turn them into respectable
white people?

How did that all work out?
Tell the truth.

Tell me some more about the glories
of socialism and social work as
practiced on the Abos!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 12 October 2013 21:52:05 UTC+11, Greegor wrote:

BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was
BS > in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence.

G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man.

BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was
BS > superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time.

G > Pointing out the long term evolution of immuninty
G > is exactly the opposite of social darwinism.

G > It's not "social" at all.

BS > Like "social darwinism" you "evolutionary argument"
BS > was based on a grossly over-simplified idea of what
BS > was going one. It was an example of the same kind
BS > intellectual defect, nothing more.

You likened two things that were opposite.
Then you accuse me of an intellectual defect?

I associated two examples of pernicious nonsense.
It's not altogether surprising that you fail to recognise the common intellectual defect involved.

> Slow man, you are a hoot!

You may like to think so. Sadly, it's you that's providing the comic element.

G > So much so that in this particular issue, man's
G > immediate personal emotional (social) needs run
G > counter to the stated goal if observed from an
G > evolutionary (hard science) perspective.

Your perspective doesn't owe anything to hard science.

G > The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents
G > supposedly "hard science" arguments based
G > on short term statistical results.

It's actual hard science. Vaccination does save lives. There are low frequency side effects but they don't create anything like as many victims.

G > I merely pointed out that the short term
G > gains of vaccination could easily backfire
G > when considered from a really long term
G > evolutionary perspective.

Since you clearly have no idea how the immune system is evolving at the moment, this was mere speculation - it had nothing to do with science - hard or soft - at all.

G > Hard science supports vaccination ONLY
G > in the short term, but supports the
G > anti-vaccine people very well on an
G > evolutionary time scale.

And you evidence for the second - false - claim is?

G > Isn't it cheating to look only at the
G > short term outcome and ignore the
G > evolutionary effects?

You haven't got a clue how the immune system is evolving at the moment. Claiming that stopping vaccination would speed it's evolution in a favourable direct is simply wishful thinking. Since the likely route of further evolution would be towards and even-more more over-sensitive immune system and more auto-immune disease is maliciously misleading wishful thinking.

> G > I just searched

You might have been wiser to search before you started pontificating.

G > and it appears that
G > epidemiology has been forced to address
G > evolution in parasites (diseases)
G > because of the shorter time scale.
G
G > So far it looks like epidemiology
G > totally ignores evolution of our
G > human immune system.

John Devereux wrote

That is what medicine does in general - it tries to save people who
would otherwise die. Yes, if they were just allowed to die (or be
euthanized or sterilized in the case of non-fatal defects) the gene pool
would be "stronger", in the sense that a descendant would be more likely
to survive in some post-apocalyptic fall-of-civilization scenario. But
that is not what a civilized society does.

The idea was more popular during the first part of the last century, but
seems to have fallen out of favour these days. Due to some unfortunate
misunderstandings and implementation issues in the 30's I think.

John Devereux

See bottom response to Slow Man.

G > I just searched and it appears that
G > epidemiology has been forced to address
G > evolution in parasites (diseases)
G > because of the shorter time scale.
G
G > So far it looks like epidemiology
G > totally ignores evolution of our
G > human immune system.

An ill-informed and totally false claim, as evidenced by this URL, which you seem to have snipped

http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00011732.pdf

BS > Vaccination exploits this feature by providing enough
BS > foreign protein to kick-start this process, so that
BS > there are lots of antibodies around when a real target
BS > pathogen appears.
BS
BS > The fine-tuning of the immune system that has been going
BS > on in recent human evolution seems have been confined
BS > to adjusting the speed and specificity of the antibody
BS > response - we've opted for a faster, less specific,
BS > response which stops pathogens faster, at the cost
BS > of lumbering us with more false positives in terms
BS > of auto-immune disease.

It's astounding that you brought up auto-immune
disease connected with false positives yet you
didn't consider that as a result of vaccines
representing a false positive and possibly
causing auto-immune disease.

You'd find it less astounding if you were aware that everybody involved has considered this possibility and found that there's no evidence for it.

BS > Your enthusiasm for giving up on vaccines
BS > would push us further down that path.

I proposed no such thing, Slow man.

You may think so, but you don't think very well.

I mostly objected to the pro-vaccination people
using "hard science" to steamroller the tiny
voice of concern that we must maintain.

The ill-formed voices of concern get a lot more air time than the vile inadequacies of their "evidence" deserves

> You think that anti-vaccine concerns are kooky.

I see them as ill-informed and ill-equipped to construct plausible arguments. Sadly, their ignorance allows them to construct convoiicning, if mis-leading arguments.

> I see both extremes as KOOKY.

That because you don't understand the science involved, which make your opinion just extra irrelevant froth.

Placing "blind faith" in vaccines carte blanche
is AT LEAST as dangerous as vaccine conspiracy
theory people.

It would be, if all vaccination's supporters were blind. Happily it's more influential supporters are influential precisely because they are familiar with the scientific evidence and it's practical signficance. You might aspire to being equally well educated, but dogmatic nitwits aren't easily educated.

> But you're a stateist and a Socialist, Slow Man.

In your eyes.

> Of course you have blind faith in huge bureaucracy.

The bit of the bureaucracy involved isn't all that large, and the members that I can call an acquaintances were tolerably clever. I don't have blind faith in anything, but the scientific case for vaccination is clear and comprehensive.

BS > You think that a population that had to mount it's own
immune response, rather than taking advantage of
vaccination would evolve a "better" immune system, but
in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher
risk of auto-immune disease, including arthritis.

BS > Vaccination, in fact, just deals with a very narrow
spectrum of the diseases to which we are exposed - in
practice just the ones that make us very sick (which
evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary
advantage in killing your host and the ideal condition
for the pathogen to induce is one where the host is
infectious and mobile for as long as possible).

BS > Claiming that vaccination is preservin
BS > the "less fit" is a very superficial and
BS > misleading way of looking at what's going on.

Bull Squat BS. Just wicked "hard science".

You like to think so, but you can't construct a rational argument that supports this point of view.

I didn't say it was nice.
I didn't say I advocate it.
You of all people should have recognized
the hard science that socialists LOVE so
very much!

Socialists do like hard science. Marx and Engels basically introduced statistical evidence into economic debate, and provided a rational basis for discussing politics and economics.

Right-wing nitwits like to assert their fatuous opinions as if they had some intrinsic value, without having to g to the bother of learning a bit about the subjects on which they pontificate. They don't like science - all too often it disagrees with what they want to believe.

You didn't even name it!
It's called Eugenics!
Hard Science, yet evil.

Scarcely hard science. None of the pro-eugenics nitwits ever went to the trouble of establishing that the defects they wanted to select out of the population were in fact hereditary.

And by the way, it was practiced by those
evil people from the 1940's with your
ideology whom you claim stole the NAME
ONLY of your beloved Socialism.

But even more astoundingly, even after
all of that nightmare, Eugenics was still
practiced globally well into the 1980's
though it was usually not called by that
name to avoid the stigma.

Sloman, Did you ever see the movies:
Rabbit Proof Fence?
The Gods Must Be Crazy?

Tell me what you know of the treatment
of Abo's in your current homeland?

Quite a bit. Their life expectancy is shorter than that of the average Australian, unemployment levels higher, educational attainments poorer, and they are much more likely to die of diabetes and alcohol abuse.

They may do worse than Native Americans in the USA. There's no eugenics involved - it's simply cross-cultural problems.

How their kids were stolen by the STATE
to try to turn them into respectable
white people?

It did work from time to time, but it was totally immoral.

> How did that all work out?

Not well, but it does seem to be getting better. Some aboriginal communities are coming to terms with western culture, and have worked out ways of earning western levels of incomes without losing their identities.

> Tell the truth.

I never do anything else.

Tell me some more about the glories
of socialism and social work as
practiced on the Abos!

It's been well documented. Perhaps not well enough, but well enough for you to have found out. The worst anti-aboriginal excesses weren't practiced by socialists (who mainly wanted to enroll them in trade unions) but by Christian missionaries (who wanted to make them into properly dressed parishioners).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Greegor]

Bill Slow Man wrote:
> Right-wing nitwits like to assert their fatuous opinions as if they had some intrinsic value, without having to g to the bother of learning a bit about the subjects on which they pontificate. They don't like science - all too often it disagrees with what they want to believe.
----
Naturally you think you don't do ANY of those things! LOL

 

[Anssi Saari]

Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> writes:

Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

I have Debian in my home desktop and NAS, Sabayon in my personal
laptop. I picked Sabayon for the laptop to get new stuff quickly since
it's a rolling distribution. So small weekly updates instead of a huge
one twice a year like Fedora or never like Mint...

For chip design work (at work) I've usually used RHEL or CentOS since
that's what the tools officially support.

 

[John Fields]

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, 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.

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_.


--
JF

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/11/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

That doesn't seem to be true. The subject is of interest to evolutionary biologists, and we do know how our immune system differs significantly from that

of the jawless vetebrates. Ours is - in fact - very similar to that of
the higher primates.

http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00011732.pdf

The human immune system produces a lot of different antibodies which react to the surface proteins of bacteria and viruses. The number is large, if

necessarily finite but seems to be big enough to cover the possible
range of pathogens. Any antibody that recognises a foreign protein
starts off a process

that generates a lot more antibodies which direct killer T-cells to
dispose of the invaders.

Vaccination exploits this feature by providing enough foreign protein to kick-start this process, so that there are lots of antibodies around when a real

target pathogen appears.

The fine-tuning of the immune system that has been going on in recent human evolution seems have been confined to adjusting the speed and specificity of the

antibody response - we've opted for a faster, less specific, response
which stops pathogens faster, at the cost of lumbering us with more
false positives in

terms of auto-immune disease.

Your enthusiasm for giving up on vaccines would push us further down that path.

You think that a population that had to mount it's own immune response, rather than taking advantage of vaccination would evolve a "better" immune system, but

in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher risk of
auto-immune disease, including arthritis.

Vaccination, in fact, just deals with a very narrow spectrum of the diseases to which we are exposed - in practice just the ones that make us very sick (which

evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary advantage in
killing your host and the ideal condition for the pathogen to induce is
one where the host is

infectious and mobile for as long as possible).

Claiming that vaccination is preserving the "less fit" is a very superficial and misleading way of looking at what's going on.

Hi,

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

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

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.

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

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney