Discussion:
What does DFS' anecdotal evidence say about him?
(too old to reply)
mlw
2006-05-10 13:34:52 UTC
Permalink
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for Linux freezes. (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Linux hangs. (0.09 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,900 for Linux spontaneous reboots. (0.29
seconds) Total: 7.55 million
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,700,000 for Windows freezes. (0.28 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Windows hangs. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for Windows spontaneous reboots. (0.47
seconds)
Total: 15.8 million
With an installed base of 30x the Linux base, Windows generates only twice
as many complaints.
ergo, Linux is 15x as difficult and troublesome to manage as Windows.
Of course it's flawed. But it's not dishonest. As I said, it's just
anecdotal evidence of how truly awful Linux/OSS is.
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of disconnected
words, lets see what google says about DFS:

DFS rapes children -- 20,000 hits
DFS kills squirrels -- 246 hits
DFS supports bin laden -- 12,200 hits
DFS supports terrorism -- 23,900 hits
DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits
DFS sucks cock -- 38,300 hits

So, if DFS' methodology has any validity at all, we must conclude:

DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
tab
2006-05-10 13:36:45 UTC
Permalink
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
mlw
2006-05-10 13:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
DFS
2006-05-10 14:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for Linux
freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual product with
a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the search results are very
good.

This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for Linux
freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking, paging down and
trying to find one result that wasn't actually about Linux freezing. But
they're hard to find, aren't they?

LMAO!
mlw
2006-05-10 14:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for Linux
freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual product
with a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the search results are
very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for Linux
freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking, paging down and
trying to find one result that wasn't actually about Linux freezing. But
they're hard to find, aren't they?
Actually, if you LOOKED at the results, you would see that much of the first
few pages (the most relevant) seem to address hardware issues. Sure, but if
you want to characterize your 1,520,000 evidence, you need to sample more
than the first few pages. Try hitting page 10 or 19 and almost NONE of it
has to do with Linux at all. So, at best, you really only have maybe 30 or
40 actual "linux freezes" entries, and 1,519,960 pages like:

"Using my PC's CDROM drive freezes up Windows XP?" from the Ask ...
Tech Support: Using my PC's CDROM drive freezes up Windows XP? ... To solve
freezes on drive reads. Update the driver from manufacturer ...
www.askdavetaylor.com/using_my_pcs_cdrom_drive_freezes_up_windows_xp.html -
34k - May 8, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Matrox Technical Support Forums :: View topic - WinXP freezes ...
sometimes i got freezes without bluescreen or error messages (mostly occours
on ... Linux FAQs, Pin-Out FAQs, Video Editing FAQs, DualHead2Go FAQs ...
forum.matrox.com/mga/viewtopic.php?t=9752&start=15& - 52k - Cached - Similar
pages

Hell Freezes Over: Evaluating the Move to Intel at The Apple Blog
... many Windows applications can already run without recompilation on
Linux. ... 15 Responses to “Hell Freezes Over: Evaluating the Move to
Intel” ...
www.theappleblog.com/2005/06/06/hell-freezes-over/ - 51k - Cached - Similar
pages
DFS
2006-05-10 14:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as
valid argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to
call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for Linux
freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual
product with a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the
search results are very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for
Linux freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking,
paging down and trying to find one result that wasn't actually about
Linux freezing. But they're hard to find, aren't they?
Actually, if you LOOKED at the results, you would see that much of
the first few pages (the most relevant) seem to address hardware
issues. Sure, but if you want to characterize your 1,520,000
evidence, you need to sample more than the first few pages. Try
hitting page 10 or 19 and almost NONE of it has to do with Linux at
all. So, at best, you really only have maybe 30 or 40 actual "linux
freezes" entries,
ROFL! Can you not read?

I sampled many pages: 10, 20, 58, 99, and so on. And nearly all the
1,920,000 results are actually about Linux freezing up.
Post by mlw
"Using my PC's CDROM drive freezes up Windows XP?" from the Ask ...
Tech Support: Using my PC's CDROM drive freezes up Windows XP? ... To
solve freezes on drive reads. Update the driver from manufacturer ...
www.askdavetaylor.com/using_my_pcs_cdrom_drive_freezes_up_windows_xp.html
- 34k - May 8, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages
Matrox Technical Support Forums :: View topic - WinXP freezes ...
sometimes i got freezes without bluescreen or error messages (mostly
occours on ... Linux FAQs, Pin-Out FAQs, Video Editing FAQs,
DualHead2Go FAQs ...
forum.matrox.com/mga/viewtopic.php?t=9752&start=15& - 52k - Cached -
Similar pages
Hell Freezes Over: Evaluating the Move to Intel at The Apple Blog
... many Windows applications can already run without recompilation on
Linux. ... 15 Responses to “Hell Freezes Over: Evaluating the Move
to Intel” ...
www.theappleblog.com/2005/06/06/hell-freezes-over/ - 51k - Cached -
Similar pages
Well, that's three. Spend enough time and you might even find 100 results
(or even 1000) that aren't about Linux freezing up. 100 or 1000 out of
1,920,000? Doesn't change ANYTHING.
mlw
2006-05-10 14:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as
valid argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to
call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for Linux
freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual
product with a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the
search results are very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for
Linux freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking,
paging down and trying to find one result that wasn't actually about
Linux freezing. But they're hard to find, aren't they?
Actually, if you LOOKED at the results, you would see that much of
the first few pages (the most relevant) seem to address hardware
issues. Sure, but if you want to characterize your 1,520,000
evidence, you need to sample more than the first few pages. Try
hitting page 10 or 19 and almost NONE of it has to do with Linux at
all. So, at best, you really only have maybe 30 or 40 actual "linux
freezes" entries,
ROFL! Can you not read?
I sampled many pages: 10, 20, 58, 99, and so on. And nearly all the
1,920,000 results are actually about Linux freezing up.
Oh, please you are such a liar.
Peter Jensen
2006-05-10 20:00:08 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
ROFL! Can you not read?
I sampled many pages: 10, 20, 58, 99, and so on. And nearly all the
1,920,000 results are actually about Linux freezing up.
Oh, please you are such a liar.
And he acts all indignant when I question his intellectual honesty.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People that so consistently
and easily lie just sicken me.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEYkZHd1ZThqotgfgRAt1WAKCC5PmtTvpZkbRpy2DCCdMwRELhvQCfdlHP
QtH7HVxNKyRAPYvX1wkE0jo=
=qklZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

To be is to be related.
-- C.J. Keyser.
Jim
2006-05-10 14:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for Linux
freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual product with
a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the search results are very
good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for Linux
freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking, paging down and
trying to find one result that wasn't actually about Linux freezing. But
they're hard to find, aren't they?
LMAO!
take it by product, not by kernel family

Debian crash: 2.98 million
Windows crash: 37.3 million
Debian freeze: 888,000
Windows freeze: 9.71 million
Debian spontaneous reboot: 14,600
Windows spontaneous reboot: 143,000

if you're going to do a comparative study, at least make it fair.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Jim
2006-05-10 14:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for Linux
freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual product with
a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the search results are very
good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for Linux
freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking, paging down and
trying to find one result that wasn't actually about Linux freezing. But
they're hard to find, aren't they?
LMAO!
take it by product, not by kernel family
Debian crash: 2.98 million
Windows crash: 37.3 million
Debian freeze: 888,000
Windows freeze: 9.71 million
Debian spontaneous reboot: 14,600
Windows spontaneous reboot: 143,000
if you're going to do a comparative study, at least make it fair.
addendum: assume XP, as that's what I used for the search string:
"Windows XP ~"
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
mlw
2006-05-10 14:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
take it by product, not by kernel family
Debian crash: 2.98 million
Windows crash: 37.3 million
Debian freeze: 888,000
Windows freeze: 9.71 million
Debian spontaneous reboot: 14,600
Windows spontaneous reboot: 143,000
if you're going to do a comparative study, at least make it fair.
Don't even entertain the fool. Merely searching for a combination of two
words is meaningless without any sort of measurement of the distance, or
"nearness," between the two or better yet, a contextual analysis. Simply
finding pages that include "freezes" and "linux" tells you nothing.

For instance, many can be categorized as XP freezing but mention Linux in a
document footer. Do those count as Linux freezes?

The methodology is at best flawed, and it is proveable that google results,
taken like this, can match anything you want.

The random letters: evrqk get 50 hits! and of course, "DFS sucks cock" gets
over 38K hits.
DFS
2006-05-10 15:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as
valid argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to
call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits
for Linux freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an
actual product with a unique name, and an actual product behavior,
the search results are very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for
Linux freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking,
paging down and trying to find one result that wasn't actually about
Linux freezing. But they're hard to find, aren't they?
LMAO!
take it by product, not by kernel family
Debian crash: 2.98 million
Windows crash: 37.3 million
Debian freeze: 888,000
Windows freeze: 9.71 million
Debian spontaneous reboot: 14,600
Windows spontaneous reboot: 143,000
if you're going to do a comparative study, at least make it fair.
There's nothing fair about it. Per user, approx. 15x as many complaints
about Linux freezing, hanging and spontaneously rebooting are found on the
Internet as are found about Windows freezing, hanging and spontaneously
rebooting.
Chris Wilkinson
2006-05-11 02:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as
valid argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to
call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits
for Linux freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an
actual product with a unique name, and an actual product behavior,
the search results are very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for
Linux freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking,
paging down and trying to find one result that wasn't actually about
Linux freezing. But they're hard to find, aren't they?
LMAO!
take it by product, not by kernel family
Debian crash: 2.98 million
Windows crash: 37.3 million
Debian freeze: 888,000
Windows freeze: 9.71 million
Debian spontaneous reboot: 14,600
Windows spontaneous reboot: 143,000
if you're going to do a comparative study, at least make it fair.
There's nothing fair about it. Per user, approx. 15x as many complaints
about Linux freezing, hanging and spontaneously rebooting are found on the
Internet as are found about Windows freezing, hanging and spontaneously
rebooting.
Searched the whole internet have you? I think not. Your attempt to
mislead people, with poorly thought out subjective FUD, has got all
your slimy hallmarks dribbled all over it.

Most people would need to try pretty hard to appear as unintelligent,
uninformed, and biased as you do. Either you're actually like that
(in which case I have sympathy for you, and those around you), or
you're payed to continue this laughable little stand against those
who stand for the freedom of choice that Linux offers.

Failure for you is not an option, its the only result you will ever
see...
--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
Buford Ressup
2006-05-10 23:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits for
Linux freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an actual
product with a unique name, and an actual product behavior, the search
results are very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for Linux
freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking, paging down
and trying to find one result that wasn't actually about Linux freezing.
But they're hard to find, aren't they?
LMAO!
Use quotes for a more accurate sampling. This forces Google to search for
the exact phrase, rather than returning millions of pages that happen to
have those two or three words somewhere on it. Let's try it:

"linux locked up" 41 hits
"windows locked up" 175 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 4.3)

"linux froze" 72 hits
"windows froze" 3,860 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 53.6)

"linux freezes" 420 hits
"windows freezes" 23,200 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 55.2)

"linux crashed" 580 hits
"windows crashed" 31,500 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 54.3)

This isn't looking good for Windows, but it gets much worse. I think it's
safe to assume that everybody who runs Linux is aware that they're running
Linux and is savvy enough to distinguish between their computer and the OS
they're running. I think it's also safe to assume that a huge number of
Windows users, probably even an overwhelming majority of home users,
always use the word "computer" rather than "Windows". Most people do not
say "Windows crashed." Most people say their "computer crashed." Let's
see what those numbers give us:

"computer locked up" 33,100
"computer froze" 145,000 hits
"computer freezes" 238,000 hits
"computer crashed" 496,000 hits

If we assume that all those systems were running Windows, the new ratios
would be 807.3, 2013.3, 4311.6, and 9134.4, respectively. Of course,
there's no way of knowing for sure, short of examining hundreds of
thousands of web pages. But I suspect that the overwhelming majority were
windows boxes, simply because anyone running linux, and talking about it
on the web, refers to linux by name. People running Windows simply call
it "the computer."

I saw a perfect example of this, today. An electrician named George was
showing everyone a dollar bill he had received in change and was saving.
On the back, in red letters, was "whereisgeorge.com". A superintendent
asked him if he had been to that web site, and George said he hadn't. The
superintendent then recommended that he NOT go there, because he might get
a virus. The super said he never surfed anywhere unless he was already
familiar with the website or it was recommended by someone he trusted. I
couldn't resist mentioning that I never worried about viruses. He said,
"Yeah, because you probably don't have a computer!" I said, "No, it's not
that. I have three computers. I just don't run Windows." His glazed look
told me that he had no idea what I was talking about. To him, the
computer was an appliance. "Windows" was not separate from it: it was
part of it. Like the vast majority of Windows users, he never refers to
Windows itself. It's always "my computer."

So, what we have here, using your methodology, DFS, is Windows, at best,
being 807/30 = 27 times as likely to crash as Linux, and at worst, 9134/30
= 305 times as likely to crash as Linux.

And the real truth is that it's way worse than that. Linux users are FAR
more likely to be active on the Internet than Windows users, so a much
higher proportion of Linux crashes get mentioned somewhere on the Web. A
big percentage of Windows crashes never get mentioned anywhere on line.
Hell, when it's that common, it barely rates a mention, anyway.

That's the *real* story, DFS. Hope that helped.
DFS
2006-05-11 02:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buford Ressup
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as
valid argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to
call him on it.
It's not nonsense at all. Google returns a certain number of hits
for Linux freezes or Linux hangs. Because those words describe an
actual product with a unique name, and an actual product behavior,
the search results are very good.
This you know. You went clicking through the Google results for
Linux freezes, and you kept clicking and clicking and clicking,
paging down and trying to find one result that wasn't actually about
Linux freezing. But they're hard to find, aren't they?
LMAO!
Use quotes for a more accurate sampling.
You mean less accurate if you're looking for instances of Linux systems
freezing up, because if you dig through the results of Linux freezes (no
parens) you soon see...

* Red hat Linux 9 install freezes at "CD Found"
* Debian Sarge freezes (Linux)
* 2.6.* kernel freezes on compaq armada m700 laptop
* xorg-7.0 freezes on gentoo ppc64 linux with 9800 card
* System freezes (UP and SMP) when use a stressed java application

...and you quickly realize the majority of reported Linux freeze problems
are not phrased as "Linux freezes". Searches with no parens give a few
false positives, but not many because that combination of noun and verb are
so common.

Linux and locked up go together like Microsoft and money.
Post by Buford Ressup
This forces Google to
search for the exact phrase, rather than returning millions of pages
that happen to have those two or three words somewhere on it.
If I didn't know better I'd swear you were using mlw's slimy tactic of
claiming the words Linux and freeze are "coincidentally" related.
Yes, let's do try. But part of trying is adjusting your ratios for the size
of the Windows installed base vs. the size of the Linux installed base.
That ratio is approx. 30:1.
Post by Buford Ressup
"linux locked up" 41 hits
"windows locked up" 175 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 4.3)
Adjusted: 0.14 to 1
Post by Buford Ressup
"linux froze" 72 hits
"windows froze" 3,860 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 53.6)
Adjusted: 1.78 to 1
Post by Buford Ressup
"linux freezes" 420 hits
"windows freezes" 23,200 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 55.2)
Adjusted: 1.84 to 1
Post by Buford Ressup
"linux crashed" 580 hits
"windows crashed" 31,500 hits
(windows/linux ratio: 54.3)
Adjusted: 1.81 to 1
Post by Buford Ressup
This isn't looking good for Windows, but it gets much worse.
Did you check out Linux hung (no parens)? That's a fun one: 3.76 million.

How about Linux locked up (no parens)? What a doozy! 9.82 million!

And with a worldwide user base of *maybe* 20 million?

Scary.
Post by Buford Ressup
I think
it's safe to assume that everybody who runs Linux is aware that
they're running Linux and is savvy enough to distinguish between
their computer and the OS they're running.
It's also safe to say that everyone, and I do mean everyone, who runs
Windows knows they're running Windows the operating system. When they
bought the machine it said it came with Windows XP operating system. When
they boot it up it says Windows XP. When they shut down it says Windows XP.
Every time they click their start button it says Windows XP. Most every
computer ad now says "[Vendor] recommends Windows XP Professional"
Post by Buford Ressup
I think it's also safe to
assume that a huge number of Windows users, probably even an
overwhelming majority of home users, always use the word "computer"
rather than "Windows".
Not safe to say. If it was safe to say, Windows crashed (no parens) would
not return many Google hits relative to computer crashed (no parens).
Instead, there are almost as many.
Post by Buford Ressup
Most people do not say "Windows crashed."
Most people say their "computer crashed." Let's see what those
"computer locked up" 33,100
"computer froze" 145,000 hits
"computer freezes" 238,000 hits
"computer crashed" 496,000 hits
If we assume that all those systems were running Windows, the new
ratios would be 807.3, 2013.3, 4311.6, and 9134.4, respectively.
Assume makes an ass out of you and Linux.
Post by Buford Ressup
Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure, short
of examining hundreds of thousands of web pages.
True.
Post by Buford Ressup
But I suspect that the
overwhelming majority were windows boxes, simply because anyone
running linux, and talking about it on the web, refers to linux by
name. People running Windows simply call it "the computer."
You simply say that, but you simply have zero evidence, of any kind,
anecdotal or otherwise.
Post by Buford Ressup
I saw a perfect example of this, today. An electrician named George
was showing everyone a dollar bill he had received in change and was
saving. On the back, in red letters, was "whereisgeorge.com". A
superintendent asked him if he had been to that web site, and George
said he hadn't. The superintendent then recommended that he NOT go
there, because he might get a virus. The super said he never surfed
anywhere unless he was already familiar with the website or it was
recommended by someone he trusted. I couldn't resist mentioning that
I never worried about viruses. He said, "Yeah, because you probably
don't have a computer!" I said, "No, it's not that. I have three
computers. I just don't run Windows." His glazed look told me that
he had no idea what I was talking about. To him, the computer was an
appliance. "Windows" was not separate from it: it was part of it.
Like the vast majority of Windows users, he never refers to Windows
itself. It's always "my computer."
I suspect you said you ran Linux and he said "Isn't that a Windows
knockoff?" That's what happened the last time I took a Linux Format
magazine to lunch and spoke with the waiter (kind of my friend) at a
favorite Chinese buffet. I actually tried to advocate Linux a bit, and he
totally dismissed it. He wasn't interested in using Linux, or OpenOffice.
He preferred to pirate MS Office, he said.
Post by Buford Ressup
So, what we have here, using your methodology, DFS, is Windows, at
best, being 807/30 = 27 times as likely to crash as Linux, and at
worst, 9134/30 = 305 times as likely to crash as Linux.
You explicitly *didn't* use my methodology (if it can be called that).
Post by Buford Ressup
And the real truth is that it's way worse than that. Linux users are
FAR more likely to be active on the Internet than Windows users, so a
much higher proportion of Linux crashes get mentioned somewhere on
the Web.
Do you have any kind of link or evidence that supports this conjecture?
Didn't think so.

But let's assume your claim is true. Using my original numbers (per user,
approx 15x as many Linux freezes hangs and spontaneous reboots are
reported), this means Linux users would have to be online at 15x the rate of
Windows users to show similar figures. And since we KNOW that isn't true,
you're stuck with nothing. Again.
Post by Buford Ressup
A big percentage of Windows crashes never get mentioned
anywhere on line. Hell, when it's that common, it barely rates a
mention, anyway.
Same with Linux freezes and hangs and app crashes. For example, most cola
Linux nuts lie and deny they even experience them. Then you hit Google and
bang!
Post by Buford Ressup
That's the *real* story, DFS. Hope that helped.
Well, sorry, but it didn't. But being the gracious man I am, I will say
thanks for playing.
Sinister Midget
2006-05-11 10:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buford Ressup
I saw a perfect example of this, today. An electrician named George was
showing everyone a dollar bill he had received in change and was saving.
On the back, in red letters, was "whereisgeorge.com". A superintendent
asked him if he had been to that web site, and George said he hadn't. The
superintendent then recommended that he NOT go there, because he might get
a virus. The super said he never surfed anywhere unless he was already
familiar with the website or it was recommended by someone he trusted.
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.

There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Jim Richardson
2006-05-11 17:03:57 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Buford Ressup
I saw a perfect example of this, today. An electrician named George was
showing everyone a dollar bill he had received in change and was saving.
On the back, in red letters, was "whereisgeorge.com". A superintendent
asked him if he had been to that web site, and George said he hadn't. The
superintendent then recommended that he NOT go there, because he might get
a virus. The super said he never surfed anywhere unless he was already
familiar with the website or it was recommended by someone he trusted.
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEY259d90bcYOAWPYRAjoxAKDq+ouVGKRurzPjRnjw8CCDD8uZKwCgqblE
p8GGnqkbUsqOnPah9iz6hik=
=x9+d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you don't know how to do something, you don't know how to do it with a
computer.
Sinister Midget
2006-05-12 10:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.

My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*

Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.

* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.

** Naturally, I don't believe it's incorrect. But I can't prove it
either way. Nor can anyone else.
--
Excuse my english. I went to US public school.
Mark Kent
2006-05-13 19:20:19 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.

As you say, just a handful.
Post by Sinister Midget
** Naturally, I don't believe it's incorrect. But I can't prove it
either way. Nor can anyone else.
You need to think /very/ carefully about that statement - it has a major
flaw in it...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"I'd love to go out with you, but I did my own thing and now I've got
to undo it."
Sinister Midget
2006-05-13 20:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.

Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).

Let's see (AIDS, which I presume you meant):

(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)

It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
** Naturally, I don't believe it's incorrect. But I can't prove it
either way. Nor can anyone else.
You need to think /very/ carefully about that statement - it has a major
flaw in it...
I was referring to a being greater than myself (I call him "God" while
others may have another name for him/her/it), which is no longer there
after snipping it.

Do you have solid, undeniable proof of non-existence? I'm not claiming
any solid proof *of* existence.

That was my statement. And I'm sticking to it.
--
There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you
do something, we'd all love one another.
-- Frank Zappa
Mark Kent
2006-05-14 15:19:05 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.

How bad does it need to be?
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
** Naturally, I don't believe it's incorrect. But I can't prove it
either way. Nor can anyone else.
You need to think /very/ carefully about that statement - it has a major
flaw in it...
I was referring to a being greater than myself (I call him "God" while
others may have another name for him/her/it), which is no longer there
after snipping it.
Do you have solid, undeniable proof of non-existence? I'm not claiming
any solid proof *of* existence.
That was my statement. And I'm sticking to it.
The flaw remains.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.
-- W.C. Fields' epitaph
Sinister Midget
2006-05-14 17:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
right above your response. In fact, let me quote me:

It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'll quote me again:

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.

The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.

But it still needs to be fixed.

While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.

We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world. We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.

People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
I was referring to a being greater than myself (I call him "God" while
others may have another name for him/her/it), which is no longer there
after snipping it.
Do you have solid, undeniable proof of non-existence? I'm not claiming
any solid proof *of* existence.
That was my statement. And I'm sticking to it.
The flaw remains.
Perhaps you'd like to explain it? Do you mean "proving a negative"? If
so, I can see that.

However, the point being that such a thing isn't provable one way or
the other. You believe something unprovable, or you don't.
--
I wrote a few children's books...not on purpose.
-- Steven Wright
Mark Kent
2006-05-14 19:36:16 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
I was referring to a being greater than myself (I call him "God" while
others may have another name for him/her/it), which is no longer there
after snipping it.
Do you have solid, undeniable proof of non-existence? I'm not claiming
any solid proof *of* existence.
That was my statement. And I'm sticking to it.
The flaw remains.
Perhaps you'd like to explain it? Do you mean "proving a negative"? If
so, I can see that.
However, the point being that such a thing isn't provable one way or
the other. You believe something unprovable, or you don't.
I was coming at this from an entirely different perspective (it wasn't
meant to be a serious point, btw), but if you believe in a God, and he's
actually there, then at least he must know. And if the predictions made
by christianity are true, then they must know too. In fact, as far more
people have died than are alive, then more people than are alive must
also know, and so on. It was more of a metaphysical point than anything
else - don't take it seriously...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.
-- W.C. Fields' epitaph
Jim Richardson
2006-05-14 20:39:00 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:36:16 +0100,
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
if it's 5 million a year, this year, and next, that's not exponential
growth. Is it?
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Why don't you *think* before you spout? at no time has SM said "fuck it,
they're just africans" or anything of the sort. Debate what he *said*
not what you *wish* he'd said.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
since in the very post you are replying to, SM said "But it still
needs to be fixed." how do you get the idea that he said we shouldn't
worry about it?


He's right about the fear mongering, not just the aids issue, but lots
more. There's always someone ranting about this end of the world problem
or another. All too often, with bullshit science, and mistaken
statisitics. Does that mean that bad things can't happen? or that we
should ignore them if they do? of course not. It means examining the
claims of the ones pushing the catastrophe of the day, and using your
fucking brain.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEZ5Vkd90bcYOAWPYRAkeiAKC2o7AFfHi011EV2yZ1YK13QmtlXgCg0b6H
5IMUkO/ybVaQIDfNKiuZv2E=
=B/dm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
My friends tell me that I refuse to grow up, but I know they're just
jealous because they don't have pajamas with feet.
Mark Kent
2006-05-15 06:54:42 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Peter Jensen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:36:16 +0100,
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
if it's 5 million a year, this year, and next, that's not exponential
growth. Is it?
If you differentiate the growth rate for a particular year, it will give
you a figure for that year, won't it? That doesn't stop it being an
exponential growth rate, though, does it?
Post by Peter Jensen
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Why don't you *think* before you spout? at no time has SM said "fuck it,
they're just africans" or anything of the sort. Debate what he *said*
not what you *wish* he'd said.
You're not adding any value here. 40 Million people is an amazingly
large number, but apparently, this is just 'fear mongers' or some such.
I doubt that there's ever been a bigger killer than this - perhaps you
can find one (starvation aside, as that's not a disease per se).

Why don't you debate the point I'm making, rather than what you wished
I'd said?
Post by Peter Jensen
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
since in the very post you are replying to, SM said "But it still
needs to be fixed." how do you get the idea that he said we shouldn't
worry about it?
His point above is bordering on the incomprehensible - I'm trying to
work out what it is he's trying to say. You don't seem to know either,
as you're referring to a different part of his posting, as I did.
Post by Peter Jensen
He's right about the fear mongering, not just the aids issue, but lots
more. There's always someone ranting about this end of the world problem
or another. All too often, with bullshit science, and mistaken
statisitics. Does that mean that bad things can't happen? or that we
should ignore them if they do? of course not. It means examining the
claims of the ones pushing the catastrophe of the day, and using your
fucking brain.
If you can find anything worse than Aids, I'd be interested. 40 Million
so far, and rising.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
<Kethryvis> Gruuk: UFies are above and beyond the human race :)
Da'Punk-A
2006-05-15 17:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Peter Jensen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:36:16 +0100,
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
if it's 5 million a year, this year, and next, that's not exponential
growth. Is it?
If you differentiate the growth rate for a particular year, it will give
you a figure for that year, won't it? That doesn't stop it being an
exponential growth rate, though, does it?
Post by Peter Jensen
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Why don't you *think* before you spout? at no time has SM said "fuck it,
they're just africans" or anything of the sort. Debate what he *said*
not what you *wish* he'd said.
You're not adding any value here. 40 Million people is an amazingly
large number, but apparently, this is just 'fear mongers' or some such.
I doubt that there's ever been a bigger killer than this - perhaps you
can find one (starvation aside, as that's not a disease per se).
Why don't you debate the point I'm making, rather than what you wished
I'd said?
Post by Peter Jensen
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
since in the very post you are replying to, SM said "But it still
needs to be fixed." how do you get the idea that he said we shouldn't
worry about it?
His point above is bordering on the incomprehensible - I'm trying to
work out what it is he's trying to say. You don't seem to know either,
as you're referring to a different part of his posting, as I did.
Post by Peter Jensen
He's right about the fear mongering, not just the aids issue, but lots
more. There's always someone ranting about this end of the world problem
or another. All too often, with bullshit science, and mistaken
statisitics. Does that mean that bad things can't happen? or that we
should ignore them if they do? of course not. It means examining the
claims of the ones pushing the catastrophe of the day, and using your
fucking brain.
If you can find anything worse than Aids, I'd be interested. 40 Million
so far, and rising.
Mark, I think you have taken what Midget wrote in completely the wrong
way. He originally stated that "yes [AIDS is] awful but no it doesn't
affect every man, woman and child on the earth". Of course he's wrong
in that it /does/ affect everyone to some extent, even if it just means
you use a condom instead of relying on non-barrier contraception. But
Midget was talking about how the horror stories of the 80s have not
panned out. Yes, we have horror stories - but they're /different/
horror stories.

In the course of this discussion Midget /has/ said some things which
are perhaps objectionable. His dismissal of AIDS as not an
international crisis, for instance. Africa is a continent, not a
country. Many (most?) of the nations in Africa are seriously affected
by AIDS, therefore it /is/ an international crisis. But President
George W. Bush called Africa a nation - it is, unfortunately, a common
error. Even people who know Africa to be a continent sometimes make
this error unconsciously. This, I think, is due to the way Africa has
been treated, and thought of, throughout history. Probably to make
black slavery "acceptable", Africa was portrayed as a huge otherness, a
"darkness". Its history and civilisation was denied, its people reduced
in everyone else's eyes to "savages". Yes, we should try to rise above
that stunted level now, but such a widespread, prolonged propaganda
campaign will have affects for a very long time, and it's a bit much to
accuse someone of racism when he makes a common error of fact.
Sinister Midget
2006-05-15 19:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Da'Punk-A
Mark, I think you have taken what Midget wrote in completely the wrong
way. He originally stated that "yes [AIDS is] awful but no it doesn't
affect every man, woman and child on the earth". Of course he's wrong
in that it /does/ affect everyone to some extent, even if it just means
you use a condom instead of relying on non-barrier contraception. But
Midget was talking about how the horror stories of the 80s have not
panned out. Yes, we have horror stories - but they're /different/
horror stories.
In the course of this discussion Midget /has/ said some things which
are perhaps objectionable. His dismissal of AIDS as not an
international crisis, for instance. Africa is a continent, not a
country. Many (most?) of the nations in Africa are seriously affected
by AIDS, therefore it /is/ an international crisis. But President
George W. Bush called Africa a nation - it is, unfortunately, a common
error. Even people who know Africa to be a continent sometimes make
this error unconsciously. This, I think, is due to the way Africa has
been treated, and thought of, throughout history. Probably to make
black slavery "acceptable", Africa was portrayed as a huge otherness, a
"darkness". Its history and civilisation was denied, its people reduced
in everyone else's eyes to "savages". Yes, we should try to rise above
that stunted level now, but such a widespread, prolonged propaganda
campaign will have affects for a very long time, and it's a bit much to
accuse someone of racism when he makes a common error of fact.
Whether I made errors or not (nobody has actually pointed any out;
instead what has been stated is what they've interpreted my words to
mean rather than the actual meaning), to accuse someone of racism based
solely on having a view that doesn't conform to conventional wisdom is
a complete lack of responsibility on the respondent's part.

I didn't say anything about race. I didn't hint anything about race. I
didn't make any statements about "them" or "over there" (except to
attempt the correcting of a wrong-headed notion that attributed such
thinking to me). In fact I made efforts to steer away from that because
it's not applicable to anything I think or wrote.

I know fully that Africa is a continent. I didn't make any mistake of
considering it in any other light.

Asia has AIDS cases, too (again, not just the two regions, and I also
know it's not a country; I spent 10 years of my life in various places
in the region). Some places have had large numbers of cases. I don't
see anyone accusing me of being racist for not acknowledging there are
troubles (all local, as I've been saying) in that regard.

I also mentioned Ebola, which suffered from similar hysteria; Y2K,
which had a huge Chicken Little following internationally; e-coli
strains which have cropped up in several places; I could also mention
bird flu, which is waning in some places <http://tinyurl.com/mx3gt>,
though the hysteria about pandemics doesn't show any signs of letting
up.

I guess those don't prove racism, so let's minimize those and use only
the things that help. (Funny how we can minimize one set of
circumstances that don't support our contention, while proclaiming
others to be the most important things in life when they /do/ fit our
needs.)

Yes, it has an international facet. But the level of the continual hype
doesn't give the reason. It never has, though it sounded much more
plausible in the beginning when there was no history of it being
completely wrong.

The level of hysteria has been my point. It's still my point. Ignoring
that point disregards the entire purpose of my comments, as well as
creating what I think are other consequences to the need for working on
solving it.

But my comments still stand: the "sky is falling" language we've been
getting for over a quarter century hasn't lived up to expectations. Yet
it continues with the same cacophony it's enjoyed since the beginning.
That is not, and cannot be, helpful to fixing the problem.

I'll try putting it this way: if it's had any long term effect, it's a
tossup whether it's motivated people to act, or it's made them more
apathetic and complacent to the problem as time has passed.

Whipping people into frenzies has the latter effect when the frenzies
they are whipped into continue to not reach the levels of the dire
warnings, while the warnings continue unabated.
--
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into a
sewer and die.
-- Mel Brooks
Mark Kent
2006-05-16 07:53:21 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Da'Punk-A
Mark, I think you have taken what Midget wrote in completely the wrong
way. He originally stated that "yes [AIDS is] awful but no it doesn't
affect every man, woman and child on the earth". Of course he's wrong
in that it /does/ affect everyone to some extent, even if it just means
you use a condom instead of relying on non-barrier contraception.
That would be point no.1, certainly...
Post by Da'Punk-A
But
Midget was talking about how the horror stories of the 80s have not
panned out. Yes, we have horror stories - but they're /different/
horror stories.
That would be my major issue - 40 Million dead /so far/, a rising
infection rate, currently at 5 million/year, is a sign of a dreadful
problem which is not going away.

To consider that people have understood the risks would be wrong, even
here, in the UK, around 10% of single females have clamidia, most are
unaware that they carry it, but unprotected sex has become the norm
again, because they're too young to recall the publicity of the 1980s,
so they have no concept of just how nasty Aids is. That we haven't had
a huge spread is more luck than judgement, and Aids is /rising/ in the
UK, not falling. The UK is much like all other industrialised countries
in this respect.
Post by Da'Punk-A
In the course of this discussion Midget /has/ said some things which
are perhaps objectionable. His dismissal of AIDS as not an
international crisis, for instance. Africa is a continent, not a
country. Many (most?) of the nations in Africa are seriously affected
by AIDS, therefore it /is/ an international crisis. But President
George W. Bush called Africa a nation - it is, unfortunately, a common
error.
I had no idea about this... usenet is brilliant, learn something new
every day :-)
Post by Da'Punk-A
Even people who know Africa to be a continent sometimes make
this error unconsciously. This, I think, is due to the way Africa has
been treated, and thought of, throughout history. Probably to make
black slavery "acceptable", Africa was portrayed as a huge otherness, a
"darkness". Its history and civilisation was denied, its people reduced
in everyone else's eyes to "savages". Yes, we should try to rise above
that stunted level now, but such a widespread, prolonged propaganda
campaign will have affects for a very long time, and it's a bit much to
accuse someone of racism when he makes a common error of fact.
Well, I'd no idea that such an error would be commonly made. To me, 25
Million infected in one continent, ironically perhaps the one with the
least developed transport, so least chances of people moving around,
proves to be the worst affected. Why? Because it's the only place on
earth which didn't have the publicity campaigns of the 1980s, so the
people just /don't know/ about the risks.

I tend to agree that it's ridiculous to have to paint a hugely distorted
picture to engage people, but if that's what you have to do, then
complaining about it won't really help... The only real solution would
be education, but even then, people are all different, and few people
are ever able to sensibly estimate risk.

On things like bird-flu, we have the problem of a lack of scientific
knowledge - we still do not know how the original plague came about in
Egypt (Africa - interesting coincidence), how it moved to Europe, although
we do know that it spread, over a long time, over the whole continent -
it killed 34 Million people. Aids has /already/ exceeded that, and is
showing no signs of stopping. It also hit Asia and the Middle East.
Not only that, but outbreaks repeated for hundreds of years afterwards,
I've no idea about the total death toll, but it was enormous.

It's quite true that medicine has moved on hugely since those days, but
even our medical systems have limits... if we were to get a killer-flu
pandemic, most people accept that we would be unable to stop it. We
lack the medical facilities, and we lack any useful vaccination
capability. The best approach is to encourage people to avoid initial
infection, and if that means making them a bit paranoid about birds for
a while, then that's fine by me.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day.
Sinister Midget
2006-05-15 05:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
I'm saying, according to the claims that have been made for the last
25+ years, most or all of us should be dead, or getting so close to the
point of death as to be nearly indistinguishable.

That gibber has not panned out. I am no closer to death due to AIDS
today than I was when I first heard such predictions. That doesn't mean
'never'. But it does mean I'm going to take such claims with about the
fraction of a grain of salt they deserve.

It also doesn't mean it isn't a scourge. It's only a scoruge in some
places, though. Not the one predicted for the international community.

Internationally we want to do something about it. In that way it's of
international import. But it hasn't killed untold millions in every
country, which is what the predictions were.

Those same predictions come up constantly. Yet, other than the places
where it /has/ been a huge problem, other than the places where it /is/
spreading rapidly, the effect, directly, on the entire planet is not
what the vendors of fear and chaos continue to tell us.

Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.

As for it or any other disease being "far enough away" to influence
thinking, yes, I don't waste a large part of my day worrying that I'm
about to catch AIDS from someone. That's altogether different from
thinking nothing should be done because it only affects "them"
primarily.

I don't worry inordinately about herpes either. Or mumps, plague,
e-coli strains, tuberculosis or any of a lot of things. Not because
they can't affect me and mine. Not because they're somewhere else or
no. Not because I have this or that vaccination. It's because their
chances of affecting me are relatively slim. Slim enough that I'm not
going to spend my life fretting over them. And those things are going
on around me. Just like AIDS.

They're still things that need some caution, some concern and some work
at prevention and eradication. TB in particular is epidemic in some
places. But those are local problems that need to be solved locally,
possibly with international or national help.

I view AIDS pretty much in the same light.

Again, my sole point is that we were and are treated to overblown tales
of dire consequences on an international scale unless we spend every
bit on money and all of our waking hours devoting outselves to getting
it under control. It hasn't turned out to be the case. I have serious
doubts it ever will. It's possible. But it isn't likely in my view.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
I was referring to a being greater than myself (I call him "God" while
others may have another name for him/her/it), which is no longer there
after snipping it.
Do you have solid, undeniable proof of non-existence? I'm not claiming
any solid proof *of* existence.
That was my statement. And I'm sticking to it.
The flaw remains.
Perhaps you'd like to explain it? Do you mean "proving a negative"? If
so, I can see that.
However, the point being that such a thing isn't provable one way or
the other. You believe something unprovable, or you don't.
I was coming at this from an entirely different perspective (it wasn't
meant to be a serious point, btw), but if you believe in a God, and he's
actually there, then at least he must know. And if the predictions made
by christianity are true, then they must know too. In fact, as far more
people have died than are alive, then more people than are alive must
also know, and so on. It was more of a metaphysical point than anything
else - don't take it seriously...
Ah. I didn't get your point.
--
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that
you've got it made.
-- Groucho Marx
Mark Kent
2006-05-15 07:05:05 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
I'm saying, according to the claims that have been made for the last
25+ years, most or all of us should be dead, or getting so close to the
point of death as to be nearly indistinguishable.
That gibber has not panned out. I am no closer to death due to AIDS
today than I was when I first heard such predictions. That doesn't mean
'never'. But it does mean I'm going to take such claims with about the
fraction of a grain of salt they deserve.
It also doesn't mean it isn't a scourge. It's only a scoruge in some
places, though. Not the one predicted for the international community.
Internationally we want to do something about it. In that way it's of
international import. But it hasn't killed untold millions in every
country, which is what the predictions were.
It's killed told millions in every country, though, hasn't it? One
issue to consider is how the average member of the population is not all
that switched on - how do you ensure that they comprehend the risks of
something like Aids, and change their behaviour in order to minimise the
risks? How to you ensure that eg., health systems change how they
manage blood supplies?

You do /not/ achieve this by writing a few learned articles in a
medical journal, you achieve it by ensuring that appropriate information
is carried in the mainstream press. In order for /anything/ to be
carried in the mainstream press, it /has/ to be exciting/dramatic, or it
won't be there at all. This is because the public at large take no
notice /unless/ it is exciting.

You have cause and effect reversed here.
Post by Sinister Midget
Those same predictions come up constantly. Yet, other than the places
where it /has/ been a huge problem, other than the places where it /is/
spreading rapidly, the effect, directly, on the entire planet is not
what the vendors of fear and chaos continue to tell us.
Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.
Y2K could've been a very serious issue, as I'm sure you're aware.
That fact that the work done was virtually completely successful, thus
there was no major impact, and it was a triumph for those who worked
on it. Of course, the problem with achieving a success where the
result is that there is /no event/ afterwards, is that there's always
someone like yourself to claim it wasn't worth doing, because you're
unable to work out the consequences of not doing the work, or have some
other political point to make. People like yourself are precisely the
reason I stopped working on Operations and Maintenance systems at work -
I just leave things to go wrong now, because there's credit for fixing,
whereas before I used to fix /before/ they went wrong, but was always
accused of scaremongering and wasting time.
Post by Sinister Midget
As for it or any other disease being "far enough away" to influence
thinking, yes, I don't waste a large part of my day worrying that I'm
about to catch AIDS from someone. That's altogether different from
thinking nothing should be done because it only affects "them"
primarily.
I don't worry inordinately about herpes either. Or mumps, plague,
e-coli strains, tuberculosis or any of a lot of things. Not because
they can't affect me and mine. Not because they're somewhere else or
no. Not because I have this or that vaccination. It's because their
chances of affecting me are relatively slim. Slim enough that I'm not
going to spend my life fretting over them. And those things are going
on around me. Just like AIDS.
Aids is far worse than any of the above, as I presume that you know. Or
perhaps you don't, and the publicity hasn't been enough to educate you?
One problem that's well known is how poor the public at large are at
estimating and comparing risks. If you genuinely believe that herpes or
mumps are remotely comparable with Aids in terms of either the ease with
which they can be contracted, or the likelyhood of death, then the
publicity has completely failed with yourself. Perhaps this is why you
call it 'scaremongering'. Unfortunately, we have a large number of
people - an /increasing/ number of people here (and in the US, I
believe), who suffer the same problem, and /are/ catching Aids. It will
kill them.
Post by Sinister Midget
They're still things that need some caution, some concern and some work
at prevention and eradication. TB in particular is epidemic in some
places. But those are local problems that need to be solved locally,
possibly with international or national help.
I view AIDS pretty much in the same light.
See my point above - Aids is not remotely like TB. I believe we need
far /more/ publicity to explain this to folks like yourself.
Post by Sinister Midget
Again, my sole point is that we were and are treated to overblown tales
of dire consequences on an international scale unless we spend every
bit on money and all of our waking hours devoting outselves to getting
it under control. It hasn't turned out to be the case. I have serious
doubts it ever will. It's possible. But it isn't likely in my view.
I'm very concerned that you regard 40 million deaths /so far/ as
overblown concern. I would like to know how many you'd see as a
problem?
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
I was referring to a being greater than myself (I call him "God" while
others may have another name for him/her/it), which is no longer there
after snipping it.
Do you have solid, undeniable proof of non-existence? I'm not claiming
any solid proof *of* existence.
That was my statement. And I'm sticking to it.
The flaw remains.
Perhaps you'd like to explain it? Do you mean "proving a negative"? If
so, I can see that.
However, the point being that such a thing isn't provable one way or
the other. You believe something unprovable, or you don't.
I was coming at this from an entirely different perspective (it wasn't
meant to be a serious point, btw), but if you believe in a God, and he's
actually there, then at least he must know. And if the predictions made
by christianity are true, then they must know too. In fact, as far more
people have died than are alive, then more people than are alive must
also know, and so on. It was more of a metaphysical point than anything
else - don't take it seriously...
Ah. I didn't get your point.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
<Kethryvis> Gruuk: UFies are above and beyond the human race :)
Sinister Midget
2006-05-15 16:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Jim Richardson
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:32 GMT,
Post by Sinister Midget
A minor diversion here. We received one of those bills and went to look
at it. It's safe. It just documents the travels of certain serial-
numbered bills throughout the US/world. It's not accurate because it's
voluntary. But it can be interesting in trivial ways.
There might be viruses, but I doubt it. I wouldn't know for sure
anyway. We looked at it with a Mac.
It's more than merely interesting. Someone did a study on how a
pandemic might spread if we get a seriously bad one with modern
transportation. Since the bills are usually passed by hand, (few people
mail cash) it's a good surrogate for tracking a contact chain. Imaging
the bill being a vector, and looking at it's path as such.
I didn't dig through the site much. In fact, what bit I looked at was
just some of a page my wife had on the screen. So if any/all of that
was mentioned, I missed it.
My only problem with the pandemic scenarios is that each succeeding one
in this century has had smaller and smaller effect (in the US, anyway).
That doesn't prove one couldn't be more ravaging than anything else
we've had. But it tends to minimize the causes for worry somewhat.*
Basically, I don't worry about those things much. I should have been
dead several times long ago, and I'm not. This leads me to the possibly
misplaced conclusion** that some(one|thing) is watching over me or
whatnot.
* AIDS was going to destroy the planet. That was 25+ years ago. It
still hasn't, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that it ever
will, although the merchants of fear never seem to run out of
reasons for panic. Yes, it's awful. No, it isn't affecting every
man, woman and child on earth. The bird flu has killed what, a few
hundred? Ebola kinda died out, although it's not completely gone.
Mad cow was bad, and it's still around. It's cost a lot in monetary
and livestock terms, but not so many deaths of humans. Every year
there are plague cases. Usually a handful of deaths are attributed
to it.
Yeah, it's hardly significant at all. Only 2.5 million people in Africa
died from it in 2005, there were only 3.2 million new infections, so
clearly it's not spreading, and there are only 25 million infected
people in Africa at the moment, and it only reduces their life
expectancy from 62 to 47 years if it's treated. Of course, at this
rate, it'll take a few decades before everyone on Africa has it.
As you say, just a handful.
Plague? that's what I was referring to with the 'only a hndful"
comment.
Perhaps you mean AIDS (an earlier reference) or Ebola (which I very
much doubt ever reached a fraction of that level).
(2.5 MILLION + 3.2 MILLION + 25 MILLION) / (6 to 7 BILLION)
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it hardly
consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been told for a
quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
I was referring to Aids, of course. Presumably your view, then, is that
25 million infected people in 20 years in Africa isn't significant?
The /known/ global total is about 40 million, clearly about half of
these are in Africa, the rest spread fairly evenly. Infection rate in
Africa is about 5 million/year, and there are 50 million orphaned
children in Africa as a direct result of this problem.
Read what I said. Not what you wanted me to say or thought I said. It's
It may be devastating as a local problem in some places, but it
hardly consitutes an international scourge of the level we've been
told for a quarter century it would be.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
Wow - so 40 Million people - is not living up to your expectation? Wow.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
How bad does it need to be?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying it hasn't
lived up to the hyperbole it's gotten.
The hype was that we would be far worse off than is the reality. That's
the point I was making. Unless something drastic happens, we /won't/ be
as bad off, internationally, as they hype said and continues to claim.
You have to be kidding me! At 5 million a year growth in Africa, with
an exponential growth, how long will it take before the whole population
of Africa has it? Will that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
But it still needs to be fixed.
While I'm making that particular point, I'll add that this same
phenomenon happens all too often: fear-mongers tell us how awful things
are going to be, while most of us don't apply simple logic, look at
real evidence, examine reality or employ any of a whole host of other
methods of separating fact from fiction in the things we're being told.
We've become an emotional, knee-jerk world.
Jesus Christ - you're saying 40 Million people, that's 40,000,000 in
just a few years, is some kind of knee-jerk? Is this just racism?
Don't they matter because they're African? If it were 20% of the
population of the US instead, would that be enough for you?
Post by Sinister Midget
We're becoming more
emotional and more knee-jerk. If something sounds like it's going to be
true and awful, our reaction is all too often to believe it and react,
even without having any clear idea of what it is we're supposed to be
reaction /to/, much less any basis to believe it in the first place
beyond it sounding possible.
People selling fear will continue selling it, no matter how many times
they're shown to be wrong. If they're right one time out of a hundred,
that's more than enough vindication to them for them to continue
spreading their disease.
So you think that we shouldn't worry then - is it far enough away for
you?
I'm saying, according to the claims that have been made for the last
25+ years, most or all of us should be dead, or getting so close to the
point of death as to be nearly indistinguishable.
That gibber has not panned out. I am no closer to death due to AIDS
today than I was when I first heard such predictions. That doesn't mean
'never'. But it does mean I'm going to take such claims with about the
fraction of a grain of salt they deserve.
It also doesn't mean it isn't a scourge. It's only a scoruge in some
places, though. Not the one predicted for the international community.
Internationally we want to do something about it. In that way it's of
international import. But it hasn't killed untold millions in every
country, which is what the predictions were.
It's killed told millions in every country, though, hasn't it? One
issue to consider is how the average member of the population is not all
that switched on - how do you ensure that they comprehend the risks of
something like Aids, and change their behaviour in order to minimise the
risks? How to you ensure that eg., health systems change how they
manage blood supplies?
I hasn't killed millions in every country. It has killed multi-millions
in some countries. It has affected millions and/or multi-millions in
several countries.

To manage blood supplies and the like, the people managing need to be
aware. Unscrupulous people will infect it intentionally. Educating them
will stop the ones that aren't criminal. So education also needs ot be
a part of the mix. But expecting education alone to ensure safety won't
wash.

Bad people have knowingly had sex with people for the express purpose
of infecting them. Good thing they knew about the disease, huh? There
was a thing printed in a national magazine a couple of years ago about
how some gays were having sex, one with HIV, one without, both knowing
what was going on, with the intent of infecting the uninfected.
(Supposedly it was some sort of turnon or sexual rush at the precise
moment of passing the infection.) Education did them a lot of good, and
was a great boon to society, right.

Education is necessary. But so are the use of personal protection and
personal responibility.

That's neither here nor there. There are far few deaths in far fewer
places than the dire predictions of the early 80s told us about. Did
education play a role in that? You bet. Did the scare mongering induce
some caution in groups of people that helped keep a lid on things?
Maybe. But the scare mongering continues despite the absolute fact that
it has been wrong repeatedly since the beginning.
Post by Mark Kent
You do /not/ achieve this by writing a few learned articles in a
medical journal, you achieve it by ensuring that appropriate information
is carried in the mainstream press. In order for /anything/ to be
carried in the mainstream press, it /has/ to be exciting/dramatic, or it
won't be there at all. This is because the public at large take no
notice /unless/ it is exciting.
The ends justify the means? It's perfectly rational and acceptable to
lie, exaggerate and mislead if it's for a "good cause"?
Post by Mark Kent
You have cause and effect reversed here.
Post by Sinister Midget
Those same predictions come up constantly. Yet, other than the places
where it /has/ been a huge problem, other than the places where it /is/
spreading rapidly, the effect, directly, on the entire planet is not
what the vendors of fear and chaos continue to tell us.
Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.
Y2K could've been a very serious issue, as I'm sure you're aware.
That fact that the work done was virtually completely successful, thus
there was no major impact, and it was a triumph for those who worked
on it. Of course, the problem with achieving a success where the
result is that there is /no event/ afterwards, is that there's always
someone like yourself to claim it wasn't worth doing, because you're
unable to work out the consequences of not doing the work, or have some
other political point to make. People like yourself are precisely the
reason I stopped working on Operations and Maintenance systems at work -
I just leave things to go wrong now, because there's credit for fixing,
whereas before I used to fix /before/ they went wrong, but was always
accused of scaremongering and wasting time.
Y2K had people buying generators, hoarding supplies, building shelters
(I work with one, but others around me had varying degrees of insane
panic and fear they were experiencing). I heard a couple of bodies
("respectable" "news" outlets) advise folks to make sure they had about
6 months worth of cash on hand ("Everything should be completely back
to normal by that time") because ATMs might not work and banks would be
inundated with people waiting to withdraw everything (none bothered to
explain how that could be since the electicity was going to be
destroyed by Y2K as well). The same ones said people should have
non-perishable food stored. One even brought on a security "expert" to
caution about making sure doors had deadbolts, locks on windows worked
and to go over the various types of security systems (need a good
backup because the electric companies will probably be out of
commission for a few days at least). A lot of "reports" were broadcast
about the coming riots and looting (of course, they didn't happen; I
suppose they were supposed to begin at the stroke of midnight on
1/1/00, but people forgot to show up and slept in or something; maybe
the bus was late because the streelights were all out due to the
electric companies being shut down by Y2K).

A couple of years or so ago, there was (I believe) a Homeland Security
advisory about what to do about potential anthrax delivery into the US.
This wasn't even termed an inevitability the way AIDS, Ebola and Y2K
are/were. The advisory included people storing plastic sheeting and
duct tape to seal off their residences should a major outbreak occur.
People died. They sealed themselves in and duct taped the windows to
keep any possibility of infection out. The ones that dies smothered
themselves when they were asleep.

The possibility of something happening doesn't even have to be real in
order to spread panic. The authors of doomsday scenarios concerning
their pet projects (AIDS, Y2K, selling gold coins, etc) know this and
take advantage of it. Some of them are even "health professionals" who
warn us year after year after year that we're mere moments from death.
(Actually they like "years" instead of something more immediate so they
have time to get people worked up to the point they start demanding
governments "do something" about whatever it is that's still unlikely
to come to pass.)

However, that doesn't mean nothing needs to be done. That simply means
the "news" of impending doom needs to be put into a more rational
light. It needs to be sent through some sort of sanity check before
being passed along as having any basis in reality,

For the record (so you can stop trying to put ideas in my head that
aren't there):

1. AIDS needs to be brought under control, and if possible eradicated,
no matter where it exists.

2. People need to be educated about how to prevent getting various
diseases, and how to take action to prevent the spread, particularly in
places where it's ravaging entire areas, countries or large portions of
continents.

3. Work needs to be done to create and distribute vaccines and
medicines to the areas hardest hit for a variety of calamities.

4. Stop yelling "FIRE" and start trying to play the game honestly
(speaking to the "officials" who exaggerate their claims) so the world
can quit worrying about what devastation is about befall them and start
concentrating on the places where it's causing the real problems.

We seem to be arguing apples and oranges.

I'm saying the wild-eyed claims of vested interests need to be brought
under control (apples),

You argue that I'm not caring enough (oranges) about the real problem.

I see no reason to continue since we're just talking past each other.
--
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an
institution?
-- Groucho Marx
Sunny
2006-05-15 17:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
This wasn't even termed an inevitability the way AIDS, Ebola and Y2K
are/were. The advisory included people storing plastic sheeting and
duct tape to seal off their residences should a major outbreak occur.
People died. They sealed themselves in and duct taped the windows to
keep any possibility of infection out. The ones that dies smothered
themselves when they were asleep.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr.Darwin has been hard at work.
Post by Sinister Midget
1. AIDS needs to be brought under control, and if possible eradicated,
no matter where it exists.
Better it's not controlled. The herd needs thinning.
Mark Kent
2006-05-16 07:38:03 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
I hasn't killed millions in every country. It has killed multi-millions
in some countries. It has affected millions and/or multi-millions in
several countries.
It's killed millions in many countries, and the numbers are /rising/ at
the moment, not falling.
Post by Sinister Midget
To manage blood supplies and the like, the people managing need to be
aware. Unscrupulous people will infect it intentionally. Educating them
will stop the ones that aren't criminal. So education also needs ot be
a part of the mix. But expecting education alone to ensure safety won't
wash.
I agree! But expecting the public at large to pay attention is foolish,
they don't.
Post by Sinister Midget
Bad people have knowingly had sex with people for the express purpose
of infecting them. Good thing they knew about the disease, huh? There
was a thing printed in a national magazine a couple of years ago about
how some gays were having sex, one with HIV, one without, both knowing
what was going on, with the intent of infecting the uninfected.
(Supposedly it was some sort of turnon or sexual rush at the precise
moment of passing the infection.) Education did them a lot of good, and
was a great boon to society, right.
You think heterosexual people don't have unusual tastes too? Or that
heterosexual sex doesn't pass on Aids too? It's the majority
transmission method in the worst affected areas... Your example is
hardly any excuse for not educating people, is it?
Post by Sinister Midget
Education is necessary. But so are the use of personal protection and
personal responibility.
But /without/ the education, people won't know this, will they?
Post by Sinister Midget
That's neither here nor there. There are far few deaths in far fewer
places than the dire predictions of the early 80s told us about. Did
education play a role in that? You bet. Did the scare mongering induce
some caution in groups of people that helped keep a lid on things?
Maybe. But the scare mongering continues despite the absolute fact that
it has been wrong repeatedly since the beginning.
I strongly, totally, and completely dispute that the greatest killer of
our age, at 40 Millions, has been 'wrong' - it's a complete human
disaster. 40 million people is more than the population of most
countries! And it's growing.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
You do /not/ achieve this by writing a few learned articles in a
medical journal, you achieve it by ensuring that appropriate information
is carried in the mainstream press. In order for /anything/ to be
carried in the mainstream press, it /has/ to be exciting/dramatic, or it
won't be there at all. This is because the public at large take no
notice /unless/ it is exciting.
The ends justify the means? It's perfectly rational and acceptable to
lie, exaggerate and mislead if it's for a "good cause"?
You didn't address my point, which is truly fundamental to your whole
position - in order to get /any/ mainstream publicity, it is necessary
for news to be both exciting and dramatic, otherwise it will not be
heard. Journalists spend their whole lives making boring things
'exciting' in order to sell newspapers, or get radio or tv audiences.
This is how things work - it's got nothing to do with how you'd like
things to work, and it has nothing at all to do with Aids.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Mark Kent
You have cause and effect reversed here.
Post by Sinister Midget
Those same predictions come up constantly. Yet, other than the places
where it /has/ been a huge problem, other than the places where it /is/
spreading rapidly, the effect, directly, on the entire planet is not
what the vendors of fear and chaos continue to tell us.
Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.
Y2K could've been a very serious issue, as I'm sure you're aware.
That fact that the work done was virtually completely successful, thus
there was no major impact, and it was a triumph for those who worked
on it. Of course, the problem with achieving a success where the
result is that there is /no event/ afterwards, is that there's always
someone like yourself to claim it wasn't worth doing, because you're
unable to work out the consequences of not doing the work, or have some
other political point to make. People like yourself are precisely the
reason I stopped working on Operations and Maintenance systems at work -
I just leave things to go wrong now, because there's credit for fixing,
whereas before I used to fix /before/ they went wrong, but was always
accused of scaremongering and wasting time.
Y2K had people buying generators, hoarding supplies, building shelters
(I work with one, but others around me had varying degrees of insane
panic and fear they were experiencing). I heard a couple of bodies
("respectable" "news" outlets) advise folks to make sure they had about
6 months worth of cash on hand ("Everything should be completely back
to normal by that time") because ATMs might not work and banks would be
inundated with people waiting to withdraw everything (none bothered to
explain how that could be since the electicity was going to be
destroyed by Y2K as well). The same ones said people should have
non-perishable food stored. One even brought on a security "expert" to
caution about making sure doors had deadbolts, locks on windows worked
and to go over the various types of security systems (need a good
backup because the electric companies will probably be out of
commission for a few days at least). A lot of "reports" were broadcast
about the coming riots and looting (of course, they didn't happen; I
suppose they were supposed to begin at the stroke of midnight on
1/1/00, but people forgot to show up and slept in or something; maybe
the bus was late because the streelights were all out due to the
electric companies being shut down by Y2K).
Well, you appear to have had a problem in the US which we didn't have
here. I say again, as I said above, that you have a problem with your
journalists, but then I've been saying that for ages anyway, and I stand
by it. You have no balanced television system, as we have, to
ameliorate these issues. This has /nothing/ to do with Aids or Y2K, it
has everything to do with your completely corrupt or owned broadcasters.
Post by Sinister Midget
A couple of years or so ago, there was (I believe) a Homeland Security
advisory about what to do about potential anthrax delivery into the US.
This wasn't even termed an inevitability the way AIDS, Ebola and Y2K
are/were. The advisory included people storing plastic sheeting and
duct tape to seal off their residences should a major outbreak occur.
People died. They sealed themselves in and duct taped the windows to
keep any possibility of infection out. The ones that dies smothered
themselves when they were asleep.
People do stupid things... People /still/ buy all the bread in
supermarkets on the weekend before a bank-holiday, even though it's only
one day, and they'd not normally shop on that day anyway - the public at
large are not, at least as a group, very bright. You now seem to be
complaining about the behaviour of groups of people, and I agree that
they can be very dumb - this is why it's /very/ important to emphasize
eg., the risks of Aids, otherwise they'll just ignore it.
Post by Sinister Midget
The possibility of something happening doesn't even have to be real in
order to spread panic.
So, you state that the public are easily lead.
Post by Sinister Midget
The authors of doomsday scenarios concerning
their pet projects (AIDS, Y2K, selling gold coins, etc) know this and
take advantage of it.
And you state that unscrupulous broadcasters in the US will take
advantage of an easily lead public.
Post by Sinister Midget
Some of them are even "health professionals" who
warn us year after year after year that we're mere moments from death.
(Actually they like "years" instead of something more immediate so they
have time to get people worked up to the point they start demanding
governments "do something" about whatever it is that's still unlikely
to come to pass.)
You state that they should know better.
Post by Sinister Midget
However, that doesn't mean nothing needs to be done. That simply means
the "news" of impending doom needs to be put into a more rational
light. It needs to be sent through some sort of sanity check before
being passed along as having any basis in reality,
But as you say in your first point, the public are not rational anyway!
Post by Sinister Midget
For the record (so you can stop trying to put ideas in my head that
1. AIDS needs to be brought under control, and if possible eradicated,
no matter where it exists.
Except that they only way of doing it is to educate people, which means
you need to get the information to a place where the "homer simpsons" of
the world will read or hear it, and will take note.
Post by Sinister Midget
2. People need to be educated about how to prevent getting various
diseases, and how to take action to prevent the spread, particularly in
places where it's ravaging entire areas, countries or large portions of
continents.
Well okay, but it's spreading pretty much everywhere...
Post by Sinister Midget
3. Work needs to be done to create and distribute vaccines and
medicines to the areas hardest hit for a variety of calamities.
Except the western drugs companies demand payment which poor countries
cannot afford.
Post by Sinister Midget
4. Stop yelling "FIRE" and start trying to play the game honestly
(speaking to the "officials" who exaggerate their claims) so the world
can quit worrying about what devastation is about befall them and start
concentrating on the places where it's causing the real problems.
Well, I've made the point already - you'd need to fix your media
ownership for that to work, or at least have some rules regarding
balanced reporting, neither of which you appear to have.
Post by Sinister Midget
We seem to be arguing apples and oranges.
I'm saying the wild-eyed claims of vested interests need to be brought
under control (apples),
You argue that I'm not caring enough (oranges) about the real problem.
I think you're underestimating the dangers of Aids and the damage
already done.
Post by Sinister Midget
I see no reason to continue since we're just talking past each other.
Perhaps that's the most important time to continue..?

Anyway, I've naught else to say on this... :-)
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day.
Sinister Midget
2006-05-16 13:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
I hasn't killed millions in every country. It has killed multi-millions
in some countries. It has affected millions and/or multi-millions in
several countries.
It's killed millions in many countries, and the numbers are /rising/ at
the moment, not falling.
A valid reason to do something about it. Not a valid reason to sell
mayhem.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
To manage blood supplies and the like, the people managing need to be
aware. Unscrupulous people will infect it intentionally. Educating them
will stop the ones that aren't criminal. So education also needs ot be
a part of the mix. But expecting education alone to ensure safety won't
wash.
I agree! But expecting the public at large to pay attention is foolish,
they don't.
One of my points.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Sinister Midget
Bad people have knowingly had sex with people for the express purpose
of infecting them. Good thing they knew about the disease, huh? There
was a thing printed in a national magazine a couple of years ago about
how some gays were having sex, one with HIV, one without, both knowing
what was going on, with the intent of infecting the uninfected.
(Supposedly it was some sort of turnon or sexual rush at the precise
moment of passing the infection.) Education did them a lot of good, and
was a great boon to society, right.
You think heterosexual people don't have unusual tastes too? Or that
heterosexual sex doesn't pass on Aids too? It's the majority
transmission method in the worst affected areas... Your example is
hardly any excuse for not educating people, is it?
Not my point. An anecdote that comes to mind to illustrate a previous
point.

I began with "Bad people have...." because bad people have. Willing
participants aren't being taken advantage of or harmed unknowingly. An
infected person who rapes women is a bad person who is knowingly
infecting people. A drug abuser who knows he has it and gives blood is
a bad person. And infected man/woman who dates and has sex with others
while they know they are infected are bad people.

People who knowingly have sex with people they are fairly sure will
infect them are idiots, suckers, fools, whatever you want to label
them. But they aren't victims as are the others.

I'll say it now: here we go again deciding to find hidden meanings in
things I didn't say because I use a valid illustration to show the
point I'm discussing.
--
A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Mark Kent
2006-05-17 07:41:05 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Sinister Midget
I'll say it now: here we go again deciding to find hidden meanings in
things I didn't say because I use a valid illustration to show the
point I'm discussing.
I've never deliberately done this, nor will I. If I've misunderstood
something you've written, perhaps the point, the intention, or an allusion
you're trying to make, then I apologise, but please do not ascribe to me
a deliberate attempt to misapprehend on my part - that would be incorrect.

Have you considered the possibility that you've not understood what I'm
trying to say?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Only fools are quoted.
-- Anonymous
Da'Punk-A
2006-05-15 19:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.
Farce is right. As I remember, there was plenty of talk about the
"possibilities" by the early 1990s, maybe before that, but no one
seemed to want to /do/ anything until the last minute.

Then, like you say, it was the end of the world on its way.
"Specialists" being paid fortunes to "fix" the problem here and there,
while other people were saying it didn't matter what was done, the shit
was gonna hit the fan anyway. Talk of nuclear missiles spontaneously
launching. Financial markets crashing. A return to the stone age.

There were other voices too, saying "Chill out, nothing's gonna
happen." But that doesn't make for good headlines, I guess.

Then, when Jan 1 2000 came and went with no apocalypse, the doom-sayers
started to suggest other dates. It didn't have to be the change from 99
to 00. Though I never quite followed that theory.

I suppose there's still a few out there, warning of a coming armageddon
when the world's computers will simultaneously crash/go mad and
humanity will perish. Maybe on June 1 2006. Why not? If it /does/ go
down then, remember where you read it first. Maybe I'll be worshipped
by the civilisation that follows ours. Da'Punk-A, the Prophet-God-King
of the mythical World Wide Web. Mwahaha!!
Sinister Midget
2006-05-15 19:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Da'Punk-A
Post by Sinister Midget
Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.
Farce is right. As I remember, there was plenty of talk about the
"possibilities" by the early 1990s, maybe before that, but no one
seemed to want to /do/ anything until the last minute.
Then, like you say, it was the end of the world on its way.
"Specialists" being paid fortunes to "fix" the problem here and there,
while other people were saying it didn't matter what was done, the shit
was gonna hit the fan anyway. Talk of nuclear missiles spontaneously
launching. Financial markets crashing. A return to the stone age.
There were other voices too, saying "Chill out, nothing's gonna
happen." But that doesn't make for good headlines, I guess.
Then, when Jan 1 2000 came and went with no apocalypse, the doom-sayers
started to suggest other dates. It didn't have to be the change from 99
to 00. Though I never quite followed that theory.
I suppose there's still a few out there, warning of a coming armageddon
when the world's computers will simultaneously crash/go mad and
humanity will perish. Maybe on June 1 2006. Why not? If it /does/ go
down then, remember where you read it first. Maybe I'll be worshipped
by the civilisation that follows ours. Da'Punk-A, the Prophet-God-King
of the mythical World Wide Web. Mwahaha!!
I forget the year (I think it was early 90s, possibly late 80s), but I
recall a "scientist" claiming the imminent happenstance of a huge
earthquake on the New Madrid fault (an area I came from). That was an
area that had one of the historically largest quakes on the continent.
It was going to kill untold thousands, or maybe more.

Using a bit of historical fact and a few maps, this was panic made-to-
order.

People moved. Or they just got out of the region. Earthquake insurance
policies blossomed (as did the premiums). People sold belongings, moved
in with relatives, RVed to other areas, set up tents in parks and other
places. the deadline was October something (1st? 14th? I don't recall,
but I remember it was in October).

People waited. Nothing happened. "Just wait," they were assured. It was
going to happen. After all, the "scientist" said one was "expected" to
be that date, so it might be a few days off. Days went by. Tens of
days.

I saw a newspaper report about someone asking the "scientist" what
happened. He started equivocating with percentages, and other things
that were never mentioned in the beginning.

A lot of these things happen like that. Just a few maps and some
history to make the masses conform to a bunch of blabber.
--
If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like
to hear it again.
-- Groucho Marx
Mark Kent
2006-05-16 07:55:24 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Da'Punk-A
Post by Sinister Midget
Y2K was a farce. And it carried similar end-times type warnings. I see
teh wild-eyed claims of international mayhem and pestilence as being on
about the same level.
Farce is right. As I remember, there was plenty of talk about the
"possibilities" by the early 1990s, maybe before that, but no one
seemed to want to /do/ anything until the last minute.
The problem is that it could've been very real. I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day.
Benoît Cosandey
2006-05-17 11:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
The problem is that it could've been very real.
I think this is the point. i.e /could/
Post by Mark Kent
I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
Let me twist it a bit:

1. informatic/microprocessor systems compute dates among other thing
2. Y2K affect informatic/microprocesor system computing dates
3. infomatic/microprocessor supervise other system (gas delivey,
electrical network, nuclear plant...)
4. gas is inflammable/expolsive

deducing that Y2K may help let an explosion of gas is hilarious for
knowledgeable people (hence the farce described by Sinister and Punk)
and fear inducing for Pa and Ma.

Actually here are some thought about it:
1.- Dates have nothing to do with a real time alarming system
2.- Supervising gas supply with a far overaged (around 30 years old)
electronic/informatic system is a kisk with or without Y2K
3.- Chances that a gas leak / overpressure happens at the same time a
supervising system goes down are thin, and this is why supervising
system are themselves supervised and under alarm

You seems to think that the "population" needs to be more informed about
risks of all sorts. I would say that this zero risk society some are
wishing so much is not attracting me the least bit. And that the press
(radio/tv included), good or bad, may be the only way to inform,
certainly not the best way to educate.

Over here, we see every day new way to tend to that zero risk society:
dog are dangerous,
smoking kills,
speed kills,
islam is calling for war
and so on ...
People are informed, but I doubt they are educated about those hearsays,
and the way we could handle them to a point where living would stay
enjoyable. Risk is a vital part of life.

Care with what you are wishing for, you may well get it.

Ben
Mark Kent
2006-05-17 15:26:51 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The problem is that it could've been very real.
I think this is the point. i.e /could/
Post by Mark Kent
I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
1. informatic/microprocessor systems compute dates among other thing
2. Y2K affect informatic/microprocesor system computing dates
3. infomatic/microprocessor supervise other system (gas delivey,
electrical network, nuclear plant...)
4. gas is inflammable/expolsive
deducing that Y2K may help let an explosion of gas is hilarious for
knowledgeable people (hence the farce described by Sinister and Punk)
and fear inducing for Pa and Ma.
1.- Dates have nothing to do with a real time alarming system
Doh! Of course they do - do you have any experience with real-time
alarming systems at all? The timing of alarms is positively critical,
so that when they're introduced into correlation engines, they can be
correlated together in order to give various possible causes, with
probabilities and locations.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
2.- Supervising gas supply with a far overaged (around 30 years old)
electronic/informatic system is a kisk with or without Y2K
Wow - you missed the whole Y2K thing, didn't you? I /still/ have
fully functioning computers designed well before then.

Using old hardware, once it's gone through it's initial bath-curve
point, is the right thing to do, /until/ either it starts to become
unreliable (you won't know when that'll be until it happens), or there
is a much more cost effective replacement possible, which, /including/
the cost of writing off the existing system early and buying the new one
still shows a saving. As I'm sure you can see, this almost never
happens.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
3.- Chances that a gas leak / overpressure happens at the same time a
supervising system goes down are thin, and this is why supervising
system are themselves supervised and under alarm
The chances of a problem at any time are thin, alarm systems are not
there for that reason at all. Alarm systems are there before there is a
finite probability of a problem at any time, which means that they do
occur, and have to be tracked down.

Most problems are caused by 'JCB' events, ie., street work damaging
underground facilities. They are common. If they weren't common, and
problems weren't common, alarm systems would not be required, would
they?

I've never heard of anyone putting a management system on a management
system, but you rather missed the point, didn't you? If your system is
based on code written 23 years earlier (say, 1977), with several
thousand instances of devices with that code in around the country, how
will /knowing/ that the alarm system has failed help you[1]? It won't!
The /only/ thing you could do would be to disconnect the whole supply
system for safety reasons - this in itself would be pretty disastrous,
which is why the only /sensible/ thing to do is a Y2K project to remove
all the offending parts, so you never get to the point where you have to
make that decision.

note[1]: as you're heading into state machine conditions which were
never intended, you do not even know how the system will behave - it
might indicate faults where there are none, it might flood the
correlator with alarms, it might become unresponsive for extended
periods, then light up all alarms for a while - you've just /no/ idea
what would happen. This is why the Y2K thing was risky - all our state
machines could've been pushed into states they were not designed to be
in; results would be unpredictable. Imagine if a missile launch system
were in a similar position, say? Or your ambulance control system? Or
perhaps your telephone network? The whole point of Y2K was to ensure
that people realised and understood the risks well enough to take the
required action to make sure it wasn't a problem.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
You seems to think that the "population" needs to be more informed about
risks of all sorts.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the population at large is very poor
at assessing risks, something you've proven in your posting above, in
that not only can you not comprehend the risk, you appear unsure even
about how the kind of system works you're trying to analyse.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
I would say that this zero risk society some are
wishing so much is not attracting me the least bit. And that the press
(radio/tv included), good or bad, may be the only way to inform,
certainly not the best way to educate.
Your last sentence doesn't seem to make sense.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
dog are dangerous,
can be
Post by Benoît Cosandey
smoking kills,
true
Post by Benoît Cosandey
speed kills,
not true, but objects impacted at speed are damaged
Post by Benoît Cosandey
islam is calling for war
not true; islam is not an entity which can call for anything
Post by Benoît Cosandey
and so on ...
People are informed,
Well, by your examples above, I'm not sure what of.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
but I doubt they are educated about those hearsays,
and the way we could handle them to a point where living would stay
enjoyable. Risk is a vital part of life.
I'm not sure what you're driving at, to be honest. Risk is an
unavoidable part of life, perhaps that's what you mean. Most people
cannot work probabilities and risk at all. People bet money on winning
our lottery, but don't wear a hard hat all the time, yet you're more
likely to be hit by a meteorite than win our lottery.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Care with what you are wishing for, you may well get it.
Get what?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Ben
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Only fools are quoted.
-- Anonymous
Benoît Cosandey
2006-05-18 10:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The problem is that it could've been very real.
I think this is the point. i.e /could/
Post by Mark Kent
I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
1. informatic/microprocessor systems compute dates among other thing
2. Y2K affect informatic/microprocesor system computing dates
3. infomatic/microprocessor supervise other system (gas delivey,
electrical network, nuclear plant...)
4. gas is inflammable/expolsive
deducing that Y2K may help let an explosion of gas is hilarious for
knowledgeable people (hence the farce described by Sinister and Punk)
and fear inducing for Pa and Ma.
1.- Dates have nothing to do with a real time alarming system
Doh! Of course they do - do you have any experience with real-time
alarming systems at all? The timing of alarms is positively critical,
so that when they're introduced into correlation engines, they can be
correlated together in order to give various possible causes, with
probabilities and locations.
Well, we are maybe talking about two different things here.
When you have a system to be supervised (like gas duct, or production
plant), there are at least two different layer:
1.- security
2.- operation
At the security level, you have sensors/detectors that are fail-safe,
meaning that if they fail, you get at least the same alarm as if they
detected a problem.
Their alarm start an automated procedure (shuting down the flow, or
shunting it over an alternate path) AND report back the alarm and the
action taken.
Then it enters the operation layer
There it becomes analysed and correlated to understand the probable
cause and how to avoid those in the future or optimise the system or
even start a bigger response like what happens when a domino effect is
taking place.

At the secutirty level, we care about life (avoid/limit accident to
avoid life losses), while at the operational level care is given to
economics (avoid accident to avoid financial losses and running a more
efficient system).

I still say that at the security level dates are of no big meaning.
while they are at the operational level.

The point was that although action had to be taken to correct Y2K, the
amplitude of it was to much hyped.
A chocolate factory would have been equally affected (at risk at the
operational level), but ironically the news did only mention gas/nuclear
plant. This kind of distortion of information is aimed to "normal"
people to help the sales of the media, but did it contribute to
efficiently take care of the problem at hand ?
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
2.- Supervising gas supply with a far overaged (around 30 years old)
electronic/informatic system is a kisk with or without Y2K
Wow - you missed the whole Y2K thing, didn't you? I /still/ have
fully functioning computers designed well before then.
I was right in, thanks. It was really a dilbertian time.
Post by Mark Kent
Using old hardware, once it's gone through it's initial bath-curve
point, is the right thing to do, /until/ either it starts to become
unreliable (you won't know when that'll be until it happens), or there
is a much more cost effective replacement possible, which, /including/
the cost of writing off the existing system early and buying the new one
still shows a saving. As I'm sure you can see, this almost never
happens.
Sure, not being on the edge is always a safe position. Still 30 years
old electronic hardware is a risk in itself, greater than any Y2K thing.
Usually, the write-off period is around 5 years, maybe 10 for
military/security kind of material. 30 is more for building or
infrastructure (pipes...)

But I agree, that management are rarely early in exchanging
system/hardware. Still at the security level, those
sensors/detectors/state machines are checked an a regular basis and
replaced more often than every 30 years.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
3.- Chances that a gas leak / overpressure happens at the same time a
supervising system goes down are thin, and this is why supervising
system are themselves supervised and under alarm
The chances of a problem at any time are thin, alarm systems are not
there for that reason at all. Alarm systems are there before there is a
finite probability of a problem at any time, which means that they do
occur, and have to be tracked down.
Of course. I was speaking of the probability of two events at the same
time (Y2k indeuced and gas leak). Still there but thiner.
Post by Mark Kent
Most problems are caused by 'JCB' events, ie., street work damaging
underground facilities. They are common. If they weren't common, and
problems weren't common, alarm systems would not be required, would
they?
Couldn't agree more.
Post by Mark Kent
I've never heard of anyone putting a management system on a management
system, but you rather missed the point, didn't you?
This has more to do with my english, sorry. I was referring to
"fail-safe" system which are very common at the security level.
Post by Mark Kent
If your system is
based on code written 23 years earlier (say, 1977), with several
thousand instances of devices with that code in around the country, how
will /knowing/ that the alarm system has failed help you[1]? It won't!
The /only/ thing you could do would be to disconnect the whole supply
system for safety reasons - this in itself would be pretty disastrous,
which is why the only /sensible/ thing to do is a Y2K project to remove
all the offending parts, so you never get to the point where you have to
make that decision.
You are right. This is exactly the operational problem caused by Y2K.
Post by Mark Kent
note[1]: as you're heading into state machine conditions which were
never intended, you do not even know how the system will behave - it
might indicate faults where there are none, it might flood the
correlator with alarms, it might become unresponsive for extended
periods, then light up all alarms for a while - you've just /no/ idea
what would happen. This is why the Y2K thing was risky - all our state
machines could've been pushed into states they were not designed to be
in; results would be unpredictable. Imagine if a missile launch system
were in a similar position, say? Or your ambulance control system? Or
perhaps your telephone network? The whole point of Y2K was to ensure
that people realised and understood the risks well enough to take the
required action to make sure it wasn't a problem.
Well the people you mention are not informed by the press at large. They
were informed by more "internal" ways. Again no need to submerge Pa and
Ma with apocalypse prediction to launch effecient counter-measure.

Why always choose missile launch or amublance control, why not billing
system (which were one of the most affected system), chocolate factory
or gardening tools factory. Maybe because "people" would then have
understood that that was a purely technical problem to be solved by
technicians, and that if those technicians would be doing the kind of
job they do every day, they (the public) would not be otherwise affected.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
You seems to think that the "population" needs to be more informed about
risks of all sorts.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the population at large is very poor
at assessing risks, something you've proven in your posting above, in
that not only can you not comprehend the risk, you appear unsure even
about how the kind of system works you're trying to analyse.
I just saved 100$ in psychotheraphy thanks to you.
The population at large may be poor at assessing risks, so that's why
some would like to assess those for them. I don't particularly like the
kind of society based on such ground.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
I would say that this zero risk society some are
wishing so much is not attracting me the least bit. And that the press
(radio/tv included), good or bad, may be the only way to inform,
certainly not the best way to educate.
Your last sentence doesn't seem to make sense.
I'll give you that. My poor english. I won't be able to express correcly
what's in my head, so I'll stop there.

Ben
Mark Kent
2006-05-18 12:21:17 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The problem is that it could've been very real.
I think this is the point. i.e /could/
Post by Mark Kent
I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
1. informatic/microprocessor systems compute dates among other thing
2. Y2K affect informatic/microprocesor system computing dates
3. infomatic/microprocessor supervise other system (gas delivey,
electrical network, nuclear plant...)
4. gas is inflammable/expolsive
deducing that Y2K may help let an explosion of gas is hilarious for
knowledgeable people (hence the farce described by Sinister and Punk)
and fear inducing for Pa and Ma.
1.- Dates have nothing to do with a real time alarming system
Doh! Of course they do - do you have any experience with real-time
alarming systems at all? The timing of alarms is positively critical,
so that when they're introduced into correlation engines, they can be
correlated together in order to give various possible causes, with
probabilities and locations.
Well, we are maybe talking about two different things here.
No, I'm talking about how real systems work, you seem to be making
things up.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
When you have a system to be supervised (like gas duct, or production
1.- security
2.- operation
These 'layers' do not correspond to any realistic model which could be
used to monitor anything. Monitoring systems have to take account of
the topology of what they're monitoring, and have to take account of the
severity of alarms and their interconnectedness.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
At the security level, you have sensors/detectors that are fail-safe,
meaning that if they fail, you get at least the same alarm as if they
detected a problem.
I'm sorry, but you have such a naive view of how these things work, it's
hard to know where to begin. Basically, all of the above is wrong.
Apart from anything else, the /last/ thing you want sensors to do if
they fail is act as if there is a /different/ problem. Imagine if
you're managing a network with 5,000,000 nodes, and 10% of them begin
sending failure alarms? Your correlation system would be flodded.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Their alarm start an automated procedure (shuting down the flow, or
shunting it over an alternate path) AND report back the alarm and the
action taken.
If your scenario were correct, then it would be the only thing you could
do. This means that /any/ sensor failure of any kind would result in
supplies being cut off. This would cause an unstable system. This is a
dumb design.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Then it enters the operation layer
Ahh, no...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
There it becomes analysed and correlated to understand the probable
cause and how to avoid those in the future or optimise the system or
even start a bigger response like what happens when a domino effect is
taking place.
No no no no no no no no..... correlation is there because when a
failure occurs on any network, it causes impacts across significant
parts of the network, not just one. The correlation provides probable
causes so that problems can be localised and appropriate action taken.
The time and date when alarms occur is fundamental in that it determines
how the collection and correlation engines process the alarms. Imagine
if you start feeding alarms from your monitoring node which are 50 years
or 100 years out of date - any sensibly designed mediation device would
discard them as junk data. /this/ is why the date and time are so
important...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
At the secutirty level, we care about life (avoid/limit accident to
avoid life losses), while at the operational level care is given to
economics (avoid accident to avoid financial losses and running a more
efficient system).
I still say that at the security level dates are of no big meaning.
while they are at the operational level.
That's because you've not got your head around networks and network
monitoring - you're quite wrongly imagining that any event will only
impact one place, location, node or device - this is wrong - networks
are characterised by interconnectedness, which monitoring systems have
to be able to model to a reasonable degree in order to provide sensible
direction to operations centres and maintenance staff, rather than just
lighting up boards like christmas trees, as you'd expect if you watch
too many hollywood movies.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
The point was that although action had to be taken to correct Y2K, the
amplitude of it was to much hyped.
A chocolate factory would have been equally affected (at risk at the
operational level), but ironically the news did only mention gas/nuclear
plant. This kind of distortion of information is aimed to "normal"
people to help the sales of the media, but did it contribute to
efficiently take care of the problem at hand ?
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
2.- Supervising gas supply with a far overaged (around 30 years old)
electronic/informatic system is a kisk with or without Y2K
Wow - you missed the whole Y2K thing, didn't you? I /still/ have
fully functioning computers designed well before then.
I was right in, thanks. It was really a dilbertian time.
Post by Mark Kent
Using old hardware, once it's gone through it's initial bath-curve
point, is the right thing to do, /until/ either it starts to become
unreliable (you won't know when that'll be until it happens), or there
is a much more cost effective replacement possible, which, /including/
the cost of writing off the existing system early and buying the new one
still shows a saving. As I'm sure you can see, this almost never
happens.
Sure, not being on the edge is always a safe position. Still 30 years
old electronic hardware is a risk in itself, greater than any Y2K thing.
No, it's not. You didn't read what I said, did you? Once you're past
the bath-curve problem, there is no reason to change anything /until/ it
starts to fail.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Usually, the write-off period is around 5 years,
Rather than making up numbers, why don't you use some real ones? Much
of the worlds telcos are using kit over 20 years old even now, some as
much as 30 years old. This is the /same/ kit which is used for
monitoring other systems - where do you think the leased lines come
from?

The London tube system is over 100 years old in parts...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
maybe 10 for
military/security kind of material. 30 is more for building or
infrastructure (pipes...)
No, pipes can be 50 - 100 or more. You need to find /real/ numbers,
don't make them up.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
But I agree, that management are rarely early in exchanging
system/hardware. Still at the security level, those
sensors/detectors/state machines are checked an a regular basis and
replaced more often than every 30 years.
Don't make things up, please. Get some real evidence & use it. Let me
tell you again, much of the world's telcos are still using equipment of
the order of 30 years old. That /includes/ management and alarming
functions.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
3.- Chances that a gas leak / overpressure happens at the same time a
supervising system goes down are thin, and this is why supervising
system are themselves supervised and under alarm
The chances of a problem at any time are thin, alarm systems are not
there for that reason at all. Alarm systems are there before there is a
finite probability of a problem at any time, which means that they do
occur, and have to be tracked down.
Of course. I was speaking of the probability of two events at the same
time (Y2k indeuced and gas leak). Still there but thiner.
Common mode failure is not uncommon, just statistically less likely.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Most problems are caused by 'JCB' events, ie., street work damaging
underground facilities. They are common. If they weren't common, and
problems weren't common, alarm systems would not be required, would
they?
Couldn't agree more.
Post by Mark Kent
I've never heard of anyone putting a management system on a management
system, but you rather missed the point, didn't you?
This has more to do with my english, sorry. I was referring to
"fail-safe" system which are very common at the security level.
How can something 'fail-safe' if it's operating out of its original
design parameters? You've no idea what it'll do - the state machine is
no longer in states it was designed for - it could do anything.

Do you think disconnecting power to something is "safe" if there's no
problem - what if you're powering a hospital, say? How safe is it
then?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
If your system is
based on code written 23 years earlier (say, 1977), with several
thousand instances of devices with that code in around the country, how
will /knowing/ that the alarm system has failed help you[1]? It won't!
The /only/ thing you could do would be to disconnect the whole supply
system for safety reasons - this in itself would be pretty disastrous,
which is why the only /sensible/ thing to do is a Y2K project to remove
all the offending parts, so you never get to the point where you have to
make that decision.
You are right. This is exactly the operational problem caused by Y2K.
If you understand this, why are you arguing that it wasn't necessary?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
note[1]: as you're heading into state machine conditions which were
never intended, you do not even know how the system will behave - it
might indicate faults where there are none, it might flood the
correlator with alarms, it might become unresponsive for extended
periods, then light up all alarms for a while - you've just /no/ idea
what would happen. This is why the Y2K thing was risky - all our state
machines could've been pushed into states they were not designed to be
in; results would be unpredictable. Imagine if a missile launch system
were in a similar position, say? Or your ambulance control system? Or
perhaps your telephone network? The whole point of Y2K was to ensure
that people realised and understood the risks well enough to take the
required action to make sure it wasn't a problem.
Well the people you mention are not informed by the press at large. They
were informed by more "internal" ways. Again no need to submerge Pa and
Ma with apocalypse prediction to launch effecient counter-measure.
Haha! How do you think people in your company, or in other companies,
get their information? (or whatever organisation you're in). They do
it the same way as everyone else - they watch the television, read the
newspapers, listen to the radio. They're not magically connected to
better quality information than your or I. Your senior managers,
whoever they might be, are only as well informed as you are. Also,
because they're senior, they might not be up to speed technically
either, or might have no knowledge or experience of the affected part of
their company or operation, so they're dependent on more junior people
informing them, or external organisations doing so.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Why always choose missile launch or amublance control, why not billing
system (which were one of the most affected system), chocolate factory
or gardening tools factory. Maybe because "people" would then have
understood that that was a purely technical problem to be solved by
technicians, and that if those technicians would be doing the kind of
job they do every day, they (the public) would not be otherwise affected.
Because the chocolate factory and billing engine don't matter, of course,
just as you seem to realise - I don't care whether the choccy factory has
fixed its y2k problems, but I /do/ care that the hospitals, ambulances,
telcos, power suppliers, traffic managers, airline traffic controllers,
naval traffic managers, car manufacturers, missile suppliers have fixed
them, because if they don't, there is a *significant risk to life*.

It was not a 'purely technical problem', indeed, there are no 'purely
technical problems', except those scientists consider in their labs.
Others have perhaps minor or major business impact, some have minor or
major impacts on society, possibly so far as causing deaths, possibly
widespread deaths.

I'm very keen that the high risk items are given a high priority. That
can require significant publicity.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
You seems to think that the "population" needs to be more informed about
risks of all sorts.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the population at large is very poor
at assessing risks, something you've proven in your posting above, in
that not only can you not comprehend the risk, you appear unsure even
about how the kind of system works you're trying to analyse.
I just saved 100$ in psychotheraphy thanks to you.
The population at large may be poor at assessing risks, so that's why
some would like to assess those for them. I don't particularly like the
kind of society based on such ground.
You seem unable to comprehend the difference between a y2k problem at a
chocolate factory and a y2k problem at a missile factory. I don't think
I've saved you anything.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
I would say that this zero risk society some are
wishing so much is not attracting me the least bit. And that the press
(radio/tv included), good or bad, may be the only way to inform,
certainly not the best way to educate.
Your last sentence doesn't seem to make sense.
I'll give you that. My poor english. I won't be able to express correcly
what's in my head, so I'll stop there.
Ben
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
While there's life, there's hope.
-- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)
Benoît Cosandey
2006-05-18 15:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The problem is that it could've been very real.
I think this is the point. i.e /could/
Post by Mark Kent
I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
1. informatic/microprocessor systems compute dates among other thing
2. Y2K affect informatic/microprocesor system computing dates
3. infomatic/microprocessor supervise other system (gas delivey,
electrical network, nuclear plant...)
4. gas is inflammable/expolsive
deducing that Y2K may help let an explosion of gas is hilarious for
knowledgeable people (hence the farce described by Sinister and Punk)
and fear inducing for Pa and Ma.
1.- Dates have nothing to do with a real time alarming system
Doh! Of course they do - do you have any experience with real-time
alarming systems at all? The timing of alarms is positively critical,
so that when they're introduced into correlation engines, they can be
correlated together in order to give various possible causes, with
probabilities and locations.
Well, we are maybe talking about two different things here.
No, I'm talking about how real systems work, you seem to be making
things up.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
When you have a system to be supervised (like gas duct, or production
1.- security
2.- operation
These 'layers' do not correspond to any realistic model which could be
used to monitor anything. Monitoring systems have to take account of
the topology of what they're monitoring, and have to take account of the
severity of alarms and their interconnectedness.
You seems to work in a glass tower at the monitoring side, while I work
outside, at the plant/duct thing.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
At the security level, you have sensors/detectors that are fail-safe,
meaning that if they fail, you get at least the same alarm as if they
detected a problem.
I'm sorry, but you have such a naive view of how these things work, it's
hard to know where to begin. Basically, all of the above is wrong.
Apart from anything else, the /last/ thing you want sensors to do if
they fail is act as if there is a /different/ problem. Imagine if
you're managing a network with 5,000,000 nodes, and 10% of them begin
sending failure alarms? Your correlation system would be flodded.
Cool what about 50'000'000'000 nodes then. Could you please stop making
numbers up.

Of course the correlation system would be flooded. That's why /before/
sending anything to the glass tower, those alarms are first (within
millisecond) treated locally.

If the risk of flooding the correlation machine exist through the size
of the network, those local system are grouped together. I.e. we get
three sensors locally tied, so that when 2 out of 3 trip, the alarm is
sent out.
If only one trips, we will send somebody out to check and replace the
offending unit.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Their alarm start an automated procedure (shuting down the flow, or
shunting it over an alternate path) AND report back the alarm and the
action taken.
If your scenario were correct, then it would be the only thing you could
do. This means that /any/ sensor failure of any kind would result in
supplies being cut off. This would cause an unstable system. This is a
dumb design.
If the supplies is of life threatening kind, you better cut off once for
nothing instead of letting it explose before the correlation gives its
result.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Then it enters the operation layer
Ahh, no...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
There it becomes analysed and correlated to understand the probable
cause and how to avoid those in the future or optimise the system or
even start a bigger response like what happens when a domino effect is
taking place.
No no no no no no no no..... correlation is there because when a
failure occurs on any network, it causes impacts across significant
parts of the network, not just one.
In our energy network, if a line has a problem, it is cut-off
immediately. Then the correlation machine offer solution to reconnect
the delivery point. As you pointed out, it is a network, so the delivery
point can have more than one line cutted of before being out of supply.
Post by Mark Kent
The correlation provides probable
causes so that problems can be localised and appropriate action taken.
The time and date when alarms occur is fundamental in that it determines
how the collection and correlation engines process the alarms. Imagine
if you start feeding alarms from your monitoring node which are 50 years
or 100 years out of date - any sensibly designed mediation device would
discard them as junk data. /this/ is why the date and time are so
important...
In our correlation machine, dates are of no big meaning. There is a very
small time window during which other alarms can enter the system to be
related to the first event. We count the elapsed time in millisecond,
when not in microsecond.
For the record, those events are sent to the glass tower. Here the date
is important, of course.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
At the secutirty level, we care about life (avoid/limit accident to
avoid life losses), while at the operational level care is given to
economics (avoid accident to avoid financial losses and running a more
efficient system).
I still say that at the security level dates are of no big meaning.
while they are at the operational level.
That's because you've not got your head around networks and network
monitoring - you're quite wrongly imagining that any event will only
impact one place, location, node or device - this is wrong - networks
are characterised by interconnectedness, which monitoring systems have
to be able to model to a reasonable degree in order to provide sensible
direction to operations centres and maintenance staff, rather than just
lighting up boards like christmas trees, as you'd expect if you watch
too many hollywood movies.
Thank you for that enlightening lesson.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
The point was that although action had to be taken to correct Y2K, the
amplitude of it was to much hyped.
A chocolate factory would have been equally affected (at risk at the
operational level), but ironically the news did only mention gas/nuclear
plant. This kind of distortion of information is aimed to "normal"
people to help the sales of the media, but did it contribute to
efficiently take care of the problem at hand ?
There was the point, I am surprised you didn't offer any comment.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
2.- Supervising gas supply with a far overaged (around 30 years old)
electronic/informatic system is a kisk with or without Y2K
Wow - you missed the whole Y2K thing, didn't you? I /still/ have
fully functioning computers designed well before then.
I was right in, thanks. It was really a dilbertian time.
Post by Mark Kent
Using old hardware, once it's gone through it's initial bath-curve
point, is the right thing to do, /until/ either it starts to become
unreliable (you won't know when that'll be until it happens), or there
is a much more cost effective replacement possible, which, /including/
the cost of writing off the existing system early and buying the new one
still shows a saving. As I'm sure you can see, this almost never
happens.
Sure, not being on the edge is always a safe position. Still 30 years
old electronic hardware is a risk in itself, greater than any Y2K thing.
No, it's not. You didn't read what I said, did you? Once you're past
the bath-curve problem, there is no reason to change anything /until/ it
starts to fail.
You are right for personnel computer, for example. If you are any
serious about safety that position is deadly wrong of course.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Usually, the write-off period is around 5 years,
Rather than making up numbers, why don't you use some real ones? Much
of the worlds telcos are using kit over 20 years old even now, some as
much as 30 years old. This is the /same/ kit which is used for
monitoring other systems - where do you think the leased lines come
from?
5 years for active part, 3 for smaller/more exposed active parts, 20
years for cable/fiber, straight from our accounting departement.

Of course, some equipment last longer. But any, tied to third party
life, will be exchanged shortly after said period. So is it over here.
We are replacing underground cable on a daily basis, just to make sure
it will not cause any damage to anyone, even if said damage is only
unattended disfunctionality.
Post by Mark Kent
The London tube system is over 100 years old in parts...
Of course. Those 100 years old parts are not, even remotely, tied to
safety and/or monitoring.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
maybe 10 for
military/security kind of material. 30 is more for building or
infrastructure (pipes...)
No, pipes can be 50 - 100 or more. You need to find /real/ numbers,
don't make them up.
Of course the pipe can stay for longer (than 20-30 years), still they
are written off much shortly that what you suggest. Take a tour to the
account departement.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
But I agree, that management are rarely early in exchanging
system/hardware. Still at the security level, those
sensors/detectors/state machines are checked an a regular basis and
replaced more often than every 30 years.
Don't make things up, please. Get some real evidence & use it. Let me
tell you again, much of the world's telcos are still using equipment of
the order of 30 years old. That /includes/ management and alarming
functions.
Strange that I didn't face those equipment in use back in the time I
installed private telcos switches for electrical network owner.

<snipped>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
I've never heard of anyone putting a management system on a management
system, but you rather missed the point, didn't you?
This has more to do with my english, sorry. I was referring to
"fail-safe" system which are very common at the security level.
How can something 'fail-safe' if it's operating out of its original
design parameters?
Well, because it's not. That fail-safe part is its original design.
Post by Mark Kent
You've no idea what it'll do - the state machine is
no longer in states it was designed for - it could do anything.
The state machine has to take into account. It does do anything bizarre,
just what was intended before even the desing of the state machine.

Take a lift, for example. If everything else breaks, the machine stops.
even if what breaks was the breake.
Post by Mark Kent
Do you think disconnecting power to something is "safe" if there's no
problem - what if you're powering a hospital, say? How safe is it
then?
Disconnecting power maybe safer than surcharging. The hospital do have
backup.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
If your system is
based on code written 23 years earlier (say, 1977), with several
thousand instances of devices with that code in around the country, how
will /knowing/ that the alarm system has failed help you[1]? It won't!
The /only/ thing you could do would be to disconnect the whole supply
system for safety reasons - this in itself would be pretty disastrous,
which is why the only /sensible/ thing to do is a Y2K project to remove
all the offending parts, so you never get to the point where you have to
make that decision.
You are right. This is exactly the operational problem caused by Y2K.
If you understand this, why are you arguing that it wasn't necessary?
You didn't grasp it, did you?

I am not arguing that action was not necessary, I was arguing that the
hype was not.

<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Well the people you mention are not informed by the press at large. They
were informed by more "internal" ways. Again no need to submerge Pa and
Ma with apocalypse prediction to launch effecient counter-measure.
Haha! How do you think people in your company, or in other companies,
get their information? (or whatever organisation you're in). They do
it the same way as everyone else - they watch the television, read the
newspapers, listen to the radio.
So here is an insider note: watch out that epoch thing.
Post by Mark Kent
They're not magically connected to
better quality information than your or I.
Well there are tech press of course, then there are training course,
continuing education, workshop, technical event and so on.

The TV comes in far too late.

Yes I am more informed than my mother in my domain. And my dentist is
more informed than I in his domain, and that has nothing to do with magic.
Post by Mark Kent
Your senior managers,
whoever they might be, are only as well informed as you are. Also,
because they're senior, they might not be up to speed technically
either, or might have no knowledge or experience of the affected part of
their company or operation, so they're dependent on more junior people
informing them, or external organisations doing so.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Why always choose missile launch or amublance control, why not billing
system (which were one of the most affected system), chocolate factory
or gardening tools factory. Maybe because "people" would then have
understood that that was a purely technical problem to be solved by
technicians, and that if those technicians would be doing the kind of
job they do every day, they (the public) would not be otherwise affected.
Because the chocolate factory and billing engine don't matter, of course,
just as you seem to realise - I don't care whether the choccy factory has
fixed its y2k problems, but I /do/ care that the hospitals, ambulances,
telcos, power suppliers, traffic managers, airline traffic controllers,
naval traffic managers, car manufacturers, missile suppliers have fixed
them, because if they don't, there is a *significant risk to life*.
So now that you are informed, what can you do for that: as a technician,
you were informed years ahead, and as Joe Sixpack, you can't do anything
beside getting a heart attack.
Post by Mark Kent
It was not a 'purely technical problem', indeed, there are no 'purely
technical problems', except those scientists consider in their labs.
Others have perhaps minor or major business impact, some have minor or
major impacts on society, possibly so far as causing deaths, possibly
widespread deaths.
I'm very keen that the high risk items are given a high priority.
They are. If you were inside, you would know it.
Post by Mark Kent
That
can require significant publicity.
No.
Post by Mark Kent
You seem unable to comprehend the difference between a y2k problem at a
chocolate factory and a y2k problem at a missile factory. I don't think
I've saved you anything.
If you go that way then:
You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between yelling at a
problem and solving it.

Ben
Mark Kent
2006-05-18 20:43:44 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The problem is that it could've been very real.
I think this is the point. i.e /could/
Post by Mark Kent
I used to write code
for 8-bit systems, and used short date codes in the 1970s and early
1980s. I had no idea that my kit would still be in use nearly 30 years
later monitoring gas supplies, but it was. I've no idea what might've
happened if it hadn't been replaced, have you? What if there'd been a
major gas leak, but the system hadn't detected it?
1. informatic/microprocessor systems compute dates among other thing
2. Y2K affect informatic/microprocesor system computing dates
3. infomatic/microprocessor supervise other system (gas delivey,
electrical network, nuclear plant...)
4. gas is inflammable/expolsive
deducing that Y2K may help let an explosion of gas is hilarious for
knowledgeable people (hence the farce described by Sinister and Punk)
and fear inducing for Pa and Ma.
1.- Dates have nothing to do with a real time alarming system
Doh! Of course they do - do you have any experience with real-time
alarming systems at all? The timing of alarms is positively critical,
so that when they're introduced into correlation engines, they can be
correlated together in order to give various possible causes, with
probabilities and locations.
Well, we are maybe talking about two different things here.
No, I'm talking about how real systems work, you seem to be making
things up.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
When you have a system to be supervised (like gas duct, or production
1.- security
2.- operation
These 'layers' do not correspond to any realistic model which could be
used to monitor anything. Monitoring systems have to take account of
the topology of what they're monitoring, and have to take account of the
severity of alarms and their interconnectedness.
You seems to work in a glass tower at the monitoring side, while I work
outside, at the plant/duct thing.
No, not at all... I've been working on similar systems for many uses
over many many years, from designing them to operating to building to
determining to everything else.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
At the security level, you have sensors/detectors that are fail-safe,
meaning that if they fail, you get at least the same alarm as if they
detected a problem.
I'm sorry, but you have such a naive view of how these things work, it's
hard to know where to begin. Basically, all of the above is wrong.
Apart from anything else, the /last/ thing you want sensors to do if
they fail is act as if there is a /different/ problem. Imagine if
you're managing a network with 5,000,000 nodes, and 10% of them begin
sending failure alarms? Your correlation system would be flodded.
Cool what about 50'000'000'000 nodes then. Could you please stop making
numbers up.
I'm not, which is why we seem to have a problem. My present network has
20 million entry/exit points, and about 50,000,000 monitored entities.
It's not the biggest in the world, but it is one of the largest.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Of course the correlation system would be flooded. That's why /before/
sending anything to the glass tower, those alarms are first (within
millisecond) treated locally.
If they can be, which is where we began! If the monitoring entity is
providing misleading information, what do you do? What state will it be
in? How do you know how it'll behave? Have you ever /designed/ one of
these things?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
If the risk of flooding the correlation machine exist through the size
of the network, those local system are grouped together. I.e. we get
three sensors locally tied, so that when 2 out of 3 trip, the alarm is
sent out.
If only one trips, we will send somebody out to check and replace the
offending unit.
Nice if you only have one or two things to worry about - when you have
several millions, it's not quite so simple.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Their alarm start an automated procedure (shuting down the flow, or
shunting it over an alternate path) AND report back the alarm and the
action taken.
If your scenario were correct, then it would be the only thing you could
do. This means that /any/ sensor failure of any kind would result in
supplies being cut off. This would cause an unstable system. This is a
dumb design.
If the supplies is of life threatening kind, you better cut off once for
nothing instead of letting it explose before the correlation gives its
result.
But if the system is /unstable/, you've no idea what you have. It might
report that it's fine, but in reality, there's a dangerous situation.
How do you know what state the state machine is in, if it's not in any
state it was designed to be in?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Then it enters the operation layer
Ahh, no...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
There it becomes analysed and correlated to understand the probable
cause and how to avoid those in the future or optimise the system or
even start a bigger response like what happens when a domino effect is
taking place.
No no no no no no no no..... correlation is there because when a
failure occurs on any network, it causes impacts across significant
parts of the network, not just one.
In our energy network, if a line has a problem, it is cut-off
immediately. Then the correlation machine offer solution to reconnect
the delivery point. As you pointed out, it is a network, so the delivery
point can have more than one line cutted of before being out of supply.
Which is great if you /know/ it has a problem. If your monitoring
probes are sending false data, which is it? How do you know?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The correlation provides probable
causes so that problems can be localised and appropriate action taken.
The time and date when alarms occur is fundamental in that it determines
how the collection and correlation engines process the alarms. Imagine
if you start feeding alarms from your monitoring node which are 50 years
or 100 years out of date - any sensibly designed mediation device would
discard them as junk data. /this/ is why the date and time are so
important...
In our correlation machine, dates are of no big meaning. There is a very
small time window during which other alarms can enter the system to be
related to the first event. We count the elapsed time in millisecond,
when not in microsecond.
For the record, those events are sent to the glass tower. Here the date
is important, of course.
You are blessed with a very simple network.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
At the secutirty level, we care about life (avoid/limit accident to
avoid life losses), while at the operational level care is given to
economics (avoid accident to avoid financial losses and running a more
efficient system).
I still say that at the security level dates are of no big meaning.
while they are at the operational level.
That's because you've not got your head around networks and network
monitoring - you're quite wrongly imagining that any event will only
impact one place, location, node or device - this is wrong - networks
are characterised by interconnectedness, which monitoring systems have
to be able to model to a reasonable degree in order to provide sensible
direction to operations centres and maintenance staff, rather than just
lighting up boards like christmas trees, as you'd expect if you watch
too many hollywood movies.
Thank you for that enlightening lesson.
Except I suspect it hasn't englightened you at all...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
The point was that although action had to be taken to correct Y2K, the
amplitude of it was to much hyped.
A chocolate factory would have been equally affected (at risk at the
operational level), but ironically the news did only mention gas/nuclear
plant. This kind of distortion of information is aimed to "normal"
people to help the sales of the media, but did it contribute to
efficiently take care of the problem at hand ?
There was the point, I am surprised you didn't offer any comment.
I did, below.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
2.- Supervising gas supply with a far overaged (around 30 years old)
electronic/informatic system is a kisk with or without Y2K
Wow - you missed the whole Y2K thing, didn't you? I /still/ have
fully functioning computers designed well before then.
I was right in, thanks. It was really a dilbertian time.
Post by Mark Kent
Using old hardware, once it's gone through it's initial bath-curve
point, is the right thing to do, /until/ either it starts to become
unreliable (you won't know when that'll be until it happens), or there
is a much more cost effective replacement possible, which, /including/
the cost of writing off the existing system early and buying the new one
still shows a saving. As I'm sure you can see, this almost never
happens.
Sure, not being on the edge is always a safe position. Still 30 years
old electronic hardware is a risk in itself, greater than any Y2K thing.
No, it's not. You didn't read what I said, did you? Once you're past
the bath-curve problem, there is no reason to change anything /until/ it
starts to fail.
You are right for personnel computer, for example. If you are any
serious about safety that position is deadly wrong of course.
It's absolutely correct, of course. Indeed, installing new equipment is
highly risky because you haven't got into the start of the bath-curve
yet. Are you actually involved in any of these decisions, at all?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Usually, the write-off period is around 5 years,
Rather than making up numbers, why don't you use some real ones? Much
of the worlds telcos are using kit over 20 years old even now, some as
much as 30 years old. This is the /same/ kit which is used for
monitoring other systems - where do you think the leased lines come
from?
5 years for active part, 3 for smaller/more exposed active parts, 20
years for cable/fiber, straight from our accounting departement.
See my numbers above... if you use leased lines, and you almost
certainly do, then that's what you're getting.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Of course, some equipment last longer. But any, tied to third party
life, will be exchanged shortly after said period. So is it over here.
We are replacing underground cable on a daily basis, just to make sure
it will not cause any damage to anyone, even if said damage is only
unattended disfunctionality.
Good. Hope the new stuff is reliable. Wonder how you'll find out?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
The London tube system is over 100 years old in parts...
Of course. Those 100 years old parts are not, even remotely, tied to
safety and/or monitoring.
Hahahahahah! You live in an interesting world...
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
maybe 10 for
military/security kind of material. 30 is more for building or
infrastructure (pipes...)
No, pipes can be 50 - 100 or more. You need to find /real/ numbers,
don't make them up.
Of course the pipe can stay for longer (than 20-30 years), still they
are written off much shortly that what you suggest. Take a tour to the
account departement.
Much of the UK's infrastructure is much older than that. I'm afraid
your accounts department doesn't get a say in that.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
But I agree, that management are rarely early in exchanging
system/hardware. Still at the security level, those
sensors/detectors/state machines are checked an a regular basis and
replaced more often than every 30 years.
Don't make things up, please. Get some real evidence & use it. Let me
tell you again, much of the world's telcos are still using equipment of
the order of 30 years old. That /includes/ management and alarming
functions.
Strange that I didn't face those equipment in use back in the time I
installed private telcos switches for electrical network owner.
How long ago was that? Telco networks are enormous, and take many years
to replace, even if replaced on a /continuous basis/. For example,
there are approximately 30 Million local line cards in the UK; to
replace those cards over, say, 5 years, requires 6 Million cards to be
changed each year, or about 500,000 cards per month, which gives you
about 40,000 per DAY!

Understood this yet?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
<snipped>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
I've never heard of anyone putting a management system on a management
system, but you rather missed the point, didn't you?
This has more to do with my english, sorry. I was referring to
"fail-safe" system which are very common at the security level.
How can something 'fail-safe' if it's operating out of its original
design parameters?
Well, because it's not. That fail-safe part is its original design.
Not if the thing is operating out of its design parameters because it's
a state machine entering states it was not intended to. Do you know
what a state machine is?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
You've no idea what it'll do - the state machine is
no longer in states it was designed for - it could do anything.
The state machine has to take into account.
It can't, though, can it? You can only design for the conditions you
can think of which are going to apply. This is the same reason why zero
bug software is impossible to design.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
It does do anything bizarre,
just what was intended before even the desing of the state machine.
Doh! We're talking about a Y2K situation where the machine is /already
outside/ of it's design states.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Take a lift, for example. If everything else breaks, the machine stops.
even if what breaks was the breake.
What's that got to do with electronics & software state machines?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Do you think disconnecting power to something is "safe" if there's no
problem - what if you're powering a hospital, say? How safe is it
then?
Disconnecting power maybe safer than surcharging. The hospital do have
backup.
Perhaps, but for how long? And how much is backed up? If you've
disconnected power for no good reason, how popular will you be if
someone dies?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
If your system is
based on code written 23 years earlier (say, 1977), with several
thousand instances of devices with that code in around the country, how
will /knowing/ that the alarm system has failed help you[1]? It won't!
The /only/ thing you could do would be to disconnect the whole supply
system for safety reasons - this in itself would be pretty disastrous,
which is why the only /sensible/ thing to do is a Y2K project to remove
all the offending parts, so you never get to the point where you have to
make that decision.
You are right. This is exactly the operational problem caused by Y2K.
If you understand this, why are you arguing that it wasn't necessary?
You didn't grasp it, did you?
I grasped it very well, however, you've wasted an unbelievable amount of
bandwidth demonstrating a significant lack of comprehension of
monitoring system design and the impact of state machines in
unpredictable positions. Something you /still/ don't seem to have
understood.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
I am not arguing that action was not necessary, I was arguing that the
hype was not.
You didn't grasp it at all, did you?

The hype was a result of the way the media works, as I said ages and way
back. I'm not repeating it - you can go back and look.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Well the people you mention are not informed by the press at large. They
were informed by more "internal" ways. Again no need to submerge Pa and
Ma with apocalypse prediction to launch effecient counter-measure.
Haha! How do you think people in your company, or in other companies,
get their information? (or whatever organisation you're in). They do
it the same way as everyone else - they watch the television, read the
newspapers, listen to the radio.
So here is an insider note: watch out that epoch thing.
Insider to what? What decisions do you get to make?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
They're not magically connected to
better quality information than your or I.
Well there are tech press of course, then there are training course,
continuing education, workshop, technical event and so on.
You think your senior managers go on workshops and take continuing
education? I've news for you - they don't. They don't attend technical
events, they attend shareholder briefings, and go for long lunches with
groups of investors telling them to reduce their cost-base and not waste
money on monitoring things - besides, nothing ever goes wrong, so why
are they wasting shareholder cash anyway?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
The TV comes in far too late.
For whom?
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Yes I am more informed than my mother in my domain. And my dentist is
more informed than I in his domain, and that has nothing to do with magic.
About y2k? I wonder.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Your senior managers,
whoever they might be, are only as well informed as you are. Also,
because they're senior, they might not be up to speed technically
either, or might have no knowledge or experience of the affected part of
their company or operation, so they're dependent on more junior people
informing them, or external organisations doing so.
And you miss the key point... (again).
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Why always choose missile launch or amublance control, why not billing
system (which were one of the most affected system), chocolate factory
or gardening tools factory. Maybe because "people" would then have
understood that that was a purely technical problem to be solved by
technicians, and that if those technicians would be doing the kind of
job they do every day, they (the public) would not be otherwise affected.
Because the chocolate factory and billing engine don't matter, of course,
just as you seem to realise - I don't care whether the choccy factory has
fixed its y2k problems, but I /do/ care that the hospitals, ambulances,
telcos, power suppliers, traffic managers, airline traffic controllers,
naval traffic managers, car manufacturers, missile suppliers have fixed
them, because if they don't, there is a *significant risk to life*.
So now that you are informed, what can you do for that: as a technician,
you were informed years ahead, and as Joe Sixpack, you can't do anything
beside getting a heart attack.
Of course you can! You contact the companies who need to take action,
and put pressure on them to make sure that they do; you make it clear
to them that if they don't take action, and something goes wrong, you'll
be back to talk to them. You make it clear that you'll take your
business elsewhere. These are the things your senior managers care
about.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
It was not a 'purely technical problem', indeed, there are no 'purely
technical problems', except those scientists consider in their labs.
Others have perhaps minor or major business impact, some have minor or
major impacts on society, possibly so far as causing deaths, possibly
widespread deaths.
I'm very keen that the high risk items are given a high priority.
They are. If you were inside, you would know it.
Hehe! By you, perhaps. Spend some time with the senior folks - you'll
find it very illuminating.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
That
can require significant publicity.
No.
Yes, it does, lots and lots. As I say, spend some time with the
seniors.
Post by Benoît Cosandey
Post by Mark Kent
You seem unable to comprehend the difference between a y2k problem at a
chocolate factory and a y2k problem at a missile factory. I don't think
I've saved you anything.
You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between yelling at a
problem and solving it.
How on earth would you know anything about my capabilities with respect
to problem solving? You can't even see the risk difference between a
choccy factory and power - you're not fit to determine my capabilities.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
While there's life, there's hope.
-- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)
William Poaster
2006-05-10 16:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
Why not a moron *&* a liar.
--
WARNING! Do not drive your
vehicle after using Windows.
Frustration may be taken out
on other road users.
mlw
2006-05-10 16:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by mlw
Post by tab
DFS must really be getting on your nerves.
No, not really, but I have a pet peeve about nonsense put out as valid
argument. DFS has to be a moron or a liar and I wanted to call him on it.
Why not a moron *&* a liar.
Point taken, accepted.
DFS
2006-05-10 13:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
<snip>
Post by mlw
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of
disconnected words,
By stating this lie that my search words were haphazard and disconnected,
you thoroughly and completely self-nuked your entire argument.



<snip>
mlw
2006-05-10 14:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
<snip>
Post by mlw
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of
disconnected words,
By stating this lie that my search words were haphazard and disconnected,
you thoroughly and completely self-nuked your entire argument.
What's to prove that "DFS sucks cock" is not a logically connected set of
words? A nontrivial percentage of the population is gay male or female, and
without being too vulgar, that is one of the more common sex acts for that
segment of the population, and there is a reasonably valid argument that
you are in the general population, this it is not a disconnected set of
words.
billwg
2006-05-10 14:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of
disconnected
I don't think that you captured the essence of the methodology, mlw.
Obviously logic is not your long suit! DFS is using the search as a
comparative metric and so the search:

DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits

has to be compared to some other search, say:

MLW is a homosexual -- 1330 hits

in order to show relative degree between you and he on this attribute,
i.e. who is lighter of foot.
mlw
2006-05-10 15:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by billwg
Post by mlw
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of
disconnected
I don't think that you captured the essence of the methodology, mlw.
Obviously logic is not your long suit! DFS is using the search as a
DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits
MLW is a homosexual -- 1330 hits
in order to show relative degree between you and he on this attribute,
i.e. who is lighter of foot.
Thank you for making my point. I have asserted that the methodology is
meaningless.

DFS has to admit that it is, in fact, meaningless or admit that he is a
homosexual child rapist that supports terrorism.

For the record: bill w is a homosexual gets 2.3 million hits. :-)
DFS
2006-05-10 15:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Thank you for making my point. I have asserted that the methodology is
meaningless.
But your assertion is meaningless, based as it is on using logically
unrelated words.
Post by mlw
DFS has to admit that it is, in fact, meaningless or admit that he is
a homosexual child rapist that supports terrorism.
I would gladly admit it if those search results actually reflected anything
about me.
Post by mlw
For the record: bill w is a homosexual gets 2.3 million hits. :-)
billwg rules cola returns 173 hits
Jim
2006-05-10 15:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Thank you for making my point. I have asserted that the methodology is
meaningless.
But your assertion is meaningless, based as it is on using logically
unrelated words.
Post by mlw
DFS has to admit that it is, in fact, meaningless or admit that he is
a homosexual child rapist that supports terrorism.
I would gladly admit it if those search results actually reflected anything
about me.
Post by mlw
For the record: bill w is a homosexual gets 2.3 million hits. :-)
billwg rules cola returns 173 hits
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first page
even mentions c.o.l.a.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
DFS
2006-05-10 15:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first page
even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to each other.
In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often, and users submit such
complaints to websites and Google indexes them.
Jim
2006-05-10 15:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first page
even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to each other.
In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often, and users submit such
complaints to websites and Google indexes them.
what, and Windows doesn't?
What're you on? I want some. Your utopian vision can only be drug induced.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
DFS
2006-05-10 15:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first
page even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to each
other. In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often, and
users submit such complaints to websites and Google indexes them.
what, and Windows doesn't?
I never said it didn't.
mlw
2006-05-10 16:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first page
even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to each
other. In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often, and users
submit such complaints to websites and Google indexes them.
It is provable that the two words "linux" and "freezes" have just as much,
if not more so, a coincidental association as a direct association.

The word "freezes" is, yes, very typical in computers as a term of failure,
but it is not specific to Linux or even operating systems in general, as it
also applies to hardware peripherals and applications. It also has uses
outside computers in the scientific fields, i.e. describing water at 0c.

Without context information or word proximity, you have no information as to
how those words are matched.

An application that freezes on Linux, a prime example of a coincidental
relationship.

A site the mentions Linux completely coincidentally to what is being
discussed.

Google also does stemming on its search, take this result entry:

K Desktop Environment - Linux Congress Documentation and ...
Linux Congress Documentation and Localization Workshop. Linux Congress ...
The UI freeze on messages should be respected more strictly. We know it's
hard, ...
www.kde.org/announcements/doc-loc-meeting.php - 50k - May 8, 2006 - Cached -
Similar pages


Also, you don't know the order in which the results were returned and we
can't assume that they were returned in a random order. It is likely that
google uses various algorithms to user the results so that the best
possible match is return at the front of the list. If we assume it is word
proximity, 1,500,000 hits is 150,000 result pages, and that since it is not
in random order, we have to assume the top 1/3 is the best, lowest 1/3 is
the worst, and the middle 1/3 is the best approximation for the average
quality of hit.

Starting with page 50,000 randomly sample a few hundred hits ranging between
pages 50,000 and 100,000.

So, what is it, is your methodology bogus or are you a homosexual child
rapist who supports terrorism?
DFS
2006-05-10 19:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first
page even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to each
other. In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often, and
users submit such complaints to websites and Google indexes them.
It is provable that the two words "linux" and "freezes" have just as
much, if not more so, a coincidental association as a direct
association.
The word "freezes" is, yes, very typical in computers as a term of
failure, but it is not specific to Linux or even operating systems in
general, as it also applies to hardware peripherals and applications.
And all those situations might or probably are returned by Googling Linux
freezes (no parens). But as you're aware, the vast, vast majority of the
results are related to freezes in Linux itself, or Linux apps.
Post by mlw
It also has uses outside computers in the scientific fields, i.e.
describing water at 0c.
Without context information or word proximity, you have no
information as to how those words are matched.
An application that freezes on Linux, a prime example of a
coincidental relationship.
OK.
Post by mlw
A site the mentions Linux completely coincidentally to what is being
discussed.
K Desktop Environment - Linux Congress Documentation and ...
Linux Congress Documentation and Localization Workshop. Linux
Congress ... The UI freeze on messages should be respected more
strictly. We know it's hard, ...
www.kde.org/announcements/doc-loc-meeting.php - 50k - May 8, 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages
Your problem is you see a few of those and you attempt to invalidate the
entire search results.
Post by mlw
Also, you don't know the order in which the results were returned and
we can't assume that they were returned in a random order. It is
likely that google uses various algorithms to user the results so
that the best possible match is return at the front of the list. If
we assume it is word proximity, 1,500,000 hits is 150,000 result
pages, and that since it is not in random order, we have to assume
the top 1/3 is the best, lowest 1/3 is the worst, and the middle 1/3
is the best approximation for the average quality of hit.
Starting with page 50,000 randomly sample a few hundred hits ranging
between pages 50,000 and 100,000.
Go for it.
Post by mlw
So, what is it, is your methodology bogus
The methodology (search for websites/references containing Linux and
freezes) seems fine, as it really does bring back hundreds of thousands of
instances of Linux freezing.
Post by mlw
or are you a homosexual
child rapist who supports terrorism?
The results of DFS rapes children are not related to me. The results of
Linux freezes are related to Linux.
mlw
2006-05-10 20:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first
page even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to each
other. In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often, and
users submit such complaints to websites and Google indexes them.
It is provable that the two words "linux" and "freezes" have just as
much, if not more so, a coincidental association as a direct
association.
The word "freezes" is, yes, very typical in computers as a term of
failure, but it is not specific to Linux or even operating systems in
general, as it also applies to hardware peripherals and applications.
And all those situations might or probably are returned by Googling Linux
freezes (no parens). But as you're aware, the vast, vast majority of the
results are related to freezes in Linux itself, or Linux apps.
I am "aware" of no such thing. You assume, quite ignorantly, that there is
any correlation past the first 10 or 20 pages, and that correlation is
mostly due to Googles great ranking algorithms.
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
It also has uses outside computers in the scientific fields, i.e.
describing water at 0c.
Without context information or word proximity, you have no
information as to how those words are matched.
An application that freezes on Linux, a prime example of a
coincidental relationship.
OK.
Post by mlw
A site the mentions Linux completely coincidentally to what is being
discussed.
K Desktop Environment - Linux Congress Documentation and ...
Linux Congress Documentation and Localization Workshop. Linux
Congress ... The UI freeze on messages should be respected more
strictly. We know it's hard, ...
www.kde.org/announcements/doc-loc-meeting.php - 50k - May 8, 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages
Your problem is you see a few of those and you attempt to invalidate the
entire search results.
You are drawing a bogus conclusion from a misunderstanding of the search
results. You haven't qualified or quantified anything that you assert the
google search results mean. I, on the other hand, have explained why they
do not mean what you think they mean, and have given you examples.
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Also, you don't know the order in which the results were returned and
we can't assume that they were returned in a random order. It is
likely that google uses various algorithms to user the results so
that the best possible match is return at the front of the list. If
we assume it is word proximity, 1,500,000 hits is 150,000 result
pages, and that since it is not in random order, we have to assume
the top 1/3 is the best, lowest 1/3 is the worst, and the middle 1/3
is the best approximation for the average quality of hit.
Starting with page 50,000 randomly sample a few hundred hits ranging
between pages 50,000 and 100,000.
Go for it.
Well, actually, I have shown sufficient evidence that your methodology is
bogus and does not support your claims. It is you that must prove that it
does.

\
DFS
2006-05-10 20:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first
page even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to
each other. In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often,
and users submit such complaints to websites and Google indexes
them.
It is provable that the two words "linux" and "freezes" have just as
much, if not more so, a coincidental association as a direct
association.
The word "freezes" is, yes, very typical in computers as a term of
failure, but it is not specific to Linux or even operating systems
in general, as it also applies to hardware peripherals and
applications.
And all those situations might or probably are returned by Googling
Linux freezes (no parens). But as you're aware, the vast, vast
majority of the results are related to freezes in Linux itself, or
Linux apps.
I am "aware" of no such thing. You assume, quite ignorantly, that
there is any correlation past the first 10 or 20 pages, and that
correlation is mostly due to Googles great ranking algorithms.
So go to page 47 and check out those results (your page 47 may be slightly
different from mine)

#######################################################
Results 461 - 470 of about 1,920,000 for Linux freezes. (0.84 seconds)

server development mailing list: Re: [Vserver] Hard freezes on SMP?
be reported back to the linux-vserver kernel developers ... ... Next in
thread : Herbert Poetzl: "Re: [Vserver] Hard freezes on SMP? ...
www.paul.sladen.org/vserver/archives/200510/0325.html - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages

vserver development mailing list: Re: [Vserver] Hard freezes on SMP?
and about 30 in context 1), I experience random hard freezes. These ... be
reported back to the linux-vserver kernel developers ... ...
www.paul.sladen.org/vserver/archives/200510/0318.html - 13k - Cached -
Similar pages
[ More results from www.paul.sladen.org ]

NewsForge | Ottawa Linux Symposium, Day 1
Ottawa Linux Symposium, Day 1 -- article related to Trade Shows and Linux.
... With this system, feature freezes in an effort to get kernels stable
could ...
os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/07/21/0730239 - 40k - Cached - Similar
pages

Google Answers: Red Hat Linux 7.3 Freeze
Subject: Red Hat Linux 7.3 Freeze Category: Computers > Operating Systems
Asked by: neocode-ga List Price: $10.00, Posted: 21 Nov 2002 17:19 PST ...
answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=112256 - 17k - Cached - Similar
pages

Linux on the Compaq x1040
And more importantly, Linux installation is easy and most of the ...
Keyboard Freezes : for the first couple of weeks I had systemic keyboard
freeze ...
pangea.stanford.edu/~jfrank/x1040howto/x1040howto.html - 8k - Cached -
Similar pages

Linux.com - Ftape-HOWTO
10.3 I'm running Linux/SMP and the system just freezes when trying to access
the Ftape devices! 10.4 Why does depmod complain about "undefined symbols"?
...
www.linux.com/howtos/Ftape-HOWTO.shtml - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Linux.com - Ftape-HOWTO: FAQ: "Compiling and installing Ftape ...
10.3 I'm running Linux/SMP and the system just freezes when trying to access
the Ftape devices! You need to add -D__SMP__ to the KERNEL_OPT variable in
the ...
www.linux.com/howtos/Ftape-HOWTO-10.shtml - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.linux.com ]

Insight freezes when trying to debug Mozilla
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sigsuspend.c: No such file or directory. ...
Follow-Ups:. Re: Insight freezes when trying to debug Mozilla. From:
Fernando Nasser ...
sources.redhat.com/ml/insight/2000-q4/msg00000.html - 13k - Cached - Similar
pages

Linux.com | Cliff's List Filter - March 16 - 26, 2004
hard freezes when using external FireWire drives with Linux 2.6.3/4 · on the
way · small tip from Plaz McMan · this small fix · like Marinos J. Yannikos
did ...
community.linux.com/article.pl?sid=04/
03/25/192218&tid=23&tid=11&tid=14&tid=95 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

K Desktop Environment - News Archive for December 1998
21 December, KDE-1.1pre packages in RawHide, RedHat Linux beta ... 15
December, KDE-1.1 is nearer - the code freezes deeper ...
www.kde.org/history/news/news_1998_12.php - 57k - Cached - Similar pages

#######################################################

Of these 10 hits, 1 is about Linux feature freezes, and 9 are about Linux
the OS or Linux apps locking up.

Pick another page, any page, and check it out. (you've already done that -
and it's just like I said).
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
K Desktop Environment - Linux Congress Documentation and ...
Linux Congress Documentation and Localization Workshop. Linux
Congress ... The UI freeze on messages should be respected more
strictly. We know it's hard, ...
www.kde.org/announcements/doc-loc-meeting.php - 50k - May 8, 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages
Your problem is you see a few of those and you attempt to invalidate
the entire search results.
You are drawing a bogus conclusion from a misunderstanding of the
search results. You haven't qualified or quantified anything that you
assert the google search results mean. I, on the other hand, have
explained why they do not mean what you think they mean, and have
given you examples.
Your examples are outliers. You make up things like "word proximity" to
discredit the results, even thought it's very easy to page through them and
see the majority of the hits are about Linux freezing or Linux apps
freezing.
Post by mlw
Well, actually, I have shown sufficient evidence that your
methodology is bogus and does not support your claims. It is you that
must prove that it does.
Only in your mind have you shown "sufficient evidence."

Of course, to really *prove* Googling for Linux freezes (no parens) reveals
such a preponderance of Linux freezing, we would have to closely examine a
large sample of the results.

I'm comfortable in saying it's good anecdotal evidence (whether it casts
doubt on Linux OR Windows), though I doubt it would pass statistical or
legal evidentiary muster.
mlw
2006-05-11 15:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by Jim
jim rules cola returns 1.83 million hits... nothing on the first
page even mentions c.o.l.a.
That's because those 3 words have no real-world relationship to
each other. In the real world, Linux freezes and hangs very often,
and users submit such complaints to websites and Google indexes
them.
It is provable that the two words "linux" and "freezes" have just as
much, if not more so, a coincidental association as a direct
association.
The word "freezes" is, yes, very typical in computers as a term of
failure, but it is not specific to Linux or even operating systems
in general, as it also applies to hardware peripherals and
applications.
And all those situations might or probably are returned by Googling
Linux freezes (no parens). But as you're aware, the vast, vast
majority of the results are related to freezes in Linux itself, or
Linux apps.
I am "aware" of no such thing. You assume, quite ignorantly, that
there is any correlation past the first 10 or 20 pages, and that
correlation is mostly due to Googles great ranking algorithms.
[snip]
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
K Desktop Environment - Linux Congress Documentation and ...
Linux Congress Documentation and Localization Workshop. Linux
Congress ... The UI freeze on messages should be respected more
strictly. We know it's hard, ...
www.kde.org/announcements/doc-loc-meeting.php - 50k - May 8, 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages
Your problem is you see a few of those and you attempt to invalidate
the entire search results.
You are drawing a bogus conclusion from a misunderstanding of the
search results. You haven't qualified or quantified anything that you
assert the google search results mean. I, on the other hand, have
explained why they do not mean what you think they mean, and have
given you examples.
Your examples are outliers. You make up things like "word proximity" to
discredit the results, even thought it's very easy to page through them
and see the majority of the hits are about Linux freezing or Linux apps
freezing.
The phrase and term "word proximity" is a common term for having computers
understand context and rank search results. Documents are ranked and
context defined by how close words are to one another. You should use
google to search for "word proximity" (in quotes) to find definitions and
the term in use.

It is not made up, but if you knew anything, you'd know that.
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Well, actually, I have shown sufficient evidence that your
methodology is bogus and does not support your claims. It is you that
must prove that it does.
Only in your mind have you shown "sufficient evidence."
Of course, to really *prove* Googling for Linux freezes (no parens)
reveals such a preponderance of Linux freezing, we would have to closely
xamine a large sample of the results.
Large being 1%? OK, you need to check 150,000 entries, weighted toward the
middle of the result stream to account for non-random ordering.
Post by DFS
I'm comfortable in saying it's good anecdotal evidence (whether it casts
doubt on Linux OR Windows), though I doubt it would pass statistical or
legal evidentiary muster.
There is no such thing as "good anecdotal evidence," anecdotal evidence is
unreliable by its very nature, and your methodology isn't even "good" at
what you think it is.

I would accept (phrase quoted) "linux freezes" and "windows freezes" for
anecdotal evidence as the quoted phrases will remove false hits and
application issues. Of course, all things being equal, it will eliminate
some number of valid hits, but this should not be a serious problem because
it should do equally for both queries, thus maintaining the correct ratios.
Chris Wilkinson
2006-05-11 02:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Thank you for making my point. I have asserted that the methodology is
meaningless.
But your assertion is meaningless, based as it is on using logically
unrelated words.
Post by mlw
DFS has to admit that it is, in fact, meaningless or admit that he is
a homosexual child rapist that supports terrorism.
I would gladly admit it if those search results actually reflected anything
about me.
Post by mlw
For the record: bill w is a homosexual gets 2.3 million hits. :-)
billwg rules cola returns 173 hits
"billwg rules cola" gets zero...use google correctly you fucksticks...
--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
billwg
2006-05-10 16:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by billwg
Post by mlw
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of disconnected
I don't think that you captured the essence of the methodology, mlw.
Obviously logic is not your long suit! DFS is using the search as a
DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits
MLW is a homosexual -- 1330 hits
in order to show relative degree between you and he on this
attribute,
i.e. who is lighter of foot.
Thank you for making my point. I have asserted that the methodology is
meaningless.
DFS has to admit that it is, in fact, meaningless or admit that he is a
homosexual child rapist that supports terrorism.
Not at all, mlw, you must be a real dunderhead! Thicker than a cinder
block! All that DFS need do is compare.
Post by mlw
For the record: bill w is a homosexual gets 2.3 million hits. :-)
Even here you show your lack of a grasp on the subject, mlw! You need
to check "billwg is a homosexual" to compare to your total. (26 hits,
BTW) LOL!!!
chrisv
2006-05-10 15:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
DFS is a cheap-shot artist and unabashed troll. Why encourage the
POS?
mlw
2006-05-10 15:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
DFS is a cheap-shot artist and unabashed troll. Why encourage the
POS?
Who is feeding whom?
B Gruff
2006-05-10 16:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for Linux freezes. (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Linux hangs. (0.09 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,900 for Linux spontaneous reboots. (0.29
seconds) Total: 7.55 million
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,700,000 for Windows freezes. (0.28 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Windows hangs. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for Windows spontaneous reboots. (0.47
seconds)
Total: 15.8 million
With an installed base of 30x the Linux base, Windows generates only
twice as many complaints.
ergo, Linux is 15x as difficult and troublesome to manage as Windows.
Now let's go back to basics.

1. It matters little how many people use either Linux or Windows.
What really matters is how much they are discussed on the web.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,180,000,000 for linux
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,450,000,000 for windows

Hmm... presumably that's all sorts of windows - single glazed, double
glazed, the lot.
We can conclude that MS Windows might occur TWICE as often as Linux?

2. We are not interested in pages containing "windows" AND "freezes".
What we are interested in is pages containing "windows freezes", and
similarly "linux freezes".

Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800 for "windows freezes"
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,410 for "linux freezes"

Hmm - "Windows" occurs twice as often as "Linux", and yet "Windows freezes"
occurs fifteen times as often as "Linux freezes".

One could conclude that Windows actually freezes 7 or 8 times as often as
linux?
DFS
2006-05-10 16:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Gruff
2. We are not interested in pages containing "windows" AND "freezes".
What we are interested in is pages containing "windows freezes", and
similarly "linux freezes".
Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800 for "windows freezes"
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,410 for "linux freezes"
The vast majority of reports of Linux freezing up are not stated that way.
Post by B Gruff
Hmm - "Windows" occurs twice as often as "Linux", and yet "Windows
freezes" occurs fifteen times as often as "Linux freezes".
One could conclude that Windows actually freezes 7 or 8 times as
often as linux?
One could conclude that, if one didn't account for the user base disparity.
mlw
2006-05-10 16:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Gruff
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for Linux freezes. (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Linux hangs. (0.09 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,900 for Linux spontaneous reboots. (0.29
seconds) Total: 7.55 million
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,700,000 for Windows freezes. (0.28 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Windows hangs. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for Windows spontaneous reboots. (0.47
seconds)
Total: 15.8 million
With an installed base of 30x the Linux base, Windows generates only
twice as many complaints.
ergo, Linux is 15x as difficult and troublesome to manage as Windows.
Now let's go back to basics.
OK, Without context information or word proximity, you have no information
as to how those words are matched.
Cyberwasteland
2006-05-10 16:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
Among the multitude of flaws with DFS's idiotic assertions is the fact
that his argument assumes each and every complaint about Windows and
Linux is somehow accounted for on Google. It's a complete joke; exactly
what we would expect from him.
DFS
2006-05-10 16:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyberwasteland
Post by mlw
DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
Among the multitude of flaws with DFS's idiotic assertions is the fact
that his argument assumes each and every complaint about Windows and
Linux is somehow accounted for on Google.
That's you making a[nother] incorrect assumption about me.
Post by Cyberwasteland
It's a complete joke; exactly what we would expect from him.
Don't take it too hard. So Linux is reported to freeze, hang and
spontaneously reboot much more often on a per-user basis than Windows? It's
not the end of the world.

And it's not like very many people use Linux, anyway.
Kier
2006-05-10 22:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Cyberwasteland
Post by mlw
DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
Among the multitude of flaws with DFS's idiotic assertions is the fact
that his argument assumes each and every complaint about Windows and
Linux is somehow accounted for on Google.
That's you making a[nother] incorrect assumption about me.
Post by Cyberwasteland
It's a complete joke; exactly what we would expect from him.
Don't take it too hard. So Linux is reported to freeze, hang and
spontaneously reboot much more often on a per-user basis than Windows?
No. Your 'evidence' is junk.
Post by DFS
It's
not the end of the world.
No, it isn't, not being true.
Post by DFS
And it's not like very many people use Linux, anyway.
Lots of people do.
--
Kier
chrisv
2006-05-10 17:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyberwasteland
Among the multitude of flaws with DFS's idiotic assertions is the fact
that his argument assumes each and every complaint about Windows and
Linux is somehow accounted for on Google. It's a complete joke; exactly
what we would expect from him.
Yet he's well-fed. Month in and month out.
William Poaster
2006-05-10 17:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for Linux freezes. (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Linux hangs. (0.09 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,900 for Linux spontaneous reboots. (0.29
seconds) Total: 7.55 million
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,700,000 for Windows freezes. (0.28 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Windows hangs. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for Windows spontaneous reboots. (0.47
seconds)
Total: 15.8 million
With an installed base of 30x the Linux base, Windows generates only
twice as many complaints.
ergo, Linux is 15x as difficult and troublesome to manage as Windows.
Of course it's flawed. But it's not dishonest. As I said, it's just
anecdotal evidence of how truly awful Linux/OSS is.
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of disconnected
DFS rapes children -- 20,000 hits
DFS kills squirrels -- 246 hits
DFS supports bin laden -- 12,200 hits DFS supports terrorism -- 23,900
hits DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits
DFS sucks cock -- 38,300 hits
DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
What it *also* shows is, that DFS has not the *faintest* idea how to
conduct a Google search. Why am I not surprised.
--
WARNING! Do not drive your
vehicle after using Windows.
Frustration may be taken out
on other road users.
rapskat
2006-05-11 06:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Of course it's flawed. But it's not dishonest. As I said, it's just
anecdotal evidence of how truly awful Linux/OSS is.
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of disconnected
DFS rapes children -- 20,000 hits
DFS kills squirrels -- 246 hits
DFS supports bin laden -- 12,200 hits
DFS supports terrorism -- 23,900 hits
DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits
DFS sucks cock -- 38,300 hits
DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
DFS states the tripe he does in this group merely to elicit responses,
much like you just did. He doesn't believe most of what he says, and the
rest he knows to be bullshit. He's just looking for attention and
arguments, a total waste of time.

Some trolls actually serve a purpose, they point out valid flaws and
shortcomings with Linux and OSS and actually help make it better (however
inadvertently). This idiot is just looking for a fight, and will spout
any unfounded nonsense in pursuit of that goal, knowing that someone will
rise to take the bait.

The trick is, no matter how tempting the bait may seem, to just pass it
by. I'm still learning self-control in these regards myself, I love a good
flamefest as much as the next Jerry Springer viewer. ;-)
--
rapskat - 02:01:00 up 9 days, 16:25, 2 users, load average: 2.45, 1.87, 1.81
Linonut
2006-05-11 11:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
DFS states the tripe he does in this group merely to elicit responses,
much like you just did. He doesn't believe most of what he says, and the
rest he knows to be bullshit. He's just looking for attention and
arguments, a total waste of time.
Some trolls actually serve a purpose, they point out valid flaws and
shortcomings with Linux and OSS and actually help make it better (however
inadvertently). This idiot is just looking for a fight, and will spout
any unfounded nonsense in pursuit of that goal, knowing that someone will
rise to take the bait.
The trick is, no matter how tempting the bait may seem, to just pass it
by. I'm still learning self-control in these regards myself, I love a good
flamefest as much as the next Jerry Springer viewer. ;-)
I like arguing with him sometimes. I've been pretty good about ignoring
his more inflammatory posts; I've still got some work to do about
ignoring him when he says stuff that's completely bonkers (such as trying
to compare a "normal" UNIX user to a "normal" Windows user on a
corporate server.)
--
Tux rocks!
DFS
2006-05-11 22:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
DFS states the tripe he does in this group merely to elicit responses,
much like you just did. He doesn't believe most of what he says, and
the rest he knows to be bullshit. He's just looking for attention and
arguments, a total waste of time.
Arguing is not a waste of time. I love it. Most of us do.
Post by rapskat
Some trolls actually serve a purpose, they point out valid flaws and
shortcomings with Linux and OSS and actually help make it better
(however inadvertently).
Which is exactly what I do - for the most part. You just don't like how I
phrase it.

In this instance, I got off on a tangent after mlw lied and claimed to have
sat waiting in front of a bank rep for an hour while she figured out how to
map her Z: drive in Windows Explorer.

But the basic premise I started with is irrefutable: Linux is far more
flaky, unreliable and difficult than Windows. I know it, you know it, mlw
knows it, and the "advocates" here know it.
Post by rapskat
This idiot is just looking for a fight, and
will spout any unfounded nonsense in pursuit of that goal, knowing
that someone will rise to take the bait.
I see you're still smarting over that slow-ass 'parse maillog' sed script
you wrote, which my VB script running on a system slower than yours bested
by 100%. But don't worry, you can still cling to ... snicker... "Linux does
2x the workload of Windows" and a "bloated POS Access" and "effective,
efficient Linux tools". LMAO! Keep hope alive, you heah me?

Besides, I don't post nonsense. It's controversy and some flaming and
debate. What else do you want out of me? cola doesn't need another
ass-kissing accept-all-Linux-problems apologist, or a nitwit news poster
like Roy "The Liar" Schestowitz. Tim Smith and Erik Funkenbusch have the
nitty gritty tech details ready to serve to you bozos.
Post by rapskat
The trick is, no matter how tempting the bait may seem, to just pass
it by. I'm still learning self-control in these regards myself, I
love a good flamefest as much as the next Jerry Springer viewer. ;-)
So what are you bitching about? Quit contradicting yourself.
Linonut
2006-05-12 11:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
But the basic premise I started with is irrefutable: Linux is far more
flaky, unreliable and difficult than Windows. I know it, you know it, mlw
knows it, and the "advocates" here know it.
No, we don't know it. Linux is not perfect, but overall it is less
flaky than Windows.
--
Tux rocks!
Kier
2006-05-12 12:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by DFS
But the basic premise I started with is irrefutable: Linux is far more
flaky, unreliable and difficult than Windows. I know it, you know it, mlw
knows it, and the "advocates" here know it.
No, we don't know it. Linux is not perfect, but overall it is less
flaky than Windows.
And if things do go wrong, even the relatively untrained or inexperienced
user, with a bit of common-sense, is often able to fix the problem. If
worst comes to worst and re-installation is necessary, it's way easier to
do it for Linux than for Windows.
--
Kier
tab
2006-05-11 23:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Some trolls actually serve a purpose, they point out valid flaws and
shortcomings with Linux and OSS and actually help make it better
Get off the drugs.
Flatfish has done it, and some are paranoid about him.
DFS comes from a financial point of view, and you try and trash him.

Linux guys defend anything linux, with lies all over the place.

Take for instance, when I reported, that on my DISTRO, in JAVA,
if you put a space in the java path, not surrounded by quotes,
in .rcbash, the GUI will not boot.

I think the word, Linonut used, was BULLSHIT.
Later, it was, in fact, CONFIRMED.

How can anybody in LINUX know, if something is working or not,
in another distro, unless they have that distro and hardware? You
can't. Yet the COLA freaks will come out claiming it does, and that
the reporter of the bad news is a liar, a troll, and pure scum.

So, get off the drugs. COLA guys attempt to beat the living crap
out of the messenger. FLAP first is the COLA motto.
The Ghost In The Machine
2006-05-18 03:00:02 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
<***@nospamnoway.zz>
wrote
on Wed, 10 May 2006 09:34:52 -0400
Post by mlw
In another thread, DFS made some astounding assertions based on the
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for Linux freezes. (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Linux hangs. (0.09 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,900 for Linux spontaneous reboots. (0.29
seconds) Total: 7.55 million
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,700,000 for Windows freezes. (0.28 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Windows hangs. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for Windows spontaneous reboots. (0.47
seconds)
Total: 15.8 million
With an installed base of 30x the Linux base, Windows generates only twice
as many complaints.
ergo, Linux is 15x as difficult and troublesome to manage as Windows.
Anyone with half a brain would be able to point out the obvious flaw,
that Google, like most other search engines, orders based on the
following criteria:

- exact match
- match of all words
- match of some of the words

with an ordering that probably depends on various issues,
such as the number of words, but also depends on the index,
algorithm, or method used during the search, especially
if multiple articles come up with the same number of words.

For instance, "jelly baby buggy bumpers suck" returns the following
results, where I'm referring only to the titles here for brevity:

- iBeth: refers to rubber baby buggy bumpers and a tub of fruit jelly.
- BBC: picked up rubber baby buggy bumper and jelly
- Selected Vocabulary Differences Between British and American English
- Growing up Grotegut
- MORE BAND NAMES!!!
- www <dot> myspace <dot> com/brian_rules_all
- >> www <dot> myspace <dot> com/thesebluecryingeyes
- E2 Nuke Request <at> Everything2 <dot> com
- E2 Nuke Request <at> Everything2 <dot> com
- SHH! Community Forum [Archive] - Page 52 - The Superhero Hype! Boards

There's about 16,690 more but judging from this motley
bunch I'm not sure many conclusions can be drawn except
that Google's search can throw out some very disparate
responses.

Yahoo! and MSN show similarly mixed results.

In DFS's case the system probably keyed on "hang" in a
large number of responses -- e.g., "damn it, my system
hangs" would match, and that's hardly Linux-specific, now,
is it? :-)
Post by mlw
Of course it's flawed. But it's not dishonest. As I said, it's just
anecdotal evidence of how truly awful Linux/OSS is.
OK, now using his methodology, the mere haphazard grouping of disconnected
DFS rapes children -- 20,000 hits
DFS kills squirrels -- 246 hits
DFS supports bin laden -- 12,200 hits
DFS supports terrorism -- 23,900 hits
DFS is a homosexual -- 941 hits
DFS sucks cock -- 38,300 hits
DFS is a homosexual who rapes children, kills squirrels, and supports
terrorism and bin laden.
Well, one might very well want to support bin Laden's
half-niece (more precisely, daughter of one of Osama's
half-brother's wives [*]); she's quite the cutie and angling,
as I understand it, for some sort of glamour contract. :-)

(For the record, her name is Ms. Wafah Dufour. It's an odd world.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4555430.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10587661/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572299,00.html
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_4071

Hubba hubba, if one likes leggy brunettes. :-) May she
find inner peace, as she certainly has an outer beauty,
even if her features, according to the accessible bits of
the men.style.com article, looks a bit like her half-uncle.
(I can't say; Osama's beard screws up things a bit.)

*ahem*

Anyway, I for one fail to see whether DFS's methods prove anything even
remotely useful.

[*] depending on how one defines "wife", I suppose. I for one don't know.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...