From the link:
Standing around the kitchen, they smarmily chat about their own parties and offer tips for hosting a Windows 7 party. They toss their heads back and smugly laugh at each other's comments with that I-could-kill-you-with-this-cheese-knife look on their faces.
You keep hoping, searching desperately in the 6-minute, 14-second clip for some relief: A joke. A mass murder. Porn. SOMETHING.
I didn't know that but I don't think it changes the point of the comment.
Those features were added to the Unix system so that people wouldn't have to write out scripts to do those features every time. So if people nowadays had to use perl to implement the functionality of the cat command it would be a bad thing.
The usability of software for a given function can be increased until the point where features get in the way of the work.
I think to most average users Linux crosses that line in some areas and falls short in others. So does Microsoft software but not as often on the short side. The ease of use (real world general usability) of the features for basic everyday tasks is a priority, not the highest obviously, but a higher one than with most linux distrobutions. Lately there has been some attempts at fixing this but as a whole I think they have a long way to go to be overall on the same page.
User satisfaction with software is inversely proportional to how much work they must do - how many separate actions they must take - to accomplish something.
Yes.
I.e., competently designed software obsoletes the user, making user acceptance testing extraneous.
No.
Competently designed software allows users to do the tasks they have to do without unnecessarily complicated actions and time wasting steps. That's why we don't code in MS Word and do excel spreadsheets in machine language within emacs. We could use those methods but the software has been written that allows us to do them better. The software does not do it for us and it cannot create as varied an output as is capable from humans yet. So the software should not get in the way of the user and should help perform tasks. The STFU method tells us that if a group of users strugled to find a simple or easy feature to perform a task, the software may need to be adjusted. Perhaps just the GUI color or menu label, but if the people out there cannot find something or have trouble doing a task that the software can perform if they just new how. There is a problem. More training is easy to prescribe but it can be avoided for good promotion of user experiences. How many times have people fixed a linux distro to make it easier to do a task. Cat, Grep, etc. Rather than programming in perl all the time to get basic features, these tools have been added to make it easier. Same thing in the GUI world. Make it easier and it is more useful.
What did he just tell you? STFU!
"I think that people would get a fair shake if they were allowed to participate in the medical testing phases of these drug trials and were given the choice"
Perhaps, but how do you do that and keep the study valid?
By the history and diagnosis of the patients as terminally ill entering a study and having reactions. It's not being presented here that it would allow the statistics to be directly entered with the rest of the data since these are extreme cases. But if you can say that so many people that were terminally ill lasted well beyond their estimated time of death VS those that did not recieve treatment. That's just added data for the study isn't it? And you get to possibly help people or at least give them hope.
"*(Human analogs need not be live animals BTW, they can be lab grown organs or cells)"
That's very nmoce for certian tests, but not a good overall tests.
Seriously, people have been dealing with these issues forever. It's a hard one for people who actually understand the science process and the value of good studies.
First I really don't know what you mean by "That's very nmoce for certian tests, but not a good overall tests."
I'm not mocking or joking, I really don't get that sentence for the most part. But to the "not a good overall tests" If that's not good for overall testing then I didn't say it was, just that I didn't want to offend others that may think I was saying to perform more animal testing and get off topic. I didn't want to bring that into this.
Just because people have been dealing with these issues doesn't mean that they are doing it right and couldn't benifite from some outside perspective once in a while. There are some benifits in PR to be had from opening these up for earlier testing since the alternative is so grave.
Then there's the flip side of that coin. I'm sure someone will remember the movie but the point stands as a reasonable example.
The trials have to have a baseline or control group usually and that means a placebo or no treatement for those unlucky ones in the trial.
So you have a group that is suffering from an ailment and they get into a trial and then don't get treated anyway. So while the drug was being delevoped and during the testing and all the way up until it is released to market, the person doesn't get treatment. This can take decades for some companies although 12 years is common. During that time people will have died. If the drug is worth anything and would have saved lives, a percentage of that number are those that drug testing didn't save during the trials.
I'm not saying that the trials are completely heartless or wrong, but that there are multiple sides and perspectives that have to be addressed in this issue.
Read up on it:
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm
Holy crap. Your post actually proved your point about waiting and testing, or in your case proof reading.
But your point is a small one if that in the perspective of medical testing. I think that people would get a fair shake if they were allowed to participate in the medical testing phases of these drug trials and were given the choice. There is quite a large number of people out there that are terminally ill and suffering. They are looking forward to death to get away from the pain and drug induced mental state that they are prescribed to try and combat that pain. The choices in front of them are:
1. Take enough pain medication to dull the pain to a tolerable level and miss out on life since it's a trip now.
2. Try and tolerate the pain to be able to remember and converse with those they love but in doing so have to watch the looks on their faces as they see such pain and suffering. (also the PAIN can cause blackouts depending on the conditions)
3. Get in a drug trial to possibly have an extended period of lucidity and responsiveness to pain medications/treatments that would possibly extend their life.
Given an educated choice when not even in that much pain I think that prohibiting those that would from entering into the testing phases is not an easy choice. You'll have the get rich crackpots that think Draino will cure cancer and want to do the trials but a basic first level test would weed out the vast majority of those so that the others could start testing on the human equivalent * sooner and then move to human testing before thousands die without a chance. The cost of the basic screening and the choice of those that would offer their last months or years for the possibility would be a good thing I would think.
*(Human analogs need not be live animals BTW, they can be lab grown organs or cells)
"Abnormal behavior"... You know, like disagreeing with the government about what the definition of that may be.
I just have one thing to say to that.
Patriot Act.
"...any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true."
Now that's good science, why can't everybody stand behind this simple phrase.
It would clear a whole lot of political mudslinging up and get a better discussion of so many areas going between different perspectives.
You actually think that they have no record of a serial number of the device that your account is linked to?
How would they send you the books you purchased? Your account is tied to the device so you can use it.
That's not any more "tracking" than your cell phone company does to give you the calls to your cell phone.
They have "activated" it to be tied to your account.
Just as Amazon should be able to have the accout owner log in online and enter in their username/password and validate a captcha to disable ther device.
They purchased it didn't they? It's tied to their credit card to be able to buy books with it right? So If you can make a binding purchase with the devices authentication and that is enough for them to charge your credit card, isn't it enough verification for them to disable the device?
It's worth as much as Symantec tells you it's worth!
Ha!
Not "Had", actually.
From the Health Services website linked to from the article:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/preparedness/pandemicflu/swineflu.aspx
"Do not seek medical care if you are not ill or have mild symptoms for which you would not ordinarily seek medical care. If you have more severe symptoms of fever, cough, sore throat, body aches or are feeling more seriously ill, call your health care provider to discuss your symptoms and if you need to be evaluated."
But that's not really the reason the numbers are different.
To compare them from CDC stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no01/05-0979.htm
An estimated one third of the world's population (or 500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to 0.1% in other influenza pandemics. Total deaths were estimated at 50 million (5-7) and were arguably as high as 100 million.
Compared to the recent stats cited in the news:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india-tops-h1n1-mortality-rate/509543/
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as on August 21, there have been 1,799 deaths in total 182,000 laboratory confirmed cases across the world, which makes 0.9 per cent the mortality rate across the world.
But the stats are not all that clear taken as a whole.
From the same article:
With 584 deaths, Brazil tops the list of countries reporting fatalities due to the H1N1 virus. The mortality rate in Brazil is 0.29 per cent. However, if one takes into consideration the 5,206 laboratory confirmed cases, the mortality rate is 10 per cent -- much higher than India's.
And the countdown to a DOS via spoofing a report to symantec of malware propogation..... Begins.
Confirmed:
It's 86 percent accuracy:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gD0oDWeDtMfAYl0C5bvx6Yyd78Yg
If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.
