The recipe is as you describe. But history has not delivered the disasters of which you speak. And that has not been simply a matter of luck.

It is apparent that SJW, as with pretty much all "alternative remedies" [in the U.S.], is fairly benign as dispensed despite the extremely wide variations in dosage (intentional or otherwise). This "margin of safety" is an implicit byproduct of several factors. Manufacturers, as people and profiteers, are disinclined to make products that harm their customers. As well, the FDA does watch and wait to step in where toxicity or significant adverse reactions ensue (e.g. as with ephedra). And civil litigation is ably punitive where regulation fails.

(Note that SJW appears to be ineffective in treatment of severe depression, and "better than placebo" in treating mild depression. Also do note that many/most controlled medications present risks of significant adverse reactions that are not predictable in individual cases, so it is incumbent upon all consumers to monitor actual effects and adjust usage as appropriate. In this regard, almost all substances can be described as being a "formula for disaster" given your rather loose standard for declaring so.)

In my opinion, the significant problem of "alternative remedies" is their lack of demonstrated efficacy vis-a-vis the assertions under which they are explicitly or implicitly marketed. I am being kind here...there is significant informal evidence (and some formal evidence) that suggests that these substances are overwhelmingly lacking in efficacy.

I think it is unhelpful and essentially misleading to describe "alternative remedies" as being dangerous. Such a claim is similar to describing influenza vaccines as being dangerous. The risks in both cases appear to be quite low, and attempts to focus attention on their dangers only serves to divert attention away from much more significant factors to be considered.

Why avoid SJW? Answer #1, which is probably incorrect: because it has a significant chance of harming you. Answer #2, which is probably correct: because it is unlikely to be of significant benefit in treatment of depression.

I agree with the "unregulated and unstandardized" part. But the "formula for disaster" part is B.S.

And, no, I don't take your B.S. personally (i.e. as some kind of reflection on me). I simply disagree with that part. Nothing personal.

A proven psychoactive substance with no regulation or standardization? That's a recipe for disaster.

While it may not be a recipe for controlled therapy, the widespread anecdotal histories of usage of uncontrolled substances such as SJW clearly demonstrate that they are not a "recipe for disaster." You would better serve the cause of medicine if you encouraged the isolation of the active ingredient(s) in SJW and advancement of dosing/administration of said ingredient(s), rather than to attack its weakness with your own brand of FUD.

Forgive me for my delay...I had to summon the will to reply.

Your points are rife with invalid assumptions about my points and the applicability of your analogies/anecdotes. For example, your closing remark:

Your company's failure to take its duty to the law seriously only makes it easier for these criminals to ply their trade. Sloppy decision. If I knew enough to turn your company in, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Whatever unlawful act you imply my company to have done here is, quite simply, of your convenient imagination. Your defense is no more than a blustery, uninformed, egotistical offense. Do you really consider your guidance to be helpful to a SMALL merchant who falls victim to an ALLEGED DDoS?

You are an attorney. I am a technician. Riddle me this: how many lawyers should it have taken me to address a DDoS attack?

I find your perspective to be way out at the periphery of the problem. You sound like a D.C. lawyer, or of some similar culture where one might develop the false belief that government is playing a large role in mitigation of internet technical risks. Keep chewing on that idea while I continue to adjust and harden my perimeter defenses, widen my trustful connections, heed good practices, and employ other techniques needed to keep DDoS risks at acceptable levels. I have many additional opportunities yet available to mitigate my risks such that I don't foresee any time in the next few years that your strategies will provide a competitive bang for my company's buck. Your strategies do, however, offer a reasonable return on lawyer's (or a bureaucrat's) investment.

Interesting choice of strategies.

I/my company was recently a DDoS attack target. We were only willing to employ technical counter-measures; we had/have no willingness to appease the attacker. Our strategy was (and is) very expensive for us. But so far, we survive (and grow).

As long as there are people around who think like you, there will be attackers who will exploit your strategy, and there will be collateral victims such as my company. Fortunately, we're unprofitable feed for the attackers so they don't dwell too long on us, and instead make their beds with more "logical" thinkers such as yourself. Attackers are smart and adaptable that way.

Would YOU pay a [purported] DoS attacker to not attack again?

Thanks for explaining that.

Do you think the traditional protection racket, as your chosen model, is sufficiently congruent to this case as to make a good argument for a website operator to pay a DoS attacker to not attack again?

Let me re-phrase my question. Would YOU pay a [purported] DoS attacker to not attack again? (I need to differentiate here between that which you think a smart person such as yourself should do, as opposed to what you think is appropriate for the many stupid people such as myself.)

But the only protection you can buy from them is their "commitment" to not attack again. That doesn't protect you from another attacker launching an attack, and if you're one who pays, then I'd say you've improved your chance of that.

It seems that a technical defense is your only real defense, and "paid protection" is the resort of tomorrow's road kill.

Watch out about calling it "stealing." That usually gets you a lecture about why it's not the same as stealing (i.e. there's no taking/depriving of an object/material).

There is, however, a breach of contract behind every instance of copyright infringement. So congratulations to all the non-thieves...their behaviors still depend on, and capitalize on, somebody screwing somebody else.

A proud generation? The virtues of good law are likely to prevail. May vote is for the party of greatest integrity. The GP's argument is weak in ethics, and strong only in the everybody-is-doing-it way...the same underlying strength as we saw behind the dot-com bubble and sub-prime mortgage borrowing/lending.

Yes, too often the many are wrong.

But you don't take the compile time away, just like you don't take the time it takes the developer to copy the files to the webserver or set the php config options.

But with that kind of potential savings, you *can* take compile time away, very cost effectively, by installing Mod_Perl to cache compiled Perl code (and Zend Platform or others for doing the same with PHP code).

And I do hope you're not spending much time copying files or setting your php config options. If you are, then something is amiss (you might need some well-crafted scripts and split operating environments).

Of course, I'm sure you've been on many decade long aerospace engineering projects to know how it should work.

You imply that one has to have aerospace experience to understand the politics of congressional appropriations.

The GP's point is quite correct with respect to almost all congressman and the spending programs that affect their districts. Once established, they bullishly cling to these appropriations with little attention to their underlying specifics. Though it may not be pork to you, it is pork to them and they are unashamed of the vigor with which they bring home the bacon.

Yes...most of "you" do just abbreviate that as "Republicans." But then, in your world, "we" would be "Democrats."

Do you understand that for many people, and with good reason, Al Gore exemplifies the problem cited in the GP's post? But I suspect the GP was referring to a range of demagoguery that is ubiquitous among almost ALL politicians. And that would include many Democrats and many Republicans.

Do you understand what is meant when it is said that partisanism is corrosive? Dumb, unmoderated, seat-of-the-pants partisanism.