... And don't have other options.

In my case, Glypizide, Metformin (pills) and Lantus (injected) was doing a good job. However, there was always the possibility that mealtime insulin (instead of Glypizide) could be better. Alas, it wasn't, but at least none of the problems were catastrophic, and now I know.

I'm not sure how well it worked for her, but I'm glad that my trial's over and I'm back on my old treatment. Not only did I find myself obsessing over how much and when I was eating, I had vastly more hypoglycemic episodes than normal. (Of course, at least half of them had no symptoms other than a low reading, so I can't be sure.) I know that mealtime insulin works for many people; now I know that I'm not one of them.

Shrug! Even if I were part of the control, I'd still be doing something to help.

Name another group of the population willing to be guinea pigs for experimental medication?

People with chronic conditions that might be helped by it. My sister has MS and was part of a clinical study of a new treatment. I have Type II diabetes and just finished a clinical trial of a new form of mealtime insulin. Neither of us is homeless, destitute or mentally ill.

Same here. That's why I have a friend who's a hardware-geek build my computers for me.

While I think that Jackson is an opportunistic jackass, resorting to racial epithets is completely unnecessary and only serves to undercut your message. Be better than this. You owe it to your society and yourself.

Yeah, but does it do windows?

</ducks>

My point is there are not enough searchers working on our behalf, primarily because there is not enough incentive. (The NSA and Chinese may have found the bug years ago, for all we know, but they have a strong incentive to find vulnerabilities. Not enough people are paying White Hats to find these bugs and get them fixed.) Linus' Observation uses the clause "given enough eyeballs", which implies to the reader that someone is actually providing the appropriate number of eyeballs required. That implied assumption is made every time someone says "Open Source software is more secure than proprietary software, because of Linus' Law." But it simply hasn't proven to be a realistic assessment, or a very effective guarantor of security.

There's an unwritten corollary at play here: "given enough code, you won't have enough eyeballs." And that's something else keeping Linus' Observation from becoming a valid hypothesis. It even applies to this story, as well. "Given enough Wikipedia articles, there aren't enough fact checkers."

It doesn't matter if it's a rational argument backed up by facts or not, or if he's done a risk assessment, or if it's a free, cheap, or expensive firewall. The Payment Card Industry's Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) has as their very first requirement 1: "Install and maintain a firewall configuration to protect cardholder data." It's not an optional requirement, and you can't justify not having one.

If you're going to handle credit cards on the system, it has to be protected with a firewall.

If your POS vendor isn't requiring a firewall, either they are not selling a system that takes credit cards, or they are selling shoddy, insecure systems that are in violation of PCI DSS. Fixing these problems will cost you dearly; worst case, they are setting you up for a breach.

'Heartbleed'.

It took 4 years before it was discovered, and even then, it was only found because it was a security-related bug. Shallow bugs don't cause the Internet to break.

"Linus's Law" is a failed hypothesis; it is not a theory, and certainly not a law. The distinction is important. At best, it could be rewritten as "Linus's Oft-Repeated Wish."

AND you can leave with a receipt for your returned equipment, plus the names of people you dealt with face to face. That could be extremely useful if they want to play the common game of "we never got your stuff and you still owe us monthly payments".

I would do this kind of research if I were referencing a hot-button topic, or a political figure, etc. I expect multiple viewpoints, vandalism, and trolls are all intertwined when the topic is controversial or widely publicised. I do not expect such nonsense on a page for a children's book, or on satellite orbital mechanics, and would not necessarily think to dig in there.

Unfortunately that isn't enough, many sites copy unreferenced information from wikipedia without indicating their source. These sites can later end up being cited by wikipedia.

Especailly if you are new to a field it can be difficult to know who are the reputable sources and who are the not to reputable ones.

Imagine you have an iPhone, and you rip CDs in iTunes to fill it up with copies of your music. Now, you want to go down to that place on the corner where they serve really good lunch. You put in your earbuds, crank up the ripped music, and start walking to lunch. As you proceed down the street, a lonely old man staggers and falls. You rush over to help him, and realize he's having a heart attack. You use your iPhone to call for emergency services, and wait with the man for help to arrive. While you are sitting on the sidewalk, and a greasy man in a cheap suit walks up and says "I'm a lawyer, and I'm going to sue you for not saving this man's life." Just then, a cop driving a Ford screeches to a halt, running over the lawyer, backing up, and hitting him again.

It's the opposite of that.

HTH. HAND.

Interestingly even in places where companies are allowed to charge extra for taking credit cards to the customer very few do.

So you are getting the cost of taking credit cards rolled into the price whether you use them or not. May as well take the benefits.