Oh, and naturally, by also making the file formats interoperable so as to make migrating from one system to the other painless.

From what I gather from the Appleseed site, they are different things (with some overlap), so I don't know why they'd need to "compete" with eachother.
In an ideal world, social networking would be what the diaspora guys are trying to do. In the real world (where not everyones cares or even wants to care about running some piece of software), I think Appleseed has a concept that would be much easier to take over facebook et-al.
They're both great concepts, and in the end I believe there's a place for both. Specially if diaspora is planning on making it "interoperable" (whatever that means, but I take it to mean to act as a client for other sites), maybe the utopic social networking scene will end up being some sort of combination of the 2 (like, people who are more tinfoil-hatty will run their own (diaspora) seed, and the rest who just don't give a $%% will create an account in their "local" (city, school, geeky friend's) server (running Appleseed), and everything will Just Work

Michael, maybe you could try and get in contact with the diaspora guys (since they're just starting to code and all) so that you can make sure this future is possible (making much more likely for this idea of "open social network" to happen), instead of what happens to most FOSS projects that try to do similar things (fragment the market and make all of them unpopular as a result)?

To further your point, I'd like to see ANYWHERE a report of any single clinic that has achieved any percentage (small as it may be) of cures/remissions/prolongued survival than with current MEDICAL treatments.
If anyone arguing that these clinics are worthwhile can provide this, I'll shut up.
But the fact of the matter is that NONE exist. As you previously said, these are as bad as homeopathy et-al in the charlatanry side of things, but these guys are playing with real stuff, and the consequences are potentially much, much worse. Homeopathy at least is just water and won't kill you any faster...

He didn't say HE PERSONALLY had that kind of problem. In any case you're making a lot of assumptions.

But with the rest of it I do agree. I've often thought about this situation and about what has really changed since, say, the 50's, when a man's salary was more than enough to support a family. I have not come up with concrete or definite answers, but one of the factors involved seems to be indeed mindless and ruthless corporativism. Back then there weren't any huge-ass megacorps, maybe a couple or airlines and banks (both of which payed suffiently well to their employees).
The problem is, I don't know how we could ever go back. This isn't even a US only problem, the same thing happens on this side of the pond.
Do you have a clearer view on the reasons for the current state of the matter?

In the same way, at what point did he say "I got FREE education, suckers"? At none. He explained that his government takes education seriously enough to provide it "for free" (and from that comment one doesn't have to be really smart to realise he is fully aware of where the money comes from).
Let's not get into this game, because whether you meant it or not, the subtext of your previous post was his way isn't any better.

Another way to look is that while your taxes go into funding a couple of wars for reasons you don't even know (no, it's not about terrorism, but I don't want to end up discussing this), his country used that same money to put him through college.
I'm not even going to get into the whole healthcare bit, but if you think paying somewhat higher taxes (and to a goverment who has it's priorities right on where to put that money) is NOT WORTH not ever having to worry about saving up money for your kids' college education (and even after that, watching them struggle to pay off the debt), then I don't really understand your way of thinking.
It all boils down to you (and people who think like you) apparently thinking that having higher taxes lowers europeans' acquisitive power, when that couldn't be further from the truth (could someone back me up with some links?). Now, having a huge-ass student-loan debt to pay... I think that would diminish your acquisitive power for quite a number of years.

Where does he say everyone should have the latest and greatest toys, travel around the world (this one is funny, since I don't know how in your view of the world you'd be able to travel AT ALL with 10 days of vacation), have an SUV and a bazillion dollar cellphone plan? He hasn't said otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was precisely against american-style consumerism.
I agree that a "traditional style" family where one stays at home is better for everybody (and psychology agrees too), but in the real world, much of the time this just ISN'T POSSIBLE. Spin it how you like, but in the end this sad situation we're in is partly (at least) due to this "CAPITALISM, FUCK YEAH" mentality you ironically have. Exploiting workers and paying them the bare minimun you can get away with is the reason shit is the way it is. At least in the middle class this is the case. It used to be that mom and pop shops would have been able to be run by the single person, while his wife was at home (or helpig around sporadically, but the main idea is the family-owned business) in comes walmart, puts them out of business, and now BOTH of them have to go work there to earn a fraction of what they did originally. While all the benefits are siphoned off to the shareholders or whatever. But you get the point.

No, it does not lead to a different conclusion, if you pay attention to what developmental psycologists and science in general tells you. The MOST important stage in development is the first year. If you REALLY want to reduce that, it'd be the first 6-8 months. That's why scandinavian countries have it right. Don't introduce such ridiculous points into an otherwise serious discussion. It only makes you look either stupid, douchebaggy or desperate.

Same deal. You're making me start to wonder why I'm even bothering. Do you want to discuss the matter or not? Would you really compare spending half a year playing everquest to raising a child, in the terms of the benefits to society?

Look, if you're going to strip my rethorical question, we're back at the beginning. I already gave the answer to that. Financial harm to the company does NOT hurt the employees (unless they are also shareholders). If the company is in such a situation where giving maternity leave to an employee (small shop) or to a certain percentage of them a year (huge megacorp) will bankrupt them, then it's a sad situation, but definitely not the woman's fault. At that point any other infinitesimal change in the market or whatever would have made it bankrupt and really, if the situation is like that everyone should have been on notice that this could happen and they should be all jumping ship. I gotta say, this mentality of yours of "putting the wellbeing of the company before the individual" really worries me. A company should not be an end in and on itself, but rather a mean to be a possitive thing to society, by providing jobs, whatever service they provide (and yeah, even making its owner filthy rich).

You've seen it, huh? Are you sure you didn't mean the substitute was way "nicer" instead of "better"? Or hotter? Or flirtier? I'm having a really hard time believing employees at a company would "want to give the substitute the job" because the other one way creating economic inefficiencies for the company. Oh, there's my confirmation. You used the word "crummy" to describe her. I'm sorry, but how much you like a person doesn't (or shouldn't because it DOES happen, as you said: "you'll get rid of her in some other way") play a part on whether she should have the job or not. But before you respond that she indeed was a worse worker, realise this: Then the fact that she has the job in the first place should be investigated. The HR guy who hired should get canned, and you could give his job to the hot, sassy, flirty temp!
Really now. If everytime a better candidate showed up for a job companies were to can the old employee, this would be a FUCKED UP WORLD (well, I know it does happen, because of people who think like you, but thankfully we have LAWS that at least make this a little bit harder). How would you feel if you got fired for some guy who does whatever you do way better? I very much doubt you're THE BEST in your field (out of statistical improbability, it's not an insult), so it could happen. And I very much doubt you'd just go "hey, such is life! time to find a new job!", and leave the old company alone (legally speaking)

Quite simply, because in our role in a society, being productive is important, but producing offspring is much more important (in a long term kind of way). And a society who has foresight would be wise to protect this matter, because companies (who think short-term and in any case don't care about society in general) sure as hell won't.
The matter of companies over here being hessitant to hire is indeed a problem but IMO it's leaps and bounds better than the alternative (ie: to let them can women just because they want to have children, and all of the consequences that that would bring). The "hiring difficulties" eventually get counteracted by the NEED to have employees, and quite honestly I don't think the number of jobs that would be created by easier firing procedures would be so great so as to even consider it. We are all (or were, we're really coming out of it) in an economic crisis, and to blame the unemployment on these laws is being myopic at best. In any case, to have an atmosphere of job insecurity and "trash contracts" is not precisely ideal.

Aside from what I just said:
a) Having a kid is not "abandoning" your job
b) Why does everybody else get hurt, except (and very marginally) the company's profit, when having to pay for the substitute's salary?
c) Even if the rest of the staff were made to pick up the slack, it'd be "for a bigger cause" and sure as hell they'll be able to enjoy the same "support" when they decide to have a kid. But since you seem to be such a diehard capitalism purist, I'll put it in terms you'll like: As long as they're in work hours, the company OWNS their time, and as such they should just think of it as work as usual... and if any extra hours are derived from it (totally optional, as per the law) they'll be rightly compensated for it.
d) The substitute does not deserve the job. That's why she's a substitute. If she did, she'd HAVE said job. Usual capitalism and job market rules apply. And besides, she TOO would be able to benefit from maternity leave when she needed it. It's not beneficial for anybody (except the company) for the workplace to become a jungle where it's either eat or be eaten.

Or at the very least state to your husband/wife your current emotional status in the sense that you no longer consider them your life parter, and that you reserve from that point onward, the right to sleep with other people if you like.
Seriously, to legally end a marriage is a bit of a drag, but that's no reason not to end the "relationship" and let the other person still think they're in one. That's outright unethical.
As for Parent, well, if that person is completely unsuitable for you, then I guess you shouldn't have married them in the first place, no? No, people don't really change over time, and yes, the signs are there from the very beginning. There are exceptions to this, and the few people who DO change over time, don't do so on their own, they do so in the process and context of their marriage (ie, it's partly your fault). There still might be some extreme cases, but nothing that can justify the almost 50% divorce rate in western countries. And definitely not something you want to base your life philosophy on.

Seconded. Granted, a bunch of anectdotes won't make any useful data, but it has happened to me once, and to a friend I know twice.
It has been suggested to me that women with histrionic personality traits behave exactly in this way, and I can indeed confirm that at least said ex has these sort of traits, so in the end it seems to boil down to it all being our fault for being attracted to such women in the first place. Upon realising this, I've made a conscious effort not to fall for these kinds of girls... So naturally I've been single for 2 years now. /coolstorybro

Oh, you are mistaking advancement in medical research with pseudo-medicine.
The first might be slow and painful, but it does get things done. And when they come out, you are pretty sure of what they'll do and what you can expect. In fact, you can be pretty sure that the balance between potential to cure/potential side effects (including death) is positive, because otherwise the drug would not have been accepted.
Now about pseudo-medicine... It's just wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to describe it. It's the new snake-oil, only prepared to deal with marginally more informed patients. They take these new and promising concepts (buzzwords, really, like stem cells) and make it seem like they're offering you the cures from tomorrow that your big bad government won't allow today. When in reality, it's as much charlatanry as homeopathy.
Allow me to elaborate:
In this particular case, I cannot even begin to understand what was the logic behind injecting stem cells into the kidney of a person with lupus-caused kidney disease. There is no mechanism of action to think of. They took genuine science that did something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (the trials in europe involving "stem cells" for the treatment of lupus-related kidney disease were basically a bone marrow auto-transplant) but sounded alike, and offered it as a convenient health treatment you couldn't get anywhere else.
Sure you might say the patient still should have the right to choose, and in that point I'm right there with you; but the thing is, if the patient is not a doctor, he won't be able to undertand that what they're offering is total and utter bullshit. You need to realise that the mental state a person enters when faced with their own mortality is a dangerous one in the sense that suddenly all their decision-making algorithms are thrown to the trash and replaced with "let's jump at anything that claims to be able to cure me".
Just the other day a friend of mine asked me about a mexican doctor who claimed he had a treatment for many mental conditions, from epilepsy to mental retardation, schizophrenia, autism, etc... By injecting the patients (who are all kids, of course) with bovine fibroblast growth factor; all based on a "study" HE made in 1991 where he "showed" (I quote it because I had to read said study and his methodology leaves much to be desired) doing so in rats affected by cerebral ischemia allowed some of the neurons in the ischemic penumbra to regain some function. With this pseudo-medicine in hand he travels around the country promising parents their kids will be "cured" from autism or mental retardation. I don't know wether he operates ilegally, but if I lived there i'd definitely report him to the authorities. Oh, did I mention his prices were desorbitant due to the fact that "the extraction and purification of these peptides is very expensive"? This price thing seems to be the norm with these sort of treatments, BTW. But hey, why not take out a second morgage (and leave your family with the consequences of that once you die) when you could BE CURED?!?!

The woman from TFA, BTW, had she not gone to this clinic, in all probability would have lost her kidney function, and would have had to live with dialisis for a while, and after that a kidney transplant, but she'd still be alive, and her family would be a lot less poor.

Personally I'll call it "synthetic life" when they design the genes from scratch. Otherwise, they're infringing on nature's patents. And that's just not cool, specially considering how they're likely to make the lawsuits rain on anyone who even thinks about using one of their "patented" "artificial" life forms. This whole "patenting living organisms" (natural, modified or completely synthetic) is a wonderful debate to be had, but I won't touch it today.
I'll conform to defining "creating synthetic life".
As I said, we already know a shitton about biology, and I do think we have the knowledge to be able to create an organism that is able to feed and reproduce, completely from scratch. The thing is, it would be a COLLOSAL effort, trying to model and simulate how completely new proteins are supposed to arrange themselves intro primary, secondary, terciary and even cuaternary structures, and how they are supposed to interact with their medium and other proteins... etc. AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there aren't really any truly NEW molecules us humans have DESIGNED from scratch to be used as medicines. They are all based, derived, and sometimes even still being extracted from natural sources like plants, animals, hormones, bacteria...
This is the new frontier we as humans need to conquer technology-wise in order to keep advancing us into the space age, IMHO.
So those are MY requirements... heck, I'll give them extra kudos if they use another molecule completely unrelated to DNA/RNA, or at the very least change the genetic code. About the first host "shell" I don't really care, since it's just a technicallity that can be easily overcome, at that. I think.

I know, sorry, I really tried (in different browsers even), but there seemed to be a problem with /. at the time I posted it.

It's not like I love a disorganised lump of text splattered on the screen or anything...
Oh, look, I had my comments settings screwed up (weird since this hadn't happened before...). So ok, I'll just paste it here.

Wow. Parent surely will be able to respond to you better, but I'll give it my best shot. First I'll try to condensate your grips with modern medicine to be able to address them in an orderly fashion sometime before the end of the world (2012). Feel free to add any that I've missed. 1) Barrier to obtaining knowledge 2) Inability to get your hands on drugs/doing things yourself 3) The fact that doctors have access to more information than patients do. 4) Doctors don't know everything 1) I don't know what your barriers might be. I, myself, when going to the bookstore to get a book about a subject am not asked for any kind of credentials to acquire them. Please specify where the big difficulty lies. And sure going to medschool is the best way to learn. Why? the same reason going to a university to study ANYTHING is better than just reading up. Methodology, pedagogy, what have you. And as with other professions, you need a licence to practice. This is because you will be issued responsibilities and society has to have some way or distinguishing a doctor from a fortune teller. 2) This is tricky one, but more political than anything. In Europe, for instance your don't need a presciption for nearly as many drugs as you do in the US. But you ARE able to buy drugs for the most common ailments, aren't you? aspirins for headaches and mild anticongestants for the flu. As for the rest of the drugs, well it's a mixed bag. Firstly, most medications can and will hurt a person when used innaproprietly. You might say "it's my body so let me do whatever I want", but if people were (and believe me, they would) dropping by the bunch (and while trying to get better), there would be a general cryout for the goverment to do something. And no, don't even compare it to other substances that are also potentially lethal, because while it's obvious you shouldn't drink bleach, it's not very obvious you shouldn't use heparin to try to fix your hemorroids if you have an active ulcer. And no, all the warnings and instruction manuals in the world will not do it. It's a matter of public safety, like making sure a bridge is well built (or do you suggest they could put up a sign in the bridge that read "this brigde was not built by any engineers, proceed at your own risk" and leave it open to the public? Come on, if people are suieing eachother because they slip on their portion of the boardwalk... what pharmaceutical company would be brave enough to confront THAT? Also, there's the matter of psycotropic drugs, which like it or not is very much related to the drug legality. So that is a legal issue, not a medical one. Oh, and also, there are truly dangerous (as in massively and ecologically) drugs out there, mainly citostatics. You might like to treat that belly pain you woke up with (stomach cancer, according to google) with some cool chemo (or god forbid, radioactive isotopes for your throat pain [thyroid cancer]), but using those drugs would present a great risk to public (and ecological) health. By the same note, if I want to experiment with alternative energy sources, why can't I just go to the hardware store to buy some enriched uranium? 3) This is just bullshit. All the info we have available are the books we buy, the classes we took, the magazines we subscribe to, and a couple of websites with condensed and peer-reviewed data (payed for o), and pubmed; ALL of which you can get your hands without any sort of problem. I dare you, go to pubmed, type some disease you're interested in, and read up on the current research being done on them. Or buy an issue of the NEJM. It's the exact same info your doctor has available. But I'm guessing your doctor will probably be able to exact a bit more of useful information from it. The same way if I bought a book of hardcore python examples and practical uses I probably wouldn't know what to do with it. In that sense, please don't compare practicing medicine to painting your house. the same way I don't compare programming to keeping an up-to-date script for installing my favorite apps for when I do a full reinstall. It's a complex field. Think of it more like building aircraft. There are great stories out there of this guy in africa who turns old cars into one-man helicopters, like there are those of the guy who was sailing alone around the world and had to drain an abcess from his elbow by himself. Both are great, but when I want to get to another continent in less than 10 hours, I don't go around whining there is too high an entry barrier for being hired by Airbus. Or why I can't go to the hardware store and buy jet fuel. All of this is related to: 4) No-one claims to know it all. But we do claim to a) know more than someone who hasn't been trained in medicine (and I use the word "train" because learning to diagnose, much the same as troubleshooting a network problem, is not something you pick up in books, and is partly deduced during the learning and practicing, and partly taught by the people mentoring us), and b) being able to come to a correct diagnosis in a VERY HIGH percentage of cases. I do have a gripe with your fixation that doctors do nothing more than "guess". Maybe you just have no idea and are just projecting your own fear of mortality onto the profession, but truly, we do know what we are doing. And you'd be surprised at how similar it is to troubleshooting any other kind or engineering, network or software problem. We are systematic and scientific (well we are taught to be, and yes, there are exceptions but they are VERY few), even tho most of it is hidden under thought processes such as abstraction and intuition. Whenever you "just know" bug x has something to do with a certain section of the code you reviewed earlier, is it any less valid? That's the way the human mind works, and while you probably were not able to "feel" those things when you were just learning to program, and it took you hours instead of seconds to find the problem, with time and practice you fine-tuned your process. In short, we ARE only human, but I don't get why that would be something someone would try to deny (maybe it's an american thing?), nor do I see why that would make us somehow incapable or reaching the right diagnosis and treating a patient. Nor do I see the need to overthrow the profession with acussations of quackery. Is the state of medicine really that bad? I mean I can understand in the 1500's people being afraid of disease, since nothing was really understood. I'm not saying we can account for every single molecule and what it does in the body today, but we have a pretty darn good idea of how the hell it all works and interacts. Fear of death is perfectly understandable and as human as killing eachother, but let's be able to separate those issues from the actual matter being discussed and realise that you are able to be discussing stupid things over the internet with some total stranger, thanks to computers and engineering and all those wonderfull technologies, but also because you didn't die in childbirth, or of the plague, or of TB. As you most likely would have in another time when medicine was pretty much the art of consoling people in their grief.