Yes, but a lot of people forget the other side of that.
You know what they call it when a doctor gives a treatment based on an unjustifiable hunch (or prodding from a pharma rep) that never gets reviewed because of privacy and unwillingness to criticize other doctors? Medicine.
Just because typical altmed lacks a sound epistemology, doesn't mean the typical doctor has it.
All anyone should care about is results. If a ritual somehow reduces pain then it can hardly be called "pointless."
The problem is when there are no results. From homeopathic "medicine" that's nothing but water to chiropractors claiming that they can treat allergies, there's a ton of alternative medicine that's just completely baseless.
Pain is an area where weird things can help, because it's ultimately a matter of perception. But that doesn't in any way legitimize the sorts of folks who say they can treat cancer by manipulating your spine.
I'm happy to heap scorn on homeopathy too, but, as you say initially, if results are what we're after, than placebo effect is potentially just as good as allopathic medicine. But yes, it would be asking a lot of placebo effect to cure cancer...
Exactly. You should really stop and do a re-think if you ever find yourself saying, "no, that didn't relieve your pain, it just produced a state observationally indistinguishable from lacking pain!"
Kinda like the people who say "shaving hair doesn't make it come back darker. That's a misconception. It just looks like it does ... when what you care about is looks."
That assumes there is some systematic process in which established medicine adopts alternative methods once they have been validated.
However, this is a simplistic view that is quite far from reality. First, the practices are totally different in principled approaches. Medicine generally is focused on treatment and management of illness and conditions. Alternative medicine is generally focused on prevention or reversal of conditions.
Medicine doesn't have much incentive to adopt alternative practices even when they do work. You can't patent them. Lot's of research often goes into taking a natural substance and turning it into a drug just so it can be patented to make it profitable. However, often in the effort to create a drug version, the drug version must be a modified structure which doesn't exist in nature in order for it to be patentable, but this is what leads to the problem of side effects or complete failures of medications.
Just look at recent revelations of medicine such as anti-depressants which perform no better than placebo. Effectiveness of statins are being called into question and then there is monumental disaster Vioxx that killed something like 55k after successfully completing the FDA approval process.
Simply saying medicine works and alternative doesn't is quite an unfair view. Reality is there is both good and bad on both sides.
IIRC, it works better than a sugar-pill placebo, but not better than injection-based placebo. Magnitude of the placebo effect is different by delivery mechanism.
Disconnect[0] is often touted as a more privacy conscious alternative. I haven't investigated it thoroughly, but it's open source so you can look into it yourself pretty easily.
Staying completely off the Internet goes quite a ways toward that goal.
But I'm pretty sure it's hard to conduct business on the Internet (with any of the major public companies, such as Amazon) and be anonymous in today's world.
They have rankings and tracker lists and stuff that you can use, I'm not sure if the data is bundled with it initially or if you have to download it from them.
sigh Get a copy of the MMM and read it. TL;DR: adding more people to a project won't necessarily help make it go any faster and often will slow it down.
Agree 100%. I travel a lot and need more power. I currently have a 13" MBA, and am waiting to see what the next refresh offers, but am seriously looking at a 15" rMBP for my next machine. The screen is sooooo much better that the extra weight becomes a non issue (plus all the extra CPU power is huge too).
we also have a rule that when possible (like you've opened up an old file with whitespace issues), that you should clean it and do a whitespace changes only commit before getting to work. It makes everyone's life easier if they're not looking for the "real diff" in your commit.
I've never gotten any of these complaints about shows running "overtime". Personally, the longer the better IMHO. They're podcasts. I listen as much as I can, and then pause them to pick them up later. Short ones are just over quicker and then I have to wait until the next one until there's more to listen to.
PS: (edit) unless its music, I almost always listen to the spoken word at 1.5x or 2x speed.
My main complaint is that no one is saying "let's get back on topic" because the topic is whatever the host wants. So you get a 10 minute digression on random crap. That is the "overtime" part. I wouldn't mind 90 minutes of on-topic chat.
Don't forget that Groklaw is quite slanted in Google's favor just like FOSS Patents is slanted against Google. To get a balance you need to read both (well actually even more sources).
On the other hand, Groklaw does have a history of predicting future events in these court cases that FOSS Patents can't pretend to match. Don't blame Groklaw if the reality of the law has a strong bias in their favor.
You don't get truth by merely reading opposing viewpoints and taking the average, you get it from synthesis. In this case synthesis might involve discounting the opposing viewpoint in the end, on the merits.
Yes, Groklaw is a vociferous advocate of FOSS in this sphere. Learn to tease apart the fact from the opinion. But that's just ad hominem until you catch a flaw in their fabulous coverage.
"Groklaw does have a history of predicting future events in these court cases that FOSS Patents can't pretend to match"
Having read both regularly I don't find this to be accurate. Groklaw makes actual predictions rarely and consequently has a cleaner track record. FM makes a lot of predictions and is, as you would expect, both wrong and right more because of it. He also covers a lot more cases.
As regards this case the big ticket item has been the Lindholm email and FM seems to have been right that it would stay in. And while I don't recall Groklaw definitively saying it wouldn't, their coverage certainly skewed heavily towards "remember that email from SCO that was just like this".
Judge Alsup: "It is my job to decide whether or not the copyrights on the computer programs do or do not extend to protect the structure, sequence and organization of the code of the programs. I will not be able to decide this question until after your verdict. For purposes of your deliberations, you must assume that the copyrights do cover the structure, sequence and organization of the code."
"Groklaw makes actual predictions rarely and consequently has a cleaner track record."
So Groklaw makes predictions when they think they're right and keeps their mouth shut otherwise whereas Mueller just shoots his mouth off and is wrong much of the time. You make a good case here why people should read Groklaw and ignore FOSS patents.
Groklaw certainly does have a slant and, in this case, the slant is toward Google. However, reading two partisan sources, slanted in different directions definitely doesn't make any sense if what you're after is the "Truth". You know this, though, based on your parenthetical.
But really, unless you have a major investment in the outcome, it doesn't matter where you get your news. For me, and I suspect for many, following the day-to-day updates in a case like this is sort of like watching a professional sports game. We'll find out the definite, official, outcome at some later time, but for now we're just watching (more or less) for the entertainment value.
It's quite common in professional sports for an announcer or analyst to have well-known loyalties or preferences. Many are even employed by the teams themselves. The partisanship of the announcer or analyst (provided the commentary isn't completely crazy) really doesn't impact most of us because, unless we're placing bets (legally or otherwise), we're just there to have a good time and enjoy an impressive spectacle.
They may be against software patents in general (isn't everyone here?), but Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents is actually being paid by both Microsoft and Oracle. You can 100% expect him to be slanted against Google in this case and in general as well.
I love it how Florian Mueller is castigated because he previously got paid for writing some reports for Microsoft, but PJ gets a completely free pass on the sources of her funding.
PJ could easily be just a pseudonym used by a panel IBM/Google lawyers to astroturf for all we know, but even talking about her identity is considered off base and taboo and whoever does that is viciously attacked and vilified.
"PJ could easily be just a pseudonym used by a panel IBM/Google lawyers"
That's been tried. Nobody has ever offered any evidence that any such thing is the case. Several public figures have stated that they've met a singular female PJ. IBM has denied in open court being behind PJ.
For you to bring this up here is pathetically disengenuous.
Furthermore, most Groklaw articles these days are authored by Mark Webbink, a lawyer and law professor with a well-documented past. He's been in general agreement with PJ on this case, though he's offered less in the way of commentary.
No, FM is being castigated because he has a terrible track record of doom and gloom predictions regarding Android and Linux yet he is constantly sourced by the clueless media. He is also being paid by Oracle at this very moment. He is basically their mouth piece. How disingenuous do you have to be cooldeal to pretend that he is somehow an objective source? How objective are you?
Perusing the comments at Groklaw where everyone is so confident this is the smoking gun that will end Oracle's case reminds me of this bit from Jonathan Chait about people who get their news from hyperpartisan sources:
"It must be like being following the state-controlled media in a totalitarian country. First you read that our brave troops are marching toward the enemy capital and will soon complete a glorious victory. Then, after a while, there's no glorious victory, but you start reading about how our brave troops are inflicting heavy losses on the enemy as they courageously defend the motherland."
While this will not end the case, the fact that Oracle tried to base many of its arguments on something that was not, in fact, true according to their own copyright registrations will utterly destroy the arguments that rely upon that misrepresentation.
So they're going to be in a difficult position trying to salvage their copyright claims. They might manage to do something, but they've got a pretty weak hand here. They wanted to rush this trial and all they did was to trip themselves up.
I think you've bought into the hype here prematurely. The odds that this issue will be in any way significant to the outcome of this case seem low.
Did you read Oracle's reply[1] or just the caricature at the original link?
"Google argues that the entire Java platform is necessarily the “work as a whole” because that is what was registered with the Copyright Office. Courts have soundly rejected that argument.. As explained in Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, supra:
Defendants contend that plaintiffs' “work” is the entire daily newspaper because their copyright registration covers the paper as a whole rather than any particular article. Thus, they assert, copying an individual article constitutes reproduction of only a small portion of the entire work. This proposition is not supported by the case law. See Texaco, supra, 60 F.3d at 925-26 (copying an entire article from a journal where the copyright registration covered the journal as a whole constituted a copying of the entire work); Hustler Magazine, supra, 796 F.2d at 1155 (finding that “[a] creative work does not deserve less copyright protection just because it is part of a composite work” and holding that the copying of a one-page parody from a 154-page magazine constituted a copying of the entire work); Netcom On-Line II, supra, 923 F.Supp. at 1247 (“although many of Hubbard's lectures, policy statements, and course packets are collected into larger volumes, and registered as a whole, they may still constitute separate works for the purposes of this factor”); Lerma, supra, 1996 WL 633131 at *9 (“we find that the Works at issue in this case are combined in ‘collections' and that each subpart must be considered a ‘single work’ for the purposes of fair use analysis”)."
Everything is actually completely stripped of formatting when you paste it into a Hacker News comment box. What happened is that a line beginning with whitespace is treated as code. So when I add a line with " Like so" I get:
I read the judge's reaction to the argument, which is more important than what either party has to say. Oracle has tried to have this issue both ways.
And that precedent probably won't do them much good, because the copying here isn't the same as copying whole articles, however much Oracle's lawyers have tried to say otherwise.
Well, I just read the reports about how it went down. Oracle cut off their foot to save their leg. Then Google showed up with a chainsaw, offering to "help."
So yeah, Oracle's case might be salvageable, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Well you get the same 'slanted' coverage from Florian Muller, except he is directly paid by Oracle and Microsoft. I don't know if Groklaw has ever recieved any money but I doubt it.
Like someone else mentioned, Groklaw has had strong track record when it comes to predicting the outcome of these types of lawsuits.
Isn't Grocklaw's track record on this case already strong as well? I can't say that I've paid a great deal of attention to it, but as a casual observer, it seems to me that Grocklaw has all along predicted that most of Oracle's arguments aren't very strong, and as they seem to be dwindling, that strikes me as an even stronger argument in their favor.
After all, if they have not only a generally strong track record in predicting these kinds of cases but also a very good record related to this particular case, I'm inclined to put a lot of stock in what they have to say.
>I don't know if Groklaw has ever recieved any money but I doubt it.
Do you know how PJ makes money or how Groklaw gets funding to run? If questioning FM's money sources is fair game, why not do the same for PJ? Just because "she"'s batting for your team?
If Florian did the same thing as PJ and hid behind an anonymous blog, we wouldn't even know any sources of his funding.
Eeh? PJ is Pamela Jones, she hasn't been 'anonymous' since the Maureen O'Gara attempted character assassination of her back in the SCO days. She is an open source advocate who has worked as a paralegal.
I'm sure her personal finances have been put under heavy scrutiny (SCO certainly did), feel free to do so yourself.
Groklaw has no need or position to launch immature attacks like this as well:
> Interestingly, the judge was able to come to this easy conclusion despite the insistence of self-described patent expert, Florian Mueller, that the court would certainly allow Oracle to break its word.
How is it an immature attack to point out that an advocate for the opposing side failed to predict the future? Or that he has no real expertise? It goes to his credibility.
I'm not sure how the intellectual properly blogging scene operates, but it doesn't seem necessary to call Florian a "self-described patent expert" unless they have some personal vendetta against him. It shouldn't be relevant to the case anyway, as their legal analysis should be impartial and not about what some random blogger said.
He is not some 'random blogger', he is paid by Oracle to present himself as an expert on patents and put an Oracle-positive spin on the case. In effect he is an Oracle spokesperson.
Really? Are you saying that you believe bloggers who are being paid by companies are reporting objectively on those same companies? Seriously? Oracle pays Florian Mullers salary, so yes he is 'shilling' for them.
Groklaw has probably the strongest position on the Internet when it comes to stating anything of legal fashion as it pertains to the tech industry, regardless of what it is.
There are few or no organizations that have better trial room journalism chops when it comes to the IT scene than groklaw.
Groklaw made it's named reporting about a one sided case against a clear fraud.
This bred a mentality that it's ok to be an open source cheerleader in all future cases but frankly that hasn't worked out as well.
In the case of this article we get a one sided headline, some interesting and good analysis, a straw man caricature of Oracle's argument that amounts to "Derp! I guess we lose" and at the very end an offhanded link to Oracle's actual response (which reads pretty strongly) but no analysis.
I'd love for Groklaw to live up to the "expert legal analysis of the IT scene" side of it's heritage as opposed to being another "legal propaganda arm of the FSF" but that's up to them.
"This bred a mentality that it's ok to be an open source cheerleader in all future cases but frankly that hasn't worked out as well."
There is no such thing. I don't know what your beef is with groklaw but you're now to the point of fabricating sophistry to say...something. I don't even know what your point is here other than to bash groklaw.
"legal propaganda arm of the FSF"
Really? Groklaw is a part of the FSF now? Are they also based in Roswell or was that area 51?
"I don't know what your beef is with groklaw ... fabricating sophistry ... bash groklaw"
Let's be absolutely clear: I love Groklaw and have valued them and visited regularly for just about a decade now.
That doesn't mean Groklaw is above criticism or without faults, a jump emotionally invested commenters seem to want to take. Please take the time to read through things before you jump to hurl invective.
I'm hardly the only one here expressing the same sentiments about Groklaw's pro-open source bias, which again PJ freely admits.
" That doesn't mean Groklaw is above criticism or without faults, a jump emotionally invested commenters seem to want to take. Please take the time to read through things before you jump to hurl invective."
Did you even read what I wrote? I never said they were above criticism. There is a difference between criticism and bashing. And your comments in the aggregate amount to the latter. Claiming they are "breeding a mentality of cheer leading" anything is just ridiculous sophistry and that is what I was pointing out so why the attempted misdirection?
"I'm hardly the only one here expressing the same sentiments about Groklaw"
And there are more people saying the opposite. For any point you can bring up, you can find as many lay people as you have time to look for to agree with it which proves absolutely nothing.
If the people at Groklaw set up a site called OraclePatents, got constantly quoted as the "Oracle opinion" in the tech press and pretended that they were actually concerned Oracle shareholders but it really pained them to admit that "Oracle doesn't have a case here" then there would be some comparison.
Florian bleating on about how he's concerned as a Samsung phone owner(!?) and strong opponent of overreaching IP but gosh I think Google's really in trouble here is the very definition of disingenuous.
To get a balance you need to read both (well actually even more sources).
Or neither. However if you had to mix one of them in your daily feed mix, Groklaw actually seems to be based in the here and now, while FOSS Patents is just generally horseshit (we could go through the history of both that would quite amply prove this out. FOSS Patents is the worst sort of garbage the net produces)
If you stay away from his cheerleading there's a lot of good analysis and useful information.
I read both Groklaw and FOSS if not daily every other day and I wouldn't say one is significantly less biased or useful then the other. As I've said recently[1] I wish there were a good daily source that isn't overrun with bias but I haven't seen one yet.
I'm impressed you only had to go back 13 months to find a bad quote? If it's all horseshit use the latest column as evidence.
And don't pretend Groklaw's never been wrong in their cheerleading either. They've been expecting the judge to issue summary judgment and tar and feather Oracle's council for the last year.
"He's literally paid by Oracle"
If you'd clicked on my link above you'd see I pointed this out last week.
"That's ok, "both" sides of a story are important, right? "
Quit arguing with straw men. Like I said, I'd prefer an unbiased source.
Does it count as an up to date impeachment of your favorite bullshit peddler? Especially because he knows nothing came of his the-sky-is-falling claims regarding the Linux, GPL and Android? And that Linus himself said the claims were crap?
His current article also references another year old prediction he made which turned out to come to nothing as well
It's almost like he spews forth shitty predictions with a specific agenda in mind and doesn't care when his bullshit doesn't pan out because he makes good money by running his mouth.
Then there's this snipe at Jonathan Schwartz: "In yesterday's testimony, Jonathan Schwartz tried to do as much damage to Oracle's case as he could."
that or Schwartz told the truth which just happens to not be in Mueller's employer's favor.
It's not a straw man. The guy you so plainly think is a legit source for information is literally paid by one of the litigants. May as well be recommending people read Oracle's press releases for some good information.
I'd actually love to see an evaluation of predictions made by both sources and how they turned out. Or even just some examples of comparative predictions on particular points.
