On 26/10/2021 22:06, TimS wrote:
> Unix has apropos. So I just tried "apropos remove file". This gave me three
> and a half screens-full of commands (so, some hundreds), but not including
> 'rm'.

Unix and friends has always been great at telling you how to use a given
command, but totally arse backwards at letting you know which command to
use.

We once employed someone whose only merit was that he had read every man
page on the system.

A sort of active index AI.

Today one uses google. Cheaper and has less halitosis.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 26/10/2021 18:51, Folderol wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:53:14 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> - look at Poettering foir example
>
> Do we have to!
> :)
>
I'll let you off this time.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 27/10/2021 04:23, 1p166 wrote:
> On 10/26/21 9:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:29:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Renting time share on a cloud app is exactly what they love.
>>>
>> And, to give M$ their due, using Office365 applications is almost exactly
>> that (even if some of the just plain folks using them still manage to
>> screw up).
>
>
>   You KNOW they (and Russia) are plundering all that
>   online data, don't you ? Selling to the highest bidder ...
>
>
One assumes that anything in the cloud is at some level public domain.

If that bothers you, encrypt it with a one time password.
Or don't put stuff in the cloud.

The advent of uber cheap disks and fast networks means that from my POV
what happens on my server stays on my server, and if I need to access it
from the other side of the world, I can set up ssh ....

Like Punch's advice to people about to marry, my advice to people
concerned about security on the public internet is simply 'then don't
use it'

So many people are simply unconcerned if the details of their last
supermarket order are released to the world. Or their spreadsheet to
calculate the cheapest widget supplier for a given amount of widgets.

For Clapton's sake, most of what we do isn't a state secret, it's just
unbearably boring routine paperwork - or paperless work, these days.

If Russia wants to sell my private data to the highest bidder, that
would be me, and i'll give them one rouble for it.

I am far more concerned that UK and US intelligence is hosted on amazon
web services....

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>
> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very nasty
> variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>
> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply don't
> think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk at the
> outset.
>
> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
> later on.
>
> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
> information vacuum
>
> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some degree
> of protection against the more serious forms of the disease, and seem to
> have reduced the transmission rates in the population sectors that have
> been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been improved as 'stuff that
> works' has replaced 'stuff that might work' in treating serious cases.
>
>
> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>
>
>

In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
they become more treacherous and aggressive.

On 27 Oct 2021 at 15:47:00 BST, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:

> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>
>> I think that is all that need be said. COVID is like a very very nasty
>> variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>
>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply don't
>> think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk at the
>> outset.
>>
>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
>> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
>> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
>> later on.
>>
>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>> information vacuum
>>
>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some degree
>> of protection against the more serious forms of the disease, and seem to
>> have reduced the transmission rates in the population sectors that have
>> been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been improved as 'stuff that
>> works' has replaced 'stuff that might work' in treating serious cases.
>>
>> In short, in a year or so, we will be in the admirable position of
>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>
> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
> they become more treacherous and aggressive.

Selectively vaccinate them with what?

--
Tim

On 27/10/2021 14:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Probably likes te EU too
>>>
>>> "All desktops must be harmonised!"
>>> "Why?"
>>> "Er....because?"
>>
>> Still lying about the EU, I see ...
>>
> Are you?

No, unlike you I try to base my opinions on facts, rather than the
bullshit that you commonly parrot out.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/10/2021 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Probably likes te EU too
>>>
>>> "All desktops must be harmonised!"
>>> "Why?"
>>> "Er....because?"
>>
>> Still lying about the EU, I see ...
>>
> "Harmonisation, also known as standardisation or approximation, refers
> to the determination of EU-wide legally binding standards to be met in
> all Member States."
>
> https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/harmonisation
>
> Look who is lying now...

You are, neither computers or desktops are mentioned on that page.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/10/2021 15:55, TimS wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 2021 at 15:47:00 BST, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
>>
>> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>>
>>> In short, in a year or so, we will be in the admirable position of
>>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>
>> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
>> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
>> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
>> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>
> Selectively vaccinate them with what?

Exactly, at the time we didn't have the vaccines. Now that we have,
some scientists are saying that the best way to protect the most
vulnerable is vaccinate the mixers, as they are the most likely to bring
the disease into a vulnerable persons home.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-10-27, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 04:23, 1p166 wrote:
>> On 10/26/21 9:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:29:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Renting time share on a cloud app is exactly what they love.
>>>>
>>> And, to give M$ their due, using Office365 applications is almost exactly
>>> that (even if some of the just plain folks using them still manage to
>>> screw up).
>>
>>
>>   You KNOW they (and Russia) are plundering all that
>>   online data, don't you ? Selling to the highest bidder ...
>>
>>
> One assumes that anything in the cloud is at some level public domain.

Does that include your SIN, your tax records, your medical records, your
bank account and passwords?

I do not think anyone holds that opinion.

>
> For Clapton's sake, most of what we do isn't a state secret, it's just
> unbearably boring routine paperwork - or paperless work, these days.

No, but it may be your secret.

........
>
> If Russia wants to sell my private data to the highest bidder, that
> would be me, and i'll give them one rouble for it.

I think they would get more than that for your bank records and
passwords say. or your credit card details and passwords.

>
> I am far more concerned that UK and US intelligence is hosted on amazon
> web services....
>
>
>

On 2021-10-27, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>
>> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very nasty
>> variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>
>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply don't
>> think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk at the
>> outset.
>>
>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
>> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
>> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
>> later on.
>>
>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>> information vacuum
>>
>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some degree
>> of protection against the more serious forms of the disease, and seem to
>> have reduced the transmission rates in the population sectors that have
>> been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been improved as 'stuff that
>> works' has replaced 'stuff that might work' in treating serious cases.
>>
>>
>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....

What to do immediately was known a year and a half ago. Nobody listened.
Masks that actually filter, close down indoor gatherings until indoor
ventilation had been improved (eg indoor air replaced every 10 min or
so with virus free air, either by bringing it in fromoutside or fitering
it properly)
>>
>>
>>
>
> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only

There were no vaccines until 2021.

> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
> they become more treacherous and aggressive.

They don't defend themselves, they just mutate as a natural process (eg
gama-rays altering the genetic code of the virus), and if the mutation
gives them an advantage in spreading, the mutation takes over.

They also do not get more treacherous. It may be that the mutation also
has a another mutation that makes it more treacherous, or it may have
one that makes it more benign. It is the ease of replication that is
important. In fact making people very sick is a disadvantage, as it
means that the sick person tends to isolate themselves, making spreading less
likely, not more.

Unfortunately vaccines ae designed not to spread. They are super benign,
but queer the pitch for the normal virus. If one made vaccines
super-spreaders, the disease would disappear very fast-- the wild virus would
have no antivax barriers to hide behind:-) Unfortunately(?) that would
be highly unethical primarily because of the dangers of unintended
consequences-- like the cane toads in Australia.

On 27/10/2021 15:47, jak wrote:
> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>
>> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very
>> nasty variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>
>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply don't
>> think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk at the
>> outset.
>>
>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
>> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
>> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
>> later on.
>>
>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>> information vacuum
>>
>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some
>> degree of protection against the more serious forms of the disease,
>> and seem to have reduced the transmission rates in the population
>> sectors that have been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been
>> improved as 'stuff that works' has replaced 'stuff that might work' in
>> treating serious cases.
>>
>>
>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>
>>
>>
>
> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>
Well lets look at that statement

How could anything have been done immediately by way of vaccination
since no vaccines existed?

Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable? A person who
is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 27/10/2021 16:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 15:55, TimS wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Oct 2021 at 15:47:00 BST, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
>>>
>>> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>>>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>>
>>> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
>>> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
>>> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
>>> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>>
>> Selectively vaccinate them with what?
>
> Exactly, at the time we didn't have the vaccines.  Now that we have,
> some scientists are saying that the best way to protect the most
> vulnerable is vaccinate the mixers, as they are the most likely to bring
> the disease into a vulnerable persons home.
>

For the first time ever, I agree with you.
Don't worry, it wont happen again:-)

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 27/10/2021 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2021 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Probably likes te EU too
>>>>
>>>> "All desktops must be harmonised!"
>>>> "Why?"
>>>> "Er....because?"
>>>
>>> Still lying about the EU, I see ...
>>>
>> "Harmonisation, also known as standardisation or approximation, refers
>> to the determination of EU-wide legally binding standards to be met in
>> all Member States."
>>
>> https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/harmonisation
>>
>> Look who is lying now...
>
> You are, neither computers or desktops are mentioned on that page.
>
Weak - very weak. And misses the point.
Which to spell it out, is that harmonisation for its own sake, is a
characteristic of blind bureaucracies. I.e. the EU.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 27/10/2021 16:59, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2021-10-27, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/10/2021 04:23, 1p166 wrote:
>>> On 10/26/21 9:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:29:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Renting time share on a cloud app is exactly what they love.
>>>>>
>>>> And, to give M$ their due, using Office365 applications is almost exactly
>>>> that (even if some of the just plain folks using them still manage to
>>>> screw up).
>>>
>>>
>>>   You KNOW they (and Russia) are plundering all that
>>>   online data, don't you ? Selling to the highest bidder ...
>>>
>>>
>> One assumes that anything in the cloud is at some level public domain.
>
> Does that include your SIN, your tax records, your medical records, your
> bank account and passwords?
>

Yup.

> I do not think anyone holds that opinion.
>
>
I do.

The government has access to all of that.
sysadmins can access pretty much all password files and run crackers on
them That's why one time passwords via odd devices and 2FA exists.

>>
>> For Clapton's sake, most of what we do isn't a state secret, it's just
>> unbearably boring routine paperwork - or paperless work, these days.
>
> No, but it may be your secret.

Well if it is, I dont put it in a cloud. In fact I probably dont even
write it down

>
> .......
>>
>> If Russia wants to sell my private data to the highest bidder, that
>> would be me, and i'll give them one rouble for it.
>
> I think they would get more than that for your bank records and
> passwords say. or your credit card details and passwords.

hahah. they can have my bank records for free.

How many times have I typed in my debit card details (don't have a
credit card) and an auth code on a website, or given them over the phone?

Someone somewhere can simply write them down.

That's why there are limits in online transactions and the bank may in
fact phone you up to ask what's going on.

Nothing I have online is beyond the limits of 'acceptable loss'.
Deliberately.

I guess someone might hack my investment trading account, but they
couldn't get any money out of it - its tied to a single bank account and
tends to ask me via text to confirm anything major.,

Banking security is predicated on the fact that part of your data may
well be compromised.

And if y6ou dont truts your bank, close te acciunt and open with one you
do trust

>
>>
>> I am far more concerned that UK and US intelligence is hosted on amazon
>> web services....
>>
>>
>>

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 27/10/2021 19:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 27/10/2021 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2021 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2021 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably likes te EU too
>>>>>
>>>>> "All desktops must be harmonised!"
>>>>> "Why?"
>>>>> "Er....because?"
>>>>
>>>> Still lying about the EU, I see ...
>>>>
>>> "Harmonisation, also known as standardisation or approximation,
>>> refers to the determination of EU-wide legally binding standards to
>>> be met in all Member States."
>>>
>>> https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/harmonisation
>>>
>>> Look who is lying now...
>>
>> You are, neither computers or desktops are mentioned on that page.
>
> Weak - very weak. And misses the point.

It's entirely to the point, yet again you're lying about the EU on zilch
evidence.

> Which to spell it out,  is that harmonisation for its own sake, is a
> characteristic of blind bureaucracies. I.e. the EU.

But they aren't trying to harmonise computers or desktops, so your
crowbarring the EU into this discussion is just bigotry.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/10/2021 20:48, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 19:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 27/10/2021 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 27/10/2021 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2021 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2021 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably likes te EU too
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "All desktops must be harmonised!"
>>>>>> "Why?"
>>>>>> "Er....because?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Still lying about the EU, I see ...
>>>>>
>>>> "Harmonisation, also known as standardisation or approximation,
>>>> refers to the determination of EU-wide legally binding standards to
>>>> be met in all Member States."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/harmonisation
>>>>
>>>> Look who is lying now...
>>>
>>> You are, neither computers or desktops are mentioned on that page.
>>
>> Weak - very weak. And misses the point.
>
> It's entirely to the point, yet again you're lying about the EU on zilch
> evidence.
>
>> Which to spell it out,  is that harmonisation for its own sake, is a
>> characteristic of blind bureaucracies. I.e. the EU.
>
> But they aren't trying to harmonise computers or desktops, so your
> crowbarring the EU into this discussion is just bigotry.
>
Straw man. Like most EUphiles you have no sense of humour and feel very
threatened and unfunny about Brexit.

Trued therapy?

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:59:50 -0000 (UTC)
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2021-10-27, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> > One assumes that anything in the cloud is at some level public
> > domain.
>
> Does that include your SIN, your tax records, your medical records,
> your bank account and passwords?
>
> I do not think anyone holds that opinion.

My opinion is that any data legitimately held by my country's public
sector is already public domain. They can't even use their damn
computers, let alone secure them.

And I suspect that MS now makes more money selling data than selling or
renting software.

--
Joe

Il 27/10/2021 20:49, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
> On 27/10/2021 15:47, jak wrote:
>> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>>
>>> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very
>>> nasty variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>>
>>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply
>>> don't think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk
>>> at the outset.
>>>
>>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
>>> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
>>> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
>>> later on.
>>>
>>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>>> information vacuum
>>>
>>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some
>>> degree of protection against the more serious forms of the disease,
>>> and seem to have reduced the transmission rates in the population
>>> sectors that have been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been
>>> improved as 'stuff that works' has replaced 'stuff that might work'
>>> in treating serious cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
>> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
>> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
>> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>>
> Well lets look at that statement
>
> How could anything have been done immediately by way of vaccination
> since no vaccines existed?
>
> Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable?  A person who
> is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
> ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
> and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?
>
>
>

If the gazelles didn't run then the cheetahs would have shorter legs:
mutations are proportional to the need to survive.
You may also have noticed that vaccinated people are less careful about
other people around them. They act as if they can no longer infect
anyone and this is false.

On 27/10/2021 21:57, jak wrote:
>
> You may also have noticed that vaccinated people are less careful about
> other people around them.

Not IME.

> They act as if they can no longer infect
> anyone and this is false.

That's why not IME.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-10-27, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
> Il 27/10/2021 20:49, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 27/10/2021 15:47, jak wrote:
>>> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>>>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very
>>>> nasty variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>>>
>>>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>>>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply
>>>> don't think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk
>>>> at the outset.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
>>>> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
>>>> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
>>>> later on.
>>>>
>>>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>>>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>>>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>>>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>>>> information vacuum
>>>>
>>>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some
>>>> degree of protection against the more serious forms of the disease,
>>>> and seem to have reduced the transmission rates in the population
>>>> sectors that have been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been
>>>> improved as 'stuff that works' has replaced 'stuff that might work'
>>>> in treating serious cases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>>>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
>>> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
>>> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
>>> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>>>
>> Well lets look at that statement
>>
>> How could anything have been done immediately by way of vaccination
>> since no vaccines existed?
>>
>> Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable?  A person who
>> is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
>> ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
>> and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If the gazelles didn't run then the cheetahs would have shorter legs:

the rhinos don't run very well, and yet the cheetahs have long lengs.

> mutations are proportional to the need to survive.

No. Mutations go their merry way, and do not care ( since they have no
ability to care) obout their effects. Darwin discussed this 150 years
ago. Those that produce more progeny ( and they cannot if they are dead)
eventually dominate, whether viruses or cheetahs.

> You may also have noticed that vaccinated people are less careful about
> other people around them. They act as if they can no longer infect
> anyone and this is false.

What does that have to do with the discussion. People who are
unvaccinated infect a lot more, and they are far more liable to not care
what the effect of their behaviour is on others. The evidence is that
people who are vaccinated do infect others less. But again, this is
supposed to evidence of what?
>

Il 28/10/2021 03:44, William Unruh ha scritto:
> On 2021-10-27, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
>> Il 27/10/2021 20:49, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>> On 27/10/2021 15:47, jak wrote:
>>>> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>>>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>>>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>>>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the hospitals.
>>>>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very
>>>>> nasty variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>>>>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply
>>>>> don't think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk
>>>>> at the outset.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level to
>>>>> limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could just
>>>>> cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That changed
>>>>> later on.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>>>>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>>>>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>>>>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>>>>> information vacuum
>>>>>
>>>>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some
>>>>> degree of protection against the more serious forms of the disease,
>>>>> and seem to have reduced the transmission rates in the population
>>>>> sectors that have been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been
>>>>> improved as 'stuff that works' has replaced 'stuff that might work'
>>>>> in treating serious cases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>>>>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
>>>> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
>>>> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
>>>> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>>>>
>>> Well lets look at that statement
>>>
>>> How could anything have been done immediately by way of vaccination
>>> since no vaccines existed?
>>>
>>> Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable?  A person who
>>> is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
>>> ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
>>> and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If the gazelles didn't run then the cheetahs would have shorter legs:
>
> the rhinos don't run very well, and yet the cheetahs have long lengs.
>
>> mutations are proportional to the need to survive.
>
> No. Mutations go their merry way, and do not care ( since they have no
> ability to care) obout their effects. Darwin discussed this 150 years
> ago. Those that produce more progeny ( and they cannot if they are dead)
> eventually dominate, whether viruses or cheetahs.
>
>> You may also have noticed that vaccinated people are less careful about
>> other people around them. They act as if they can no longer infect
>> anyone and this is false.
>
> What does that have to do with the discussion. People who are
> unvaccinated infect a lot more, and they are far more liable to not care
> what the effect of their behaviour is on others. The evidence is that
> people who are vaccinated do infect others less. But again, this is
> supposed to evidence of what?
>>

Thanks for the replies. Now I understand better why this pandemic lasts
so long. The Maya people were more fortunate in meeting the Hispanics.

On 27/10/2021 21:42, Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:59:50 -0000 (UTC)
> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-27, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> One assumes that anything in the cloud is at some level public
>>> domain.
>>
>> Does that include your SIN, your tax records, your medical records,
>> your bank account and passwords?
>>
>> I do not think anyone holds that opinion.
>
> My opinion is that any data legitimately held by my country's public
> sector is already public domain. They can't even use their damn
> computers, let alone secure them.
>
yes. I would say that is pretty much my take, in that no matter how
secure things are, I monitor my bank account and so on and do my backups
on the basis that someone somewhere has my passwords - some of the,
anyway, and everything I have ever said online is probably sitting in
some intelligence database in case they need it.

How else do you turn politicians into puppets?

> And I suspect that MS now makes more money selling data than selling or
> renting software.
>
Well I think my investment funds have money invetsed in M$, so I rejoice
that its dumb user base are getting ripped off.

One rule for them and another rule for me. If you cant beat em, join em

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 27/10/2021 21:57, jak wrote:
> Il 27/10/2021 20:49, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 27/10/2021 15:47, jak wrote:
>>> Il 26/10/2021 15:40, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>>> On 26/10/2021 05:13, William Unruh wrote:
>>>>> The excess deaths in the world almost certainly from covid are of the
>>>>> order of 15,000,000. Nowhere has the flu totally swamped the
>>>>> hospitals.
>>>>> except perhaps the Spanish flu.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is all that need be said.  COVID is like a very very
>>>> nasty variety of flu, and about 10 times nastier than ordinary flu.
>>>>
>>>> Whether that justifies the public health measures that were taken is
>>>> something we will learn after it is over unfortunately. I simply
>>>> don't think the data existed to do more than take a calculated risk
>>>> at the outset.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly in the UK the metric seemed to be at the political level
>>>> to limit contact and up hygiene standards until the hospitals could
>>>> just cope, whilst allowing pretty much unrestricted travel. That
>>>> changed later on.
>>>>
>>>> I don't find that unreasonable. The public would not have stood for
>>>> people dying in droves, and they wouldn't stand for protracted
>>>> lockdowns. At some level politicians had to balance those two
>>>> conflicting requirements and come up with policy in pretty much an
>>>> information vacuum
>>>>
>>>> As it is there are now many vaccines to pick from that offer some
>>>> degree of protection against the more serious forms of the disease,
>>>> and seem to have reduced the transmission rates in the population
>>>> sectors that have been vaccinated. And treatment regimes have been
>>>> improved as 'stuff that works' has replaced 'stuff that might work'
>>>> in treating serious cases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In short, in a year or so, we will  be in the admirable position of
>>>> knowing exactly what we ought to have been doing all along....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the opinion of many scientists, one of the things to do immediately
>>> should have been to selectively vaccinate the people most at risk only
>>> because the viruses defend themselves by mutating and when they mutate
>>> they become more treacherous and aggressive.
>>>
>> Well lets look at that statement
>>
>> How could anything have been done immediately by way of vaccination
>> since no vaccines existed?
>>
>> Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable?  A person who
>> is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
>> ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
>> and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If the gazelles didn't run then the cheetahs would have shorter legs:
> mutations are proportional to the need to survive.
> You may also have noticed that vaccinated people are less careful about
> other people around them.

No, in general I haven't noticed that at all.

They act as if they can no longer infect
> anyone and this is false.
>

No, they don't. Not here anyway

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

On 28/10/2021 08:19, jak wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. Now I understand better why this pandemic lasts
> so long. The Maya people were more fortunate in meeting the Hispanics.

in 700 years time what we ought to have done will become as clear to our
descendants as what the 14th century people wearing plague masks ought
to have done. Namely spent less on the church and more on terriers.

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:36:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 28/10/2021 08:19, jak wrote:
>> Thanks for the replies. Now I understand better why this pandemic lasts
>> so long. The Maya people were more fortunate in meeting the Hispanics.
>
> in 700 years time what we ought to have done will become as clear to our
> descendants as what the 14th century people wearing plague masks ought
> to have done. Namely spent less on the church and more on terriers.

Well said, Sir. Upvoted!

--
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org