Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #25580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-07 14:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-07 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-08 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-01-08 18:04 +0200
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? dave@661.org (David Griffith) - 2021-01-08 22:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 08:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-09 08:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 09:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 11:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 11:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-10 13:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-09 14:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-09 18:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 16:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-10 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 21:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:44 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:39 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 18:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 20:50 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 21:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 22:04 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 04:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 15:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 19:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> - 2021-01-13 14:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 21:05 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 21:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:35 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 19:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:13 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-14 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 14:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 12:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 15:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 16:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-11 05:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 15:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-11 23:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 23:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 00:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 01:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 09:42 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6694.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-12 05:14 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 09:15 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-12 10:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 12:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:28 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-14 08:37 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-13 21:20 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 21:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-14 03:03 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6644.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-10 17:09 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-11 17:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 11:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 22:09 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2021-01-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 12:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 13:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:22 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:40 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:59 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:11 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-09 09:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-09 16:59 -0500
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 23:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-10 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtnq5a$sl2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25865 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:20:50 +0000, Joe wrote: > On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje >> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways? >> >> The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" >> or "lose" as "loose". >> >> > Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling > class, whether they were monarchs or politicians. > Add religious leaders to that list. -- -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 03:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtocan01fre@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #25865 |
On 2021-01-13, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT > TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje >> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways? >> >> The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" >> or "lose" as "loose". > > Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling > class, whether they were monarchs or politicians. > > Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems > that were created by other politicians. Or themselves. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die, \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make." / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 06:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtongc$1e8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25865 |
On 13/01/2021 21:20, Joe wrote: > On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT > TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje >> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways? >> >> The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" >> or "lose" as "loose". >> > > Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling > class, whether they were monarchs or politicians. > > Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems > that were created by other politicians. > I think they are almost always the problems caused by those very same politicians themselves. If you want to get re-elected to e.g. mount a 'war on poverty' it is handy if you have created a lot of it first. before handing over the reins to the other lot, who you can subsequently blame for it. But it is not true to say that ruling classes caused the problems - ruling classes are a response to problems, if not a total solution. E.g. the Feudal system grew out of an age where primary wealth was agriculture. And the primary problem was that the only energy available was 'renewable' so that human or animal labour on crops and in managing livestock was the only real source of it, Without surplus food you couldn't afford to educate anyone or indeed have anyone doing stuff like making metal implements - sloughs and hoes and sickles, let alone the armour and swords necessary to defend it from people who discovered that stealing someone else's food is a lot easier than growing your own. Social order, some form of effective de facto, if not de jure, slavery, and a hierarchy with a warrior class on top and an educated priest/scholar class pretty high up, with artisans like metal workers being a cut above agricultural workers was a price you had to pay for being alive at all. Now with abundant fossil and nuclear energy and machines replacing the slaves, we all have the luxury of prognosticating over how socially unjust it was and congratulating ourselves on having got past it. Without realising that it was in fact the optimal solution... yea even unto stuffing God notions in there to keep the whole thing stable...for the conditions that existed at that time, and that by and large the advances that moved us out of it were technological, not religious or political. Politics is really about which flavour of the same elite gets to piss on us. Never about the real issue which is how much of a ruling elite do we really need and can we afford them? And how do we in fact get rid of them without putting something equally bad in its place (Trump?) or having a civil war...which usually benefits no one but the next ruling elite. When you look at all the massive examples of gross political change - the fall of the Roman empire, the invasion of the Normans, the French revolution, the Russian revolution, the end of apartheid, the independence of Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba...what strikes you is how much worse the populations were afterwards and often for a long time. Politicians manage problems. Technology generally solves them. It wasn't Marxism that eradicated the working class, it was machines and fossil fuel. -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9323d6ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> |
| In reply to | #25707 |
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
> I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
> healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
> order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.
I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.
I'm old, and I'll be at the vaccination centre as soon as I'm called,
which I expect to be before the middle of February.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6644.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 17:09 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <610326824@f1.n770.z6644.fidonet.org> |
| In reply to | #25723 |
Re: Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? By: David Higton to Pancho on Sun Jan 10 2021 10:16 pm > I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested. > > I'm old, and I'll be at the vaccination centre as soon as I'm called, > which I expect to be before the middle of February. > > David If I may step in... last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not count as good testing. If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million subjects won't help the least if the testing was conducted for less than 18 months. -- gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 04:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtgjft$nfr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25725 |
On 10/01/2021 04:09, Richard Falken wrote: > If I may step in... > > last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine market, he > told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not count as good > testing. > > If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month after > the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million subjects won't > help the least if the testing was conducted for less than 18 months. Indeed, but what the testing has done is ascertain that the vaccines are (a) moderately effective and (b) not instantly lethal I was offered adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy "Radiotherapy will give a 15% increase in the risk of possible unrelated cancers after about 15 years" "What about the chemotherapy" "Well that's only been around for 12 years actually so we don't know" "But the 5 year survival rate since that chemo was introduced went from around 70% to 98%.." Life is risky -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e_%KH.273682$HFx7.85531@fx43.ams4> |
| In reply to | #25733 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:17:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 10/01/2021 04:09, Richard Falken wrote: >> If I may step in... >> >> last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine >> market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not >> count as good testing. >> >> If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month >> after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million >> subjects won't help the least if the testing was conducted for less >> than 18 months. > Indeed, but what the testing has done is ascertain that the vaccines are > (a) moderately effective and (b) not instantly lethal > > I was offered adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy "Radiotherapy will > give a 15% increase in the risk of possible unrelated cancers after > about 15 years" > > "What about the chemotherapy" > "Well that's only been around for 12 years actually so we don't know" > > "But the 5 year survival rate since that chemo was introduced went from > around 70% to 98%.." > > Life is risky I had both radio & chemo to reduce my tumour to an operable size I am still experiencing some of the side effects, minor nerve damage in fingers & toes but without it my days would have been numbered. Histology after the op suggest that lower doses may have been sufficient but I know where my preferences lie. -- I Know A Joke!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 09:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210111094833.1c19c1b2@jresid.jretrading.com> |
| In reply to | #25723 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote: > In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me> > Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: > > > I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting > > perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested > > treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to > > me. > > I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested. It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen. It's called a calendar. Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that kind of period. The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff. Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87czyb914s.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #25738 |
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes: > Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for tightening up the regulatory regimes. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pa3svfd8qlpqh46cvl83jr2krgui94be36@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25742 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:14:11 +0000, in <87czyb914s.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes: >> Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. > >Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for >tightening up the regulatory regimes. The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877doh959k.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #25805 |
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes: >>> Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. >> >>Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for >>tightening up the regulatory regimes. > > The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the > standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since. Many other countries approved it (hence the subsequent disaster) - the FDA (or possibly just the specific officer assigned to the application) was clearly ahead of the rest of the world at that point. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hchuvflok8d0g9hl4mvns87jrp84fua008@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25814 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:09:27 +0000, in <877doh959k.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes: >>>> Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. >>> >>>Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for >>>tightening up the regulatory regimes. >> >> The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the >> standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since. > >Many other countries approved it (hence the subsequent disaster) - the >FDA (or possibly just the specific officer assigned to the application) >was clearly ahead of the rest of the world at that point. The rest of the world should have demanded all of the test results... which would have demonstrated the teratogenic side effects in certain species of laboratory animals... suggesting either rejection of the current application was necessary or else a LOT more testing in animals, including pregnant ones, was required. Had that happened I bet that a LOT more testing may have taken place, but would never have resulted in another application. I don't recall if the company was sued into oblivion, but it should have been. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 11:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25738 |
On 11 Jan 2021 at 09:48:33 GMT, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT > David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote: > >> In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me> >> Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: >> >> > I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting >> > perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested >> > treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to >> > me. >> >> I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested. > > It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen. > > It's called a calendar. > > Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten > years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not > vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that > kind of period. > > The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been > shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff. > > Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. OK well in that case, no one had better have it until it's not been used for 10 years. We'll just leave it all on the shelf til, then, OK? In the case of Thalidomide, it was tested on at least two type of small mammal such as hampsters, rats, etc. It was safe in the case of one of them, and gave fetus deformities in the other. So, safe *at* *the* *time* is perhaps correct, but I suspect that wouldn't pass today. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mf3svfdm95prjh8k4470id99i3s2042jkh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25744 |
On 11 Jan 2021 11:50:54 GMT, in <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >OK well in that case, no one had better have it until it's not been used for >10 years. We'll just leave it all on the shelf til, then, OK? That reminds me of a supposed (doubtful) law that says, "When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone." If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years, it will never be used. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25807 |
On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote: > If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years, > it will never be used. LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then. Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes and indeed the Wheel. And is well on its way to doing so today. -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <emhuvfptocl84b5516nsqiva0kad30lebp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25834 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote: >> If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years, >> it will never be used. > >LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then. You snipped the context needed for my statement. One might suspect it was done intentionally, or due to not reading for comprehension. Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>... the remarks by TimS and the material he was remarking on. >Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes >and indeed the Wheel. > >And is well on its way to doing so today. Gross exaggeration to illustrate a viewpoint is a really poor debate tactic. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtnkfi$8gb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25854 |
On 13/01/2021 19:23, Jim H wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>, > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote: >>> If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years, >>> it will never be used. >> >> LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then. > > You snipped the context needed for my statement. One might suspect it > was done intentionally, or due to not reading for comprehension. > > Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>... the remarks by > TimS and the material he was remarking on. > >> Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes >> and indeed the Wheel. >> >> And is well on its way to doing so today. > I said that. Not Tim. > Gross exaggeration to illustrate a viewpoint is a really poor debate > tactic. > I think not,. It's only the logical equivalent of the Calculus. Argumentum ad absurdum...is a totally valid methodology I merely pointed out that the logical conclusions of the precautionary principle is that no one ever does anything at all for fear it might have unknown unseen and unforeseeable results. Your statement was humorous, because taken at face value it basically is an oxymoron. -- Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 09:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cr000glosfn0q42al02bgdjcd2n6vt4p5q@dim53.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #25862 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:16:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 13/01/2021 19:23, Jim H wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>, >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote: [snipped] Gentlepeople, can you please take this discussion to a more philosofical platform and restrict this group to its topic, comp.sys.raspberry-pi ? Thanks in advance ! -- Kees Nuyt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i695n4Fe12eU14@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25854 |
On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:23:00 GMT, Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>... Usenapp seems to be creating a mailto: link, here. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rthgc1$jqo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25738 |
On 11/01/2021 09:48, Joe wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT > David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote: > >> In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me> >> Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting >>> perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested >>> treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to >>> me. >> >> I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested. > > It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen. > > It's called a calendar. > > Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten > years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not > vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that > kind of period. > > The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been > shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff. > > Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'. > Life is risky. In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use. Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*. It was very unfortunate with thalidomide that the effects showed up in foetal poisoning only. The medical profession simply hadn't seen that one coming. Like aircraft designers in the 1950s didn't see metal fatigue coming, or in the noughties certain software failures... We do the best we can think of. Sometimes we haven't thought enough. Life is risky -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web