Sorry, Jeff–you already know why the FTP broken thing-I cant even fix that on this site, but my quarter-end being tomorrow [today], I won't touch it until Monday q-)

The images missing are because this was originally an email to a few people that I wrote in Evolution, then I think posted it by CTRL-A, CTRL-C in gmail, which be why there are few images, until I have time to insert them, manually… Sorry you were interested enough before I got to them to notice, though q:-)

(And arguably is the point of discourse at all rite q:-D)

But thanks for the award!

He was referring to that whole applying a framework of what we think something is to the universe around us–including to what is like the emergent synergy of the universe–to the perceptions of others, which is even more what I try to keep reminding you or pointing out when you do (and when I do, but it's harder for me to notice, since remember I keep saying that we're all always in our bubbles–and we can only see the outside through and from our Bubble; so I can observe the differntial outside as my Bubble changes, but when that changes, again, the degrees of freedom involved make it impossible to pinpoint how much of the change is truly perceptual or peceptual bias on our perception differential–either way–my point was about the Being Erica pulling a Mass–how the Masses I attend (and you can hear this if you listen to them in the Evernotes–it's not my imagination!)–and the readings were predetermined .. years ago, thus predetermining the theme of the day's sermon in the homily (though no the content, just the theme–with the probable exception of the Homilies I heard Saturday evening and Sunday morning at St. Monica's–a church less than a block away from Peter's where I was hanging out the past weekend–and devoured delicious dishes, thanks be to him and his fiancee, Sarah–because that priest must most likely use the same homily every second Sunday of Advent (since it's heavily-Christmas commercialism rant "saccharin coated… and all" but the next morning I heard it nearly Verbatim (he didn't stumble on this one phrase–you can hear after I upload the second one, and compare the two).

He was referring to that whole applying a framework of what we think something is to the universe around us–including to what is like the emergent synergy of the universe–to the perceptions of others, which is even more what I try to keep reminding you or pointing out when you do (and when I do, but it's harder for me to notice, since remember I keep saying that we're all always in our bubbles–and we can only see the outside through and from our Bubble; so I can observe the differntial outside as my Bubble changes, but when that changes, again, the degrees of freedom involved make it impossible to pinpoint how much of the change is truly perceptual or peceptual bias on our perception differential–either way–my point was about the Being Erica pulling a Mass–how the Masses I attend (and you can hear this if you listen to them in the Evernotes–it's not my imagination!)–and the readings were predetermined .. years ago, thus predetermining the theme of the day's sermon in the homily (though no the content, just the theme–with the probable exception of the Homilies I heard Saturday evening and Sunday morning at St. Monica's–a church less than a block away from Peter's where I was hanging out the past weekend–and devoured delicious dishes, thanks be to him and his fiancee, Sarah–because that priest must most likely use the same homily every second Sunday of Advent (since it's heavily-Christmas commercialism rant "saccharin coated… and all" but the next morning I heard it nearly Verbatim (he didn't stumble on this one phrase–you can hear after I upload the second one, and compare the two).

With the help of your analysis I was able do the same calculations in the case of Baldwin, the following were the mismatches:

- cos per unit in case of existing business

- PV of CF from revenue & expenses

I am pretty sure that i have made errors some where, please guide me with the analysis of this case. you can share your excel work which i will compare with mine calculations

Thanks,

sarjeet

+91 9871520560

I'll try to annotate this with respect to updates and preferably sometime before long, start a separate Fedora 16 post–and since it seems that llvmpipe is changing Fedora 17's Fallback mode–to GNOME 3 Shell! That will be worth exploring too, since many of us, in addition to laptops we use Fedora on (ok ok, and on desktops and netbooks and..), thanks be to Genesis Hosting, Amazon AWS, Rackspace, etc., many of us now have disembodied headless IaaS/cloud installations to consider….

I presume that you take special care to ensure that what content you produce will render consistently across as many of the most common browser platforms as possible. But then I would expect that since it has to withstand all manner of insult hurled at it, it would not be the only one that I’ve heard about punishing you for contributing your thoughts!
Then again, it’s entirely possible that the comment function crashed other peoples’ browsers, but they did not think it important enough to bring up to me.

There may be something to this, though–the original reason I began the process of planning the move away from this server wasn’t even the IPv6 issue or the fact that I don’t have administrative permissions on this server. It was because after the server administrator restored a backup after a harddrive failure earlier in the year, several parts of my site ceased to work properly… q:( Perhaps it corrupted some java in a way that your browser didn’t like…

Anyway – I Googled the name, and found their shifty web site. Lower down in Google I found a lot of reasons to not bleieve in them. Awwww. shucks! Good news shattered.

http://crankycon.politicalbear.com/2009/07/10/now-this-is-a-brilliant-scam/

I hate being so negative. It reminds me of the sickness I learned about on South Park a few weeks ago. I see shit everywhere. The world is shit. I don’t want to be so cynical.

[robin@Ortofon-fc15 Documents]$ traceroute 216.66.38.58
traceroute to 216.66.38.58 (216.66.38.58), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 10.126.160.129 (10.126.160.129) 6.724 ms 7.513 ms 10.620 ms
2 66.185.89.77 (66.185.89.77) 13.438 ms 14.399 ms 14.406 ms
3 mcnicoll2.cable.teksavvy.com (24.246.55.122) 15.364 ms 15.382 ms 15.393 ms
4 mcnicoll2.cable.teksavvy.com (24.246.55.121) 16.719 ms 22.590 ms 22.620 ms
5 gw-he.torontointernetxchange.net (198.32.245.112) 22.623 ms 22.635 ms 22.657 ms
6 tserv21.tor1.ipv6.he.net (216.66.38.58) 21.611 ms 9.468 ms 11.226 ms

robin@Ortofon-fc15 Documents]$ traceroute 2001:470:c4cb::2
traceroute to 2001:470:c4cb::2 (2001:470:c4cb::2), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets
1 Ortofon-1.tunnel.tserv21.tor1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:1c:4d3::1) 11.729 ms 16.452 ms 17.401 ms
2 gige-g2-5.core1.tor1.he.net (2001:470:0:c0::1) 15.371 ms 26.562 ms 27.360 ms
3 10gigabitethernet1-3.core1.chi1.he.net (2001:470:0:1e2::2) 33.785 ms 34.715 ms 34.703 ms
4 gige-gbge0.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:6e::2) 41.377 ms 44.228 ms 47.355 ms
5 ipv6.RobinCheung.ca (2001:470:c4cb::2) 48.681 ms 49.630 ms 49.582 ms

[robin@Ortofon-fc15 Documents]$ traceroute ipv6.RobinCheung.ca
traceroute to ipv6.RobinCheung.ca (204.91.36.235), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 10.126.160.129 (10.126.160.129) 9.060 ms 9.813 ms 9.799 ms
2 66.185.89.77 (66.185.89.77) 11.854 ms 16.019 ms 16.976 ms
3 mcnicoll2.cable.teksavvy.com (24.246.55.122) 12.770 ms 13.722 ms 16.895 ms
4 mcnicoll2.cable.teksavvy.com (24.246.55.121) 29.606 ms 30.557 ms 30.563 ms
5 tge6-3.fr3.yyz.llnw.net (208.111.182.137) 24.633 ms 25.444 ms 25.451 ms
6 tge28-2.fr3.lga.llnw.net (69.28.189.141) 38.997 ms tge8-1.fr3.lga.llnw.net (69.28.172.73) 24.569 ms 28.440 ms
7 209.220.16.125.ptr.us.xo.net (209.220.16.125) 34.213 ms 216.55.0.105 (216.55.0.105) 35.167 ms 209.220.16.125.ptr.us.xo.net (209.220.16.125) 33.300 ms
8 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 40.794 ms vb1011.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net (216.156.0.21) 53.304 ms 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 39.850 ms
9 ae0d0.mcr2.chicago-il.us.xo.net (216.156.0.166) 51.518 ms 51.560 ms 51.403 ms
10 207.88.172.14.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.172.14) 51.435 ms 51.274 ms 51.213 ms
11 209.117.165.158 (209.117.165.158) 58.821 ms 57.940 ms 46.466 ms
12 204.91.36.235 (204.91.36.235) 46.696 ms 50.321 ms 51.266 ms

[robin@Ortofon-fc15 Documents]$ traceroute siproxy6.cloud59.ca
traceroute to siproxy6.cloud59.ca (2001:470:1f10:e42::2), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets
1 Ortofon-1.tunnel.tserv21.tor1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:1c:4d3::1) 11.887 ms 15.389 ms 16.343 ms
2 gige-g2-5.core1.tor1.he.net (2001:470:0:c0::1) 14.323 ms 16.289 ms 18.422 ms
3 10gigabitethernet1-3.core1.chi1.he.net (2001:470:0:1e2::2) 34.653 ms 35.447 ms 35.419 ms
4 gige-gbge0.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:6e::2) 41.157 ms 43.879 ms 46.926 ms
5 2001:470:1f10:e42::2 (2001:470:1f10:e42::2) 48.159 ms 49.109 ms 49.103 ms
[robin@Ortofon-fc15 Documents]$

I feel that we all are demanding more and more of the Internet, but we are equally unwilling to give back and do our part–by adopting ipv6 or by increasing awareness that we have already run out of ip addresses.

To this end, when CIRA, the organization in Canada responsible for adminsitering the .ca-domain space as well as championing the migration to ipv6, issued a release publicizing their new http://www.cira.ca web site a few weeks ago, I was compelled to respond with http://ipv6.RobinCheung.ca/cira-ipv6

We all use the Internet, depend on it, and are interested in its continued viability–let’s do our part not only with what’s left of today, but every day going forward, to give back from this wonderful resource!

Those of you who cannot obtain native ipv6 routing/addresses from your regular ISP can still hop on the ipv6 Internet and prevent its becoming a “parallel Internet” by ipv6 tunneling provided free by several organizations. If you are not behind NAT firewall, then you can use protocol 41 through http://www.tunnelbroker.net If you are behind a NAT firewall, or cannot layer 2 tunnel past it, then http://www.sixxs.net provides a free NAT-traversing ipv6 tunnel solution.

I can provide time and effort to help those of you interested in adopting ipv6.

Robin L. M. Cheung, BSc, MBA, F.CIM, PhD Candidate
Toll Free: 1-888-494-6340
Tel/SMS: 1-513-494-6340
Local: 1-647-478-6340
Robin.Cheung@WaldenU.Edu
http://RobinCheung.ca/
http://ipv6.RobinCheung.ca/

It’s been crazy the past few weeks but I just wanted to take a moment to say that I’m not pro-alternative medicine. I’m just anti-reductionist when it comes to this stuff. Or at least reductionist needs to be within the context of the bigger picture. (Thank you Walden for hammering in the logical progression in research design starting with epistemology and ontology always…)

That is, I said willow bark only because it was used traditionally by certain peoples in the past and was then hijacked by reductionist medical science. Similarly, Vitamin C from citrus alone vs. bioflavonoids based on how it fits in the overall reaction pathways picture is another result of this…

That said, you have actually expanded my original post quite a bit, and just for context so you might understand some of what might seem to be generalization or decrying the medical profession sanctimoniously without offering so much as two or three alternatives I might deduce from the “big picture” model I hold onto–but really, the original post was not really intended for my blog (but I could not in good conscience not share it) but rather a subset of the EFnet #biology regulars, who were, in this case, primarily of leaving-high-school/beginning-university age and I wanted to leave some parting thoughts…

Incidentally, after posting it, though, I did copy my father on it, whose own career in medicine is also nearing a happy transition to a hopefully-more-relaxing retirement (having spent much of the 70s up to the mid-80s as one of only six physicians in a rural area, I even got to experience the regular 2am tours of the Rural Route/Concession system of roads tagging along).

My point, before I let myself digress too much, is that actually, I found out something new–and that is that this very issue had caused him very nearly to leave the profession entirely.

In the end, however, he compromised by embarking upon a new business towards a more cosmetic, uninsured (and thus regulated differently in some ways; remember, of course, that here in Canada, it is illegal for a physician to charge a patient even 1 cent for a service that is tax-funded/insured by the government. I firmly support this, however, as the mechanism that prevents the undermining and demise of our universal healthcare system that so many take for granted…)

I learned recently that although he had felt so strongly as to plan a book on the topic, there are even more ugly complications to the issue, mostly pertaining to an aspect of this issue I had no first-hand knowledge of–namely, that not only the “big picture” that everyone seemed to have missed, but in fact the entire shift in medicine towards an extremely reductionist, “evidence-based” clinical (in the colloquial sense here) worldview. As a part-time lecturer for the medical school back in my hometown, he emphasizes to his students as much as he can, that while the modern trend is towards trying to consider what were originally called the “Medical Arts” for a reason, as a cold, clinical science, that he recommend they retain clinical judgement above this new “evidence-based” paradigm.

In fact, this is a whole chapter that I would discuss, myself–and much too large for this response to your coment! But, I would like to cap it off (I, in fact, had intended only to write that I appreciated very much your comment, but that I would have more time tomorrow to respond with the attention it deserved; I guess I couldn’t wait!) by saying that this pervasive shift from the “medical arts” to one where diagnoses are now officially required to follow a general format of “exhibits at least 6 of the following signs, symptoms, etc.” This is the part that is most alarming.

To my father, who has never delved into the social sciences, and only dabbled in the behavioural inasmuch as a country doctor has to treat everything (he also is quite disapproving of the North American medical training system, which in contrast to his British training (which a friend of mine recently completed in South Africa–a gruelling six year programme after her undergraduate–and still time to go as an intern…) is far too “specialized” to make informed decisions on the physician’s part. In fact, he cites how his students, if they decide to specialize, may have a sum total of perhaps two weeks’ experience in some of the areas. This actually is completely inconsistent with the concept of why even have medical school in the first place–which I assume to be in order to provide the in-depth theoretical and clinical background required to do more than simply “recognize symptom = this diagnosis –> do this treatment” but rather one that takes into consideration the whole organism-system from contributing factors/confounding factors (this is the root of his–and my–problem with the new evidence-based paradigm;

I like to jokingly refer to it as how “medical conditions didn’t have the benefit of medical school to know how to present…”

Modern psychiatry evolved from a long history of psychoanalysis, which was time-consuming, very costly and, well, complete BS. Medication is cheap, quick, and has a demonstrable effect. Unfortunately, while it might be a good first step in treatment, it is usually the last step. Psychiatrists jot off their scrips and send people home to live locked up for the rest of their lives in asylums made up of pills.

But what is the alternative? Clinical psychologists often have no interest in science, statistics, or research methods, and their practices reflect that fact. The evidence for even significant effects for clinical and counseling psychology therapies is scant, and we can just forget about any meaningful size of effect from these snake-oil salesmen. The one bright spot in the field is good old behavioral modification, but it is only useful for certain types of disorders.

Your statement about the willow leaves left me a little worried. True, natural remedies often have an effect. Then again, people take that fact and run headlong into homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and countless other BS with no/zip/zero/nada evidence for any effectiveness at all. People leap from chewing willow leaves to refusing to get their children vaccinated because some pseudoscientist told them it would give them autism. I don’t think that’s you, but I am often surprised at what some really level-headed, scientifically-minded people can be tricked into … even me sometimes.

On the other hand, your statement about physics < chemistry < biochemistry < organismic biology < sociology reassures me that you really do see the big picture. I too would like to see more emphasis on the whole person and the society in which he or she lives in psychological therapies. I especially would like to see more emphasis on changing societies to accept people who are different. I would like to see a recognition that outliers in a distribution are actually real people, and that there are usually two sides to a distribution, with outliers not only in the ax-murderer range, but also outliers in the exceptionally gifted range. I would like to see less emphasis on pounding square pegs into round holes and at least some emphasis on sawing out those round holes so the square pegs have a place. Unfortunately, our leaders are too often of the round peg variety and I just don't think they care.

Once again, if you agree, it's back to my original point. How do we do this? How do we move beyond whacking people over the head with medications that are often more disabling than the disabilities they treat? How do we get psychologists to be more skeptical and operate their practices based on evidence? How do we engineer societies to make a place for exceptional people?

Sorry to comment on your blog with nothing but open questions (lol), but I'm just trying to clarify if we have the same questions and are looking for the same answers.

Modern psychiatry evolved from a long history of psychoanalysis, which was time-consuming, very costly and, well, complete BS. Medication is cheap, quick, and has a demonstrable effect. Unfortunately, while it might be a good first step in treatment, it is usually the last step. Psychiatrists jot off their scrips and send people home to live locked up for the rest of their lives in asylums made up of pills.

But what is the alternative? Clinical psychologists often have no interest in science, statistics, or research methods, and their practices reflect that fact. The evidence for even significant effects for clinical and counseling psychology therapies is scant, and we can just forget about any meaningful size of effect from these snake-oil salesmen. The one bright spot in the field is good old behavioral modification, but it is only useful for certain types of disorders.

Your statement about the willow leaves left me a little worried. True, natural remedies often have an effect. Then again, people take that fact and run headlong into homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and countless other BS with no/zip/zero/nada evidence for any effectiveness at all. People leap from chewing willow leaves to refusing to get their children vaccinated because some pseudoscientist told them it would give them autism. I don’t think that’s you, but I am often surprised at what some really level-headed, scientifically-minded people can be tricked into … even me sometimes.

On the other hand, your statement about physics < chemistry < biochemistry < organismic biology < sociology reassures me that you really do see the big picture. I too would like to see more emphasis on the whole person and the society in which he or she lives in psychological therapies. I especially would like to see more emphasis on changing societies to accept people who are different. I would like to see a recognition that outliers in a distribution are actually real people, and that there are usually two sides to a distribution, with outliers not only in the ax-murderer range, but also outliers in the exceptionally gifted range. I would like to see less emphasis on pounding square pegs into round holes and at least some emphasis on sawing out those round holes so the square pegs have a place. Unfortunately, our leaders are too often of the round peg variety and I just don't think they care.

Once again, if you agree, it's back to my original point. How do we do this? How do we move beyond whacking people over the head with medications that are often more disabling than the disabilities they treat? How do we get psychologists to be more skeptical and operate their practices based on evidence? How do we engineer societies to make a place for exceptional people?

Sorry to comment on your blog with nothing but open questions (lol), but I'm just trying to clarify if we have the same questions and are looking for the same answers.