Why do we feel the need to use windows in our computer systems? Why does it seem that having a computer means having a windows installed as your OS. I have been asking myself more and more that question and I think their days on my system are starting to be numbered. What do I really use that can only be done in a windows only environment? Office style applications? PDF files? Internet? Easier to use/install? Faster??????? Open office is a de facto clone of microsoft office. Besides there being other application which I have considered to be better such as wordperfect. Internet doesn't even need comments, I already don't use internet explorer as my browser, except in the cases where sites have been made to work only with it... Many free linux distributions are very easy to use/install nowadays, and it definitely isn't the fastest. How about Zeta from yellow tab? It boasts a 2 second boot up! The ultimate answer in my case comes down to software made only for windows, mainly, computer games. So I´m just keeping windows in the sake of games?!?
More reading. Try also this. Microsoft even had a site that stated, so called linux myths.... Click this!
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Democracy
Who says that democracy is really the best possible way to direct a country? Of course in comparison to previews regimes we have had in the past, it certainly is much better, but democracy holds within itself the possibility of its self-defeat. It only works where the citizens that live in it have at least a moderate/high level of education and culture. Why is that? Let's review how the system works:
Everyone decides what is best for everyone, and since we can't do multiple things at once, we vote and take the course of the majority. Herein already we have a couple of problems. First of all, who says that we know what's best for ourselves? I mean if we get sick, do we take our own decisions on what we should do, like medications we should take, or do we go consult a specialist in the area, a doctor. If we are going to build a house, do we decide for ourselves the plan of the house or does an engineer do that? So when running a country what makes us think that anybody can do that job irrespective of his formation or education?!? Second point, we do what the majority wants, so effectively, the democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, it is a majorcracy. In countries that don't have multiple minorities in it, it probably works well. But imagine in countries like Rwanda where we have two factions, the Hutu's in majority and the Tutsis in minority, and you can see how we are going to have problems there. Think about Iraq!
Because of technical problems (which nowadays may not exist anymore), it is not possible for every single person of a country to make decisions, so democracy also consists of representation, where a group of people is represented in different places by one person, i.e. senators, deputies, governors, mayors and the president. This is a major problem. This person isn't necessarily concerned with the voters who voted for him. Many times this person is concerned only for himself, voting measures that will benefit himself. Seemingly the only time they don't do that in when the public opinion is heavily against them and there is pressure from the media.
To elect these representatives of the people we have elections... The so called feast of democracy. This in itself produces the main bias. The people who get elected, they act out their terms not trying to what might be the best for the people. Instead they plan how to get re-elected or somebody they have appointed. How can anybody take impopular measures this way? How can anybody take measures that will take over 30-50 years to reach results? In countries where the education is low, people want to see things being built, they believe that is what makes a good government! It's the guy who makes the most hospitals, bridges who is a good president! This way he ensures his own election, and the people have suffered the more from it.
Everyone decides what is best for everyone, and since we can't do multiple things at once, we vote and take the course of the majority. Herein already we have a couple of problems. First of all, who says that we know what's best for ourselves? I mean if we get sick, do we take our own decisions on what we should do, like medications we should take, or do we go consult a specialist in the area, a doctor. If we are going to build a house, do we decide for ourselves the plan of the house or does an engineer do that? So when running a country what makes us think that anybody can do that job irrespective of his formation or education?!? Second point, we do what the majority wants, so effectively, the democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, it is a majorcracy. In countries that don't have multiple minorities in it, it probably works well. But imagine in countries like Rwanda where we have two factions, the Hutu's in majority and the Tutsis in minority, and you can see how we are going to have problems there. Think about Iraq!
Because of technical problems (which nowadays may not exist anymore), it is not possible for every single person of a country to make decisions, so democracy also consists of representation, where a group of people is represented in different places by one person, i.e. senators, deputies, governors, mayors and the president. This is a major problem. This person isn't necessarily concerned with the voters who voted for him. Many times this person is concerned only for himself, voting measures that will benefit himself. Seemingly the only time they don't do that in when the public opinion is heavily against them and there is pressure from the media.
To elect these representatives of the people we have elections... The so called feast of democracy. This in itself produces the main bias. The people who get elected, they act out their terms not trying to what might be the best for the people. Instead they plan how to get re-elected or somebody they have appointed. How can anybody take impopular measures this way? How can anybody take measures that will take over 30-50 years to reach results? In countries where the education is low, people want to see things being built, they believe that is what makes a good government! It's the guy who makes the most hospitals, bridges who is a good president! This way he ensures his own election, and the people have suffered the more from it.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Irresponsible freedom in public health
In Brazil health is a right guaranteed by the constitution. What this amounts to in this country is a very heterogenous map of services distributed throughout the country. Whereas in some parts even the most basic service are hard to come by, as well as shortage of even the most basic medications, in other parts patients have access to practically all of the state of the art medicine and expensive medicines for free. An example of this is the AIDS program in my country distributes many of the medications necessary for the first line of treatment and even backups for AIDS treatment in case of resistance(HAART therapy).
Much of the mortality and morbidity of many diseases come from inexpensive measures such as life style changes. A recent report in circulation (see Iestra) shows that these so called life style changes isolated have at least two times effectiveness of an isolated medication! This includes of course excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages and smoking.
Diseases generated by these two conditions generate considerable expenses for health providers. Practically all cases of lung cancer have smoking as its cause. Alcohol is associated with numerous diseases, for example, liver failure and liver cancer.
Changing life styles is very complicated but goverment should start taking its responsibility in offering services to try and help the general population with this problem because of course everyone knows that prevention is much cheaper than treatment. Instead everyone just wants instantaneous solutions, like building a brand new hospital (where, incidentally, a lot of money can be diverted...), instead of long term solutions what I'm proposing would bring.
I would go so far as to suggest that the SUS (sistema único de sáude=unique health system, Brazil's health public system), should not authorize treatment of patients that weren't at least attached to some program of trying to break the drinking or smoking habit.
Probably that wouldn't work either. City halls would pretend to make centers for rehabilitation, patients would pretend to go and hospitals would admit everyone anyway...
Much of the mortality and morbidity of many diseases come from inexpensive measures such as life style changes. A recent report in circulation (see Iestra) shows that these so called life style changes isolated have at least two times effectiveness of an isolated medication! This includes of course excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages and smoking.
Diseases generated by these two conditions generate considerable expenses for health providers. Practically all cases of lung cancer have smoking as its cause. Alcohol is associated with numerous diseases, for example, liver failure and liver cancer.
Changing life styles is very complicated but goverment should start taking its responsibility in offering services to try and help the general population with this problem because of course everyone knows that prevention is much cheaper than treatment. Instead everyone just wants instantaneous solutions, like building a brand new hospital (where, incidentally, a lot of money can be diverted...), instead of long term solutions what I'm proposing would bring.
I would go so far as to suggest that the SUS (sistema único de sáude=unique health system, Brazil's health public system), should not authorize treatment of patients that weren't at least attached to some program of trying to break the drinking or smoking habit.
Probably that wouldn't work either. City halls would pretend to make centers for rehabilitation, patients would pretend to go and hospitals would admit everyone anyway...
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Moore support
All things Michael Moore are very cool, and they are as much as cathartic as anything! So here I am advertising for something that may well become his new documentary
. So go ahead tell him your stories.
. So go ahead tell him your stories.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Good tidings
Just to change the tide of rantings, i wanted to post this excellent site! It´s fan episodes of star trek (the original one)... They´re very well done.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Four was not enough
After two subpar years with all that temporal cold war nonsense and a whole third year involving a race that never exists later on, Enterprise's fourth year manages to be spectacular. T'pol finally seems to be a real vulcan, and they even try to make up for the fact that she hadn't been up to then. The show's finally concerned with a load of stuff that's supposed to have happened in this period and could generate many stories. That's when they decide to cancel the show!
Perhaps they would have continued it if it hadn't been so great.
At least one good thing may come out of it: Braga is leaving!
Perhaps they would have continued it if it hadn't been so great.
At least one good thing may come out of it: Braga is leaving!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
