Slashdot Mirror

but sometimes I encounter a youth who says, "My boyfriend just broke up with me and now I sit in my room and listen to depressing music."

This sort of thing has been happening as long as people have been writing this stuff down. For a reference from the 80s generation, go watch High Fidelity.

Rob: What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?

Secondly, you can see this type of thing happening in ballades and chansons that were literally written hundreds of years ago. E.g. in the song Barbara Allen, the two kids both die of depression because their relationship wasn't working the way they wanted it to. Granted it's an exaggeration, but you can't say a song like that, written in 1750, doesn't reflect similar sentiments as what you wrote.

So I don't think that there's anything especially wrong with people nowadays, or that the study has really any merit, it's just our society has developed this weird idea that more and more powerful drugs are better. Even if you don't take drugs yourself, there may be some effect from all the chemicals in the drinking water, like estrogen. The only way to stop that is to reign in the medical industry, and have more powerful water quality laws.

This is why car drivers that complain about cigarette smokers annoy me. The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it. Yes, I drive, and no I don't smoke, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and claim that my air pollution is better than their air pollution.

It wouldn't necessarily be hypocrisy to claim that.

1) Cigarette smoke contains 10x more particulate matter than engine exhaust. There's a reason we have catalytic converters.
2) Cars don't typically blow smoke at face level or hang around doors (or indoors in more permissive places).

while interesting not really the first: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/66162.php

The entirety of the USA has swine flu!

Well, after all, quote:
"Swine Flu Should More Accurately Be Called North American Flu".

CC.

That quote is not germane to the H1N1 discussion.

The U.S. has ordered around 251 million doses. North of the border, Canada is buying 50 million doses and expects to pay around $400 million dollars before the cost of administering. Assuming $8 per dose, that's 2.4 billion dollars spent from the North American public purse on a manufactured bit of fear-mongering. That's quite the tidy sale. --And the rest of the world is vaccinating against this 'swine flu' as well. Make no mistake; this is a cash-cow bonanza for a small number of companies.

That article you linked to is pure, high-charge emotionalism; as bad as anything you'd see on Fox News. By the time you get to the parts which contain actual data, the reader, (in this case you), are so worked up that you cannot reason your way out of a paper bag.

That's hardly a win for science. --Though it is certainly common enough among people who supposedly promote science.

While I am not a lover of network news in any form, this item is perhaps worth noting. . .

H1N1 Cases Exaggerated? - CBS

In any case, I really don't think it's that people have a problem with vaccines per se, it's that they don't trust the companies making and delivering them. And given the long and much-spotted track record of both the government and the pharmaceutical industry, this is a very reasonable position to take.

It sounds to me as though you're confusing the dream of a perfect world in which medical technologies are used appropriately and responsibly with the real world, which is filled with out-of-control capitalism and reckless disregard for human health and welfare. Geeks seem to have a lot of trouble differentiating between the two, I find.

-FL

...but why should we have people suffering from a disease that is entirely preventable?

I totally agree in theory; however, the only concern is the uncertain risk of vaccines. I suspect the truth is somewhere between those who say they are absolutely safe and those who say they are not. It is also possible that vaccine is not the only method to prevent disease. As we are learning a lot more about what makes a healthy immune system and nutritional health such as the huge factor vitamin D http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51913.php is to the immune system, it is within the realm of possibility that we discover better ways to prevent illness.

Here's the problem: You're lying. Nothing you just said is the truth.

First, let's talk about those dead kids. 2/3rds of them had 'high risk' medical conditions, "24 of the 36 children".

Next, let's talk about that fatality rate. 477 people. Now, that is, in fact, an order of magnitude LESS than the seasonal flu. In the unlikely event that you were to die this year, the chance it was of swine flu is one quarter of one tenth of one percent.

You're just another hysterical idiot freaking out because the teevee told you to.

Incorrect.

No. In fact NOTHING you've said contradicts my statement IN ANY WAY.

With a sufficient number of vaccinated individuals in a population, an effect call heard immunity comes into play. This protects people who cannot get the vaccine (people allergic to it, etc.) or who the vaccine does not work on.

This is bull. There are a MINUSCULE number of people in the world which would chose to get vaccinated, but CAN'T for various reasons. So for the sake of the 0.01% of the population, you believe we should compel EVERYONE ELSE to get vaccinated, and thereby CAUSE many MORE health issues? It's idiotic.

There has been a 4 year study done in Ontario on this with respect to seasonal flu vaccines and found favorable results.

That article is missing the huge disclaimer on that study: "The authors point out that one of the major drawbacks of the study was random variation which limits the abilities of small vaccine trials to assess the real relationship between vaccination and influenza."

I find most interesting this combination of quotes:

"the researchers found that the mortality decreases in Ontario compared with the other provinces were statistically significant only in those aged 85 or older." http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct2908ontario.html
&
"The results also indicated that increasing immunization rates were not as clearly associated with a reduction in mortality and health care need in older people, especially older than 75 years, in comparison with younger people." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/126891.php

And TWO of the 3 links I posted include studies in Alberta and Ontario, explaining why the vaccine is scarcely effective, and why many flu studies greatly exaggerate results...

And the day you are stricken low by a chronic condition, or indeed simply grow older? Will you then be satisfied in paying increased premiums for the rest for your life?

I thought I was pretty clear. It's fine to be charged higher premiums if you're DOING something risky. That is, you can chose it. So if the chronic condition was brought about because I was acting irresponsibley, then sure, charge me a higher premium. If I was doing what was considered healthy, then no. AFAIK, you can't control your age, so again no, no higher premiums simply for being older.

This is the important point about insurance. Instead of spreading costs evenly across the system, so that people who are better off now support those in hard times (this is the whole theory of insurance), we instead simply pass on all the burden to the people who can't afford it and who need the most help.

Really? Because EVERY OTHER KIND OF INSURANCE is based on risk. Live in an area with a high flood risk? You pay more. Drive recklessly and rack up tickets or accidents? You again pay more. Smoke or skydive for a living? Your life insurance COSTS YOU MORE. See the pattern? The costs are usually tied to things you can control. Regarding health insurance, I think its reasonable to ONLY base premiums on things you can control, because now we're talking about people's lives. At the same time, I don't pity someone who's reckless with their own life.

This situation has come about because we invited risk based premiums in the door when we allowed smokers, obese people and similar people to be charged higher rates. You can justify it any way you want, but it was based more on righteousness more than hard facts.

You're wrong; smokers and obese peope right now are NOT charged higher premiums.

If we really based risk assessment on facts, we'd have situations where groups like West Africans and Ashkenazi Jews were charged higher premiums because of hereditary disorders like Sickle Cells disease and Cystic fibrosis. But, we don't do that because it would be socially and morally unacceptable and repugnant.

I am drawing a line between things beyond an individuals control and those things which ARE under and individuals control. And if you look at health care costs and the leading causes of death, the majority today in the US is not sickle cell or CF, its obesity related diseases. In other words, people are making choices contributing as much as 10% to the cost of health care, more than any other single cost. Look at this and tell me again if you think your lifestyle shouldn't be a factor for health insurance: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php

It's good that you keeper yourself healthy. And you currently enjoy windfalls because of that. It would be nice if you could be healthy forever. But sooner or later, time will take its toll, and when it does the insurance system which you now support will seem a lot less friendly and rewarding, and a lot more harsh and punitive.

You act as if its inevitable to become unhealthy as you get older. You really know nothing of fitness and healthy living. Studies have been showing exercise can help with artiritus, mental disorders, bone density problems, ciruclation problems, an a host of other problems. http://www.thirdage.com/exercise-fitness/strength-training-the-best-anti-aging-remedy-ever There's much more out there, go look. No, you'll not live forever, eventually everything dies... but your assemsement that we are helpless to rapidly decay is simply not true.

You are a complete moron to not even being able to google stuff like this before forming your opinion in 2 seconds.

No pain is a very serious genetic disorder.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/42140.php
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/01/27/rare.conditions/index.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/14726_pain.html

"Those people, who do not feel any pain at all, usually die before they turn 25"

"A lot of parents would be happy to have a baby, who does not wake them up at night."..."When Ashlyn's teeth started growing at the age of six months, the girl shredded her own lips with them."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6379795/

âoeSome people would say thatâ(TM)s a good thing. But no, itâ(TM)s not,â says Tara Blocker, Ashlynâ(TM)s mother. âoePainâ(TM)s there for a reason. It lets your body know somethingâ(TM)s wrong and it needs to be fixed. Iâ(TM)d give anything for her to feel pain.â

The untreatable disease also makes Ashlyn incapable of sensing extreme temperatures â" hot or cold â" disabling her bodyâ(TM)s ability to cool itself by sweating. Otherwise, her senses are normal.

So yes, your opinion is quite stupid.

There is a curious pattern in the suicide rates. The rates among ethnic groups who built the most prosperous, high-quality societies (i. e., Western societies) are the highest in the world. The rate in Japan and Europe is much higher than the rate in, say, Nigeria. Most African nations do have shockingly high death rates, but that is due to murder. Suicide is quite uncommon in Africa.

What Richard Egan did is very Japanese. He concluded that his life would be a burden on his family, his friends, and himself. So, he chose to die by his own sword. He died with honor.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161960.php From the page: " - There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use; - Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and; - Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors. "

P.R. Alert: This Slashdot story is a public relations release. The misleading Slashdot summary says, "Other sources have picked up the story...". In reality, they are inserting press releases everywhere they can, and the kind of work being done is not new.

It was proven long ago that dogs can smell chemicals associated with cancer. For example, see this 2006 article in National Geographic News, Dogs Smell Cancer in Patients' Breath, Study Shows. That's part of what started the present interest in making a machine to detect cancer.

This February 2007 article is more interesting: Compact lung-cancer breath test may be possible. Quote: "The test uses 36 chemical dots that react to telltale compounds in a person's breath. The dots change colour when exposed to compounds that signify the presence of lung cancer."

This February 2007 article gives more information about how it is done: US Scientists Prototype Breath Test For Lung Cancer

Even Oprah's magazine had article in June 2009 about dogs sniffing cancer and making machines to imitate dogs: Sniffing Out Cancer. Quote: "The researchers are collaborating with scientists at the University of Maine, who are trying to mimic the dogs' cancer-sniffing abilities with laboratory machines." Another quote: "So far, the Pine Street Foundation dogs have done 25,000 scent trials for ovarian cancer."

Slashdot: Not quite as current as Oprah? Old news for nerds who were playing video games and wouldn't know the difference?

Many researchers are doing similar work. For example, see the February 2008 article, The Cancer Breathalyzer. Quote: "Dr Yousef ... believes that the breath test will provide a more convenient and rapid method for diagnosing serious diseases than blood or urine analysis, and will require minimal medical intervention."

Other researchers are studying the possibility of using blood tests to detect cancer. See the December 2007 article, Study points to possibility of blood test to detect lung cancer.

Here is a November 2005 research paper that surveys some of the issues of early detection of cancer: The Progress and Promise of Molecular Imaging Probes in Oncologic Drug Development.

2) You're basically wrong on virtually every account. There *is* ample evidence that low-carb diets are bad for your brain, heart and kidneys.

3) The Inuits lack of farming couldn't have much to do with the fact that they lived in the freakin Arctic Circle, could it?

"Again, there is ample evidence to show that some people (as in many thousands) have consumed well under 2000 calories a month for decades, in the form of carbohydrates, while doing hard physical work - and wound up grossly obese. Just as others (usually much wealthier) have eaten far more than 2000 calories a day for years, while doing little or no physical work, and remained lean and fit."

Really? Under 2000 calories a day and hard work and gotten obese? Please provide this ample evidence.

My theory, developed after I lost 60 lbs, was that whenever you have two things that are diametrically opposed like low-fat, high carb/low-carb, high fat is that the answer is most frequently in the middle. Moderation in both (including carbs, a necessary source of energy) leads to great results. But, that's just my anecdotal evidence talking.

Here is a Medical News Today article about the drug, CBLB502, in question. I have to say I'm impressed- they used 6.5 gray (Gy) of ionizing radiation as their test dose. The Mayo Clinic considers an absorbed dose of 5.5 to 8 Gy as causing "very severe radiation sickness." (And goes on to mention, "Doses greater than 8 Gy are generally not treated successfully and usually result in death within two days to two or three weeks depending on the duration of the exposure.")

In comparison, a full-body CT scan is about 0.01 Gy, anywhere from 12-100 Gy is typically used for antimicrobial irradiation, depending on the material and microorganisms of interest, and 5000 Gy is about the threshold where Deinococcus radiodurans starts to get bothered by ionizing radiation.

There seems to be some confusion. The radiation protectant drug is CBLB502, which was inspired by looking at how some cancer cells suppress apoptosis in response to radiation. The same company has also announced promising phase II trials on CBLC102, a different drug that appears to do more or less the opposite - it turns on tumor suppression pathways that have been disabled in tumor cells and shuts down pro-cell survival mechanisms.

CBLB502: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341336.stm

CBLC102: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/134269.php

There's more information on Medical News today if anyone wants a more medical take on this and a less ... Israeli interpretation (I don't know about you but I'm not too hung up on what nationality the researchers are and am more so interested in the technical details). Their 2008 annual report sheds a lot of insight on this as well. Although this information has been public knowledge since the beginning of the year, it should be interesting to watch their stock fluctuate throughout today.

See also:
    http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/levine_lab/
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71000.php

We set up two of treadmill workstations for our home offices (Horizon T95). We run them at 0.5 mile per hour to 1.0 mph. I can walk for hours while surfing the web or typing emails. Programming is a little harder while walking though, depending on the programming task. The doctor (James Levine) who made some of the first workstation presumably is just doing reading and text writing with it.

We set up a shelf on a wall above the treadmill for multiple LCD monitors. We switched to trackballs. We use a one inch square cross-section yard stick across the treadmill handles to support a board attached to the treadmill by two U-shaped brackets. The only big problem is the optical encoder on my T95 is making noise, and while I keep fixing it by hand, a complex plastic part is just warped and needs to be replaced (which means either finding the warranty paperwork, or buying a 3D printer and laser scanner. :-) The other treadmill has not had that problem -- I think one of them was just made slightly different so it is more sensitive to a plastic bracket drooping a little over time.

Anyway, it really works. We bought tall stools, so we can alternate sitting, standing, and walking. The main idea is that walking is better than standing for the legs and knees, because the knee and leg is adapted more for continuous movement than for supporting weight in one place. Still, either standing for a long time or walking a little unnaturally on a treadmill can be hard on the knees, especially if they are weak already for some reason. Supposedly the treadmill platform is designed with different zones for landing and walking, but with a keyboard, you are shifted a little back on it, so possibly the zones don't work out as well. For some people, it may make a difference in comfort if you walk barefoot, in slippers, or in shoes. Also, stepping on and off a treadmill can be a hazard, especially if you have a dog in the way. :-) Integrated office designs can have drop floors that put the treadmill at floor height, not elevated.

We have had a couple wired headsets broken though, from stepping on the cable while walking. Wireless headsets is probably a better idea as far as that goes.

I think using a treadmill while at the computer has helped me lose weight, have more stamina, and have better posture. So, overall, a big win. It's nice to look down at the console after doing a long task and realize you have walked a mile or two.

Still, a lot of people get hurt lugging 250 pound treadmills up stairs, so best to keep it on a first floor or a place with elevators -- which can limit placement of a home office.

The US Health Care industry is hardly an "unregulated private market." 46% of healthcare spending is medicaid, medicare, or other government programs. Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates are generally too low, resulting in cost shifting to insurance companies and the uninsured. Oh, and if you make a mistake in billing, you can be fined, subject to expensive audits, and possibly thrown in jail. Show me a private insurance company with the power to do that.

Many smaller clinics and individual operations reject medicaid/medicare entirely since the paperwork and low reimbursement rates make it a losing proposition. Larger organizations pretty much have to accept it since that's 46% (or more) of their revenue, even if it requires extra people to deal with the paperwork and auditing.

PS - do you consider "teeth" a pre-existing condition? I ask because in the last 2 years, 3 million English people were unable to schedule a dental appointment. 4.5 million people gave trying entirely.

Yeah cause they killed all kinds of people before 1990 when all they had was paper.

Yes, and they still do. And that's not despite a sweeping adoption of IT, it's partly due to a lack of one.

Not anymore: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5753.php. It's still banned in Norway and Denmark, though.

If you want good healthy food, go for fresh vegetables (and fruit, meat and fish) instead of the processed kind.

Unless it's tainted spinach. Or tainted peanuts. Or tainted organic eggs. Or tainted organic sesame seeds. Or tainted organic alfalfa....

The computerized stuff is useful too but in most IT stuff you can't quickly read and scribble something on the record and rush off to the next patient. You can do that in paper (ok the minus is the scribble could be unreadable...).

Medical errors are the fifth-leading cause of deaths in the US, with up to 98,000 deaths annually. "Medical errors in the healthcare system arise from miscommunication, physician order transcription errors, adverse drug events, or incomplete patient medical records," says David Plow, Senior Analyst at MRG.

And, why is that bad? Oh, GMOs weigh more than a duck and are therefore bad, right? Newsflash: All food you eat has been selected for certain traits.

I've discussed this subject exhaustively with people smarter than you, so here goes: While it is true that nature is capable of transferring genes from one organism to another even across Kingdoms with retroviruses, in practice this almost never happens and when it does, the resulting organism doesn't get cloned out hundreds of times and planted in a monoculture, and protected. While in theory humans can work "faster" than nature (to produce a specific result) the results are unpredictable.

However, the market is speaking and deciding it wants organic products, and H.R. 875 is essentially an attempt to shut down that market through legislation, nothing less than an assault on small-scale food production in America.

with the "terminator" gene,

You mean that thing they currently have no plans to bring to the market?

That is probably the dumbest thing I've seen on slashdot all day.

Unnatural=unhealthy? Citation needed.

This is not a secret. It's well-known that organic foods generally have greater nutritive value. One of the best fertilizers is human waste, which is perfectly safe so long as it's been "digested" by bacteria before you fertilize with it. Instead, we send it to a sewage "treatment" plant where it is rendered biologically "safe" and then we usually dump it into a river... downstream from which we pump water out of the river into a water "treatment" plant where it is rendered biologically "safe to drink" (a matter of some debate, but arguably true.)

How would this affect something like pig pancreatic islet transplantation? There have been great advances in the treatment of diabetes through the transplantation of pig pancreatic islets into humans. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/24059.php I don't think that these people thought out the repercussions of the legislation.

From toothpaste to DE Filters to solar cells.

They can also apperantly clean up red tides

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/118946.php

Yup, it is genocide that turns a profit. See here for some US death rates resulting from the health "care" system. The roughly 106.000 yearly deaths because of adverse drug reactions is a statistic that hides a much larger iceberg of deaths indirectly caused by drugs.

You see, the trick is to not kill people outright: you cannot make money off dead people. Instead, you design drugs that cause chronic disease (e.g. Zyprexa which causes diabetes), and market them to the general public, e.g. as a lifestyle drug, so as to get many people to ask their doctor for a prescription. That way you profoundly grow the market for selling further drugs and treatments. Any litigation you can always settle for a fraction of the profit later.

Autism Rates Drop After Mercury Removed From Childhood Vaccines
Mar 3rd, 2006

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38784.php

An article in the March 10, 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the alarming increase in reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders (NDs) in children not only stopped, but actually dropped sharply - by as much as 35%.

Using the government's own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood NDs, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives. Authors David A. Geier, B.A. and Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. analyze data from the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) in "Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines."

The numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have skyrocketed to more than 1000 by the beginning of 2006. But in fact, the Geiers report that the number actually went down to only 620, a real decrease of 22%, and a decrease from the projections of 35%.

This analysis directly contradicts 2004 recommendations of the Institute of Medicine which examined vaccine safety data from the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the CDC.

H2O can be lethal in high enough concentrations too.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but citing death-by-water doesn't jive with me as that sort of lethality is more of the physical kind than chemical/toxilogical. It's like saying lead bullets are poisonous because when they tear through your torso you may die. You gotta be right for the right reason, and I get your intended point, I just think you could have picked a better argument there. But it's not a big deal I guess.

It is my understanding that the developing world stopped using thimerosal in most childhood vaccines about 10 years ago.

Technically any vaccines on shelves that had thimerosal in it were still okay'd for use, but they just didn't want any more to be made. But yeah, close enough.

If it was a significant contributing factor in autism, wouldn't we have seen a statistically significant drop in the autism rates by now? Oh shit -- we have seen a drop.

First off, the study is new to me, and after finding the original research cited by the website you linked I went straight to the end of the literature. Right before the "References" section there's a section saying:

"Potential conflict of interest: David Geier has been a consultant in vaccine/biologic cases before the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) and in civil litigation. Dr. Mark Geier has been an expert witness and a consultant in vaccine/biologic cases before the no-fault NVICP and in civil litigation"

Now this in of itself doesn't discount their research. I'm not suggesting that. But please realize that a "potential conflict of interest" isn't worth ignoring either. It would certainly help your point if you could find more research along the same lines.

With regard to the actual research itself, well, I don't study medicine or human anatomy (not my field), so I'm less certain than I'd like to be in judging whether their statistical significance is legit. At a glance it looks like to me like the last scatter plots should plateau rather than sharply going downward (as his linear regression is plotted), but maybe its legit. His charts are incidents of autism against time. While that thing that looks like a peak two years after they discontinued the thimerosal seems to make his case, does the upslope support it as well? Does the thimerosal-vaccination rate increases in a way that correlates to incidents of autism? (I don't see that in the study). Surely if what they suggest is the case, there would be evidence in a vaccination-rate versus incidents of autism comparison. I feel like these guys had blinders on by only comparing things with respect to time.

You need the consensus of the scientific/medical community to prove thimerosal is harmful. The Institute of Medicine has officially concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant blaming thimerosal for the autism incidents. That doesn't help, but I'm curious. How much peer-reviewed scientific literature can you dig up that corroborates this research?

I can't object to the part where they state

additional research should be undertaken concerning the effects of mercury exposure, particularly from TCVs

. More research certainly doesn't hurt (kinda goes without saying).

H2O can be lethal in high enough concentrations too. It is my understanding that the developing world stopped using thimerosal in most childhood vaccines about 10 years ago. If it was a significant contributing factor in autism, wouldn't we have seen a statistically significant drop in the autism rates by now? Oh shit -- we have seen a drop. Perhaps there is some substance to these parents' claims.

Try here, here, here or well, any of the articles I found on Google under "adhd dopamine receptors".

This could have been a good idea, if it weren't for the ridiculous love interest angle.

Let's face it, how many fundamental concepts about science and engineering do we learn, not in school, but from educational programs or segments on TV or in other media. MacGyver, Star Trek, Mythbusters for more solid science. A lot of it is exaggerated yes, but the fact is that dramatic presentations of science do help inspire young people to see science as a career path.

Love interests though, are tacky, hackneyed and generally trite, especially in a work dealing with teenagers. Angst ridden, irrational and melodramatic farces are not the appropriate setting in which to sell science, mathematics or statistics. Many teenagers will be attracted to these fields, and indeed others, as an escape from all the bullshit they have to put up with in teenage social circles. Throwing all that bullshit right back into a publication designed to sell science is going to be counterproductive. People do not read Sci-Fi novels for the sex(in most cases).

It is particularly poor form for the writer to make the main character a young girl, and to have her more interested in a silly relationship than in the topic the manga is supposed to be promoting. And yes, crushes and such are silly and frankly demeaning things in the way they are portrayed, particularly when it comes to young women and girls. It's a slap in the face to every girl with an interest in STEM to open this publication and have their supposed role model revert to a giggling schoolgirl in a mini-skirt chasing a man. This manga is probably not going to convert many talented people to statistics.

I think the general pervasiveness of love interests, sex, etc in representations of young people in the media, is due more to adult obsession with the sexual lives of teenagers, rather than the reality of teenage life. In fact, the reality is that teenagers are having less sex now than in 1991. The stereotyped view of teenage life we are presented with is probably exaggerated/and or out of date.

So writers, please. Sell the science, not the sex.

All people benefit from an educated society.

Really? What's my return on investment? How much would it cost me if I didn't fund public education? Why don't I get more say in how the child is raise OUTSIDE of school, to ensure my investment is being handled properly? You know, make sure that the kid is actually doing homework, and eating right. I think it's time I take control of your kid's diet, since that can have an effect on learning: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/46811.php

You spout your nonsense as if there's no debate, yet I've seen not one of you theives back up your arguemnts with solid facts. You just keep bleating "educated people benefit everyone!"

And we can have educated people without public education. But please, live in your fantasy otherwise if it makes you feel better.

So I just saw this, the actual article isn't out yet. Although it is further proof of your point, I think you would be interested in it

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/124974.php

And another one

http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0810/081009/full/stemcells.2008.132.html

Basically you can get HES like cells from human testis. No treatments to come out of it of course, since it was just recently discovered, and unfortunately wouldn't work in females, but still important.

It's worth pointing out that this is another example of HES cells being used in valuable research.

.
It would be at the very least - unethical - for a pharmacist to dispense a substitute for any drug without your doctor's consent.

The patent protection on Prozac/Serafem prescribed for PMS expired in 2007.

FDA clears 'generic Prozac' for sale [August 2, 2001], Teva Announces Approval Of Generic Sarafem(R) Pulvules(R) [May 23, 2008]

you mean like this :

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102408.php

?

I think this part of the computing timeline is going to be
one that is well remembered. I know I find it fascinating.

This is a classic moment when tech takes the branch that
was unexpected. GPGPU computing will soon
reach ubiquity but for right now it's the fledgling that is being
grown in the wild.

Of course I'm not earmarking this one particular project
as the start point but this year has gotten 'GPU this' and
'GPGPU that' start up events all over it. Some even said
in 2007, that it would be a buzzword in 08.

And of course there's nothing like new tech to bring out
a naysayer.

Folding@home released their second generation
GPU client in April 08. While retiring the GPU1 core in
June of this year.

I know I enjoy throwing spare GPU cycles to a distributed
cause and whenever I catch sight of the icon for the GPU
client it brings the back the nostalgia of distributed clients
of the past. [Near the bottom].

I think I was with United Devices the longest.
And the Grid.

Now we are getting a chance to see GPU supercomputing
installations from IBM and this one from MIT.
Soon those will be littering the Top 500 list.

I also look forward most to the peaceful endeavors the new
processing power will be used for... weather analysis,
drug creation, and disease studies.

Oh yes, I realize places like the infamous Sandia will be using
the GPU to rev up atom splitting. But maybe if they keep their
bombs IN the GPU it'll lessen the chances of seeing rampant
proliferation again.

Ok, well enough of my musings over a GPU.

-AI

They sell kits for that at Rite-Aid now.. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/101986.php

Which second language apparently doesn't matter ... as long as you use it reasonably regularly.

Concern about the mental capacity of 81 year olds isn't ageist bigotry, especially given the fact that research has found the mean age of onset of dementia symptoms is between 71.4 and 74.5 years.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/60646.php

I'm not saying, of course, that judges should be removed at a certain age, but this ruling makes you wonder what he was thinking and if he actually fully comprehends what he ordered google to do.

When it comes to the law, and especially rulings like this, the bar really should be set higher.

> So socialized medicine, which has been proven to work far better than
> privatized medicine in the entire rest of the developed world [...]

I think you need to recheck your facts here. Many of the countries with
socialized medicine are currently working on revising it as it has failed
in many ways. I don't have a list of all the countries currently working
on changing, but you can look at one that already has.

A couple of years ago Netherlands privatized their health care system and
from all reports it has been a great success. It is not a pure private
system, it has some strict regulations, but it is definitely not
socialized.

After a quick google, here are a couple references.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/09/07/wsj-on-the-dutch-health-care-system/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82785.php

Interesting, you must have missed the recent study that showed a marked decrease in real aggression, stress levels and a reduced temper after playing violent video games. (cite: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107604.php)

I'd assume that watching porn of various types has similar affects on the individuals tendencies to perform what may be objectionable acts (eg. rape).

Yet we try to ban exposure to things which studies from many psychologists (who aren't affiliated with religious organizations) and sex researchers (Masters and Johnson for example)say may actually decrease crime levels (in all but the real sociopaths).

I ask you... Why would someone people sponsor a child in Africa? Why would someone donate to disaster relief? Its not giving THEM any benefit.

Perhaps sometimes its the principle that counts.
...or it could just the self-indulgent pleasure of the economics of philanthropy.

Fortunately, I don't know anyone in any biker gangs. Not my thing.

When I mentioned heart transplants, I was referring to one of the sought-after organs of motorcycle accident veggie-mates. Heart, lungs, corneas, kidney, liver, bone, dura mater, (oops - scratch that last one ...)

As for heart transplants, yes, smoking and obesity get you the boot: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20066.php

Wang said patients who are at the end stages of heart failure and do not have any contraindications will generally be placed on a heart transplant waiting list. Some common contraindications include a smoking habit, a drug or alcohol addiction, excess weight, or a mental disease, Wang said.

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

Dogs have similar effects on health.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327 [americanheart.org]
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html [naturalnews.com]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets [webmd.com]

Please stop using studies like these to reinforce your prejudices.

"Apparently having dogs doesn't have the same effect. "

It has been long established that dog ownership improves long term health outcomes.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets

In the United States, the total fertility rate - the number of children a woman has in her lifetime - fell from seven or eight in 1800 to slightly more than two today, says J. David Hacker, assistant professor of history at Binghamton University. And with a five-year $667,237 grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Hacker hopes to find out why.

China has seatbelt laws, although they're not particularly well enforced and only apply to the driver and front-seat passengers. China has national laws on smoking, and a number of provinces including Beijing have introduced their own stricter regulations. China's anti-drug laws are considerably harsher than those in the US. You're right about the trans fats, but then if you make as many assertions as you did I suppose random chance will mean that at least some are true.