Slashdot Mirror

Some moron said

Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine.

Hardly "massively safer"...

https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/first...

From the CDC:
E-cigarettes have the potential to benefit adult smokers who are not pregnant if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products.
E-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, pregnant women, or adults who do not currently use tobacco products.
While e-cigarettes have the potential to benefit some people and harm others, scientists still have a lot to learn about whether e-cigarettes are effective for quitting smoking.
If you’ve never smoked or used other tobacco products or e-cigarettes, don’t start.
Additional research can help understand long-term health effects.

Are you kidding? You demonstrate an enormous ignorance of the world.

No, I'm not kidding. Major complications after abortions are extremely rare. As for financial consequences, the proper comparison for a woman is joblessness without children vs joblessness with children, and the latter is clearly financially quite a bit better for the woman.

Back to the original point you keep dodging, asshole. You still haven't countered my original assertion that a business demanding a doctor's note is an illegal invasion of privacy.

Because it's a dead simple answer that you'll outright refuse to accept: It is NOT illegal to ask for a doctor's note.

While you can't ask for any details about why the doctor's visit was necessary, results, etc, you can ask for a doctor to just sign and date a note that says "Please excuse this fat lazy ass, Blarbara Hudson, from going to work today." However they could not say something like "Blarbara Hudson needs additional time to heal from the upper-back-butt implant he received and can't come to work today." The legality of this is actually pretty well established.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_...

You're welcome, and you ought to try looking it up before flapping your big fat uneducated slackjaw. Of course, it's basically pointless for me to say what I said above, hence I was hesitant to mention it earlier, and won't mention it any further, even if you ask.

Medical conditions are protected by HIPAA, and businesses requiring doctor's notes is a clear violation - they should not even be allowed to know you have a medical condition.

Precisely why a doctor's note doesn't have to (and won't unless you ask) include any details, you dumb fuck. If the doctor did write those details, he could be held liable under HIPAA.

As fror the rest - what an idiot you are. Go look at pictures. The nerves are preserved as is a fair amount of tissue. And let's face it, it's the nerves and connected tissue that count. The parts that enable an erection are definitely not wanted, as they not only don't contribute, they detract from the final result.

Skin and a piece of the glans is all that remains, and it is NOT genitalia. Does the skin retain nerves? Yep, but again, this is part of a separate organ. A real vagina isn't skin, and is in fact a mucus membrane similar to the inside of your mouth and nose. There are two critical differences here:

- External skin found on the penis (and elsewhere) has a keratin layer, a mucus membrane does not.
- External skin poorly handles warm, moist environments, where it is increasingly susceptible to infection. A mucus membrane has its own mechanisms of fighting off infection in this environment that skin doesn't.

In fact, given how obese you are, I'm sure you've observed the later under your skin folds by your arms and in the middle of your stomach: The moist environment is prone to infection, up to and including bleeding. Absent of maintenance, your "neovagina" as you call it will actually harden over time to resist these infections. And no, putting this kind of skin into your pelvis doesn't cause it to change from regular skin to a mucus membrane, even with hormones.

The prostate doesn't enter into it. Anti-androgens and estrogens shrink it to almost nothing.

Precisely, and yet it still retains its functions related to orgasm.

And also reduce the cancer risk to next to nothing.

False. It is reduced, but not "next to nothing" as you put it: http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/tr...

The same way that breast cancer screening isn't necessary because M2F have a lower breast cancer risk than men.

Just like how real women with breast implants also have a lower risk, and for the same reason.

There is little disagreement among professionals

I like how you state that without even bothering to address the one counterexample I gave you.

I also like how you just throw terms like narcissist and religious at me without any basis for doing so (I've provided plenty, in your case.)

Forty-Two Chemicals Identified in Electronic Cigarettes
= exposure can be especially harmful to the health.
Chemicals in red are emitted in secondhand smoke.
2-butanone (MEK) 2-furaldehyde
Acetaldehyde Acetic acid Acetone Acrolein Aluminum Barium Benzene Boron Butanal Butyl hydroxyl toluene Cadmium Chromium Copper CrotonaldehydeDiethylene Glycol Formaldehyde Glyoxal Iron Isoprene Lead Limonene m,p-Xyelen Magnesium Manganese Nickel Nicotine N-Nitrosonornicotine o-Methylbenzaldehyde p,m-Xylene Phenol
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Potassium
Propanal Propylene Glycol Sulfur Tin Toluene ValeraldehydeZinc Zirconium

http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp...

The following compounds that are on the Proposition 65 list have already been identified in mainstream or secondhand (sidestream) e-cigarette vapor:

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

As the two papers linked above note, there are other toxic chemicals in the vapor as well as ultrafine particles, that likely have cardiovascular effects. E-cigarettes do not deliver "pure nicotine" and "harmless water vapor."
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/9-...

Nice.

I'm an IT worker at UCSF myself

You're a government employee, you already get better benefits than most other people (that is, until California runs out of money, which it will).

Now, unions get a lot of flak here on /. and in many places in the States. But this isn't about the merits of us joining a union and here I offer no position on that.

I do. Private sector unions with voluntary membership are a good thing. Public sector unions and private sector unions with legally mandated membership are evil.

Mr. Bengfort also has extensive experience in the development, sales and operations of IT outsourcing in both the financial services and healthcare provider industries. Mr. Bengfort received his Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A&M University where he graduated magna cum laude.

Reading this, it is obvious that this is all he knows. Time to fire him.

Currently a UCSF student. Many people don't realize this but UCSF is exclusively a medical professional school with no undergraduate degrees. Students here are a minority compared to the system of hospitals run by professionals. https://www.ucsf.edu/about/eco...

I wouldn't be too smug, because looking around, most medical professionals aren't from the US.these days, and perhaps non-citizens should replace US citizen doctors.

Maybe its time for UCSF to go under. That'll save a lot of money

Tuition for public universities are no where near 100k in California.
For undergraduate non resident students is somewhere between 35k-40k. It's actually cheaper for non-resident grad students at ucsb.

http://www.finaid.ucsb.edu/cos...

UCSF is also significantly cheager than you're suggesting.

https://finaid.ucsf.edu/newly-...

It's interesting to read that while male nurses are 6% to 10% of the total, female nurses still make less than a male nurse makes.

http://nursinglink.monster.com...

"About 6 percent of nurses in the United States are men. However, men are represented in much higher numbers in nursing specialties that also pay higher salaries. For example, 49 percent of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) in the U.S. are men. In 2005, the average salary for CRNAs was $160,000, significantly higher than the average floor nurses, who are mostly women. Of course, a master’s degree is required for a nursing specialization such as CRNA, which also increases the take-home salary."

"Men seem to go for higher education in nursing than women do, increasing their take-home earnings. There are more men in RN programs than in LPN programs, and more men in BSN programs than in RN diploma or ADN programs."

https://www.advisory.com/daily...

"Why is that? The data seemed especially striking because women don't just make up the overwhelming share of staff nurses, but represent about 90% of Chief Nursing Officers, too."

"I took the question to our in-house think tank, the Nursing Executive Center. (Collectively, they have several hundred years of experience studying the nursing industry, working in it, or both.)"

"One reason, they suggested: Some may be where the nurses work."

""Anecdotally, I hear that many men enter the “high tech” nursing specialties—such as critical care," the Center's Jennifer Stewart told me. "These are often higher paid nursing specialties." "

""Men also tend to aim for higher levels of education," Katherine Virkstis pointed out. "There are more men in RN programs than in LPN programs, and more men in BSN programs than in RN diploma or ADN programs.""

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015...

"Male registered nurses (RNs) make more than $5,000 per year than their female counterparts across most settings, specialty areas and positions, according to a UCSF-led study, and this earnings gap has not improved over the last three decades."

[John]

Instead of $200+ for a journal subscription

Hah! If only they cost $200...last year my current institution paid something like $4500 for two physical copies of Nature.

Most of the other subscriptions are actually provided in packages which cover a large number of journals (~50 - 100) and cost > ~$100,000 / yr.

Here's some info on UC's costs, the average cost for a life sciences journal is $1,700.

So you are a time traveler?

"The artificial kidney project, which is targeted for clinical trials in 2017" -- http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/...

Probably just a kidney transplant...it would be "artificial" since it's from someone else; it'd also be "powered by [their] own metabolic process".

So you are a time traveler?

"The artificial kidney project, which is targeted for clinical trials in 2017" -- http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/...

Bridges do get severely damaged. They are one of the biggest costs post flooding events. Debris carried by water hits the bridge supports and causes huge damage. Even taking larger debris out bridge scour from just the sand and mud carried by flood waters is hugely damaging to bridges. Bridges are actually very poor at resisting lateral forces and even worse at resisting lifting forces.

As for whether the turbines would survive it would depend on too many factors to know. But there certainly would be a percentage damaged, from foundation movement to salt water inundation of the generators.

Here is a photo of a bridge post fukushima tsunami. - https://www.ucsf.edu/sites/def... and http://www.beyonder.com.au/blo...

I sympathize, but there is no cure for damaged kidneys. The damage can't be repaired and must be replaced. Until we can find a way to regenerate organs or create better artificial ones, your best shot is a kidney donor -- and I urge you to find a way to ask for a donor. A friend of mine donated his kidney to a young guy he didn't even know well -- a friend's daughter's husband, I think. He figured he was in his late 40s and could do fine with just one kidney while it would make a world of difference to the younger man and his family.

Of course, even a new kidney would come with issues - anti-rejection meds and their side-effects. Thankfully, we have been making progress in using donor organ scaffolding with recipient stem cells. I know we've had success with rodent hearts in labs and other organs, but I don't know if they can use the same techniques with kidneys or even on humans. Scientists are working on bio-engineered kidneys, too https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney . There's hope. I think within your lifetime, we'll be printing organs using stem cells from bio-printers.

Beyond restoring your system with new kidneys, I guess the question becomes - what damaged your kidneys to begin with? Is that well understood, and can that be prevented in the future for yourself or others?

Look it up. Sad but true.

Sugared Soda Consumption, Cell Aging Associated in New Study

Yup, the gun laws are responsible for EVERYTHING. It must have NOTHING to do with the population density, the criminal justice system, the social system, the economy, the government, or the family structure. Gun laws dictate everything.

Well, we haven't had a mass shooting since the ban went into place. They were fairly regular occurrences before.

Yes, there are other factors than the lack of gun laws that cause the absurdly high murder rate in the US, but guns make killing and suicide that much easier.

If you have a gun you're 3 times more likely to suicide and twice as likely to be murdered - see http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/...

So for the sake of your own health, mental as well as physical, giving up that gun sounds like a good idea.

Does eating too much sugar cause diabetes?

For years, scientists have said “not exactly.” Eating too much of any food, including sugar, can cause you to gain weight; it’s the resulting obesity that predisposes people to Type 2 diabetes, according to the prevailing theory.

But now the results of a large epidemiological study conducted at UC San Francisco suggest that sugar may also have a direct, independent link to diabetes. Sanjay Basu, MD. PhD.

Researchers examined data on global sugar availability and diabetes rates from 175 countries over the past decade. After accounting for obesity and a large array of other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher Type 2 diabetes rates, independent of obesity rates. Their study was published Feb. 27 in PLOS ONE.

The study provides the first large-scale, population-based evidence for the idea that not all calories are equal from a diabetes-risk standpoint.

“It was quite a surprise,” said Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and the study’s lead author. The research was conducted while Basu was a medical resident at UCSF and working with Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital and the paper’s senior author.

“We’re not diminishing the importance of obesity at all, but these data suggest that at a population level there are additional factors that contribute to diabetes risk besides obesity and total calorie intake, and that sugar appears to play a prominent role.”

Specifically, more sugar was correlated with more diabetes: For every additional 150 calories of sugar available per person per day, the prevalence of diabetes in the population rose 1 percent, even after controlling for obesity, physical activity, other types of calories and a number of economic and social variables. A 12-ounce can of soda contains about 150 calories of sugar. In contrast, an additional 150 calories of any type caused only a 0.1 percent increase in the population’s diabetes rate

The mechanism may be unclear, but the risk for type 2 diabetes increases by 1% for every 150 calories of sugar ingested, as opposed to 0.1% for any other form of calories. The smart thing to do is to drop the sweet stuff.

I propose changing the headline, as it makes the claim that soda pop directly damages telomeres, while the study found no such causation or mechanism. It is fairly common for web articles to misrepresent and misunderstand second hand information about science studies, where authors don't link to the original study, but I had hoped that Slashdot aimed for science education, as opposed to misrepresentative sensationalism. The website of the university associated with the study paints a clearer picture: "The authors cautioned that they only compared telomere length and sugar-sweetened soda consumption for each participant at a single time point, and that an association does not demonstrate causation. Epel is co-leading a new study in which participants will be tracked for weeks in real time to look for effects of sugar-sweetened soda consumption on aspects of cellular aging. Telomere shortening has previously been associated with oxidative damage to tissue, to inflammation, and to insulin resistance." http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/...

It'd raise the price of beef 1 cent per pound to test every cow slaughtered,

Wow... you're a deluded idiot. From TFA, which you obviously did not read: A U.S.D.A. surveillance program tests brain tissue taken from about 40,000 dead cows a year for BSE.

http://usda01.library.cornell....

"Commercial cattle slaughter during 2012 totaled 33.0 million head" (pg6)

At least Ihop0 wasn't a deluded enough of an idiot to confuse 40,000 to 33 million.

Also from the article: Another key part of the U.S. food safety net is to make sure that animal tissues that can carry BSE - including the brain and spinal cord - are removed from cattle before they're processed for food.

Not only are you a deluded idiot, but you're too stupid to do the barest of study:

It's easy to say there's no concerns when it can take 30yrs to manifest

Most victims die six months after initial symptoms appear, often of pneumonia due to impaired coughing reflexes. About 15% of patients survive for two or more years.[12] Some patients have been known to live 4â"5 years with mostly psychological symptoms until the disease progresses causing more physical symptoms leading to a diagnosis and inevitable death usually within the first year of diagnosis.

http://memory.ucsf.edu/cjd/ove...

"The incubation period is the time it takes you to become sick after you've contracted a disease. Cold symptoms usually start a day or two after you're exposed to a cold virus, for example, whereas the time frame for CJD is considerably longer. We think that it often takes years or even decades after exposure to the infectious forms before someone with CJD develops signs and symptoms of the disease."

And once again, at least Ihop0 wasn't a deluded idiot enough not to understand that the people didn't contract the disease initially the second they started showing initial symptoms.... although the quote you have there from wikipedia basically reinforces what he said, instead of what you are trying to imply.

So, what was our point other than randomly try to bash someone by having your inability to understand the written word flair up?

Use of the term "denier" with it's association to "holocaust denier" tells you just how political this debate has become. Politicized science is very, very dangerous. Here is a link to a short excerpt from a book by the philosopher Karl Popper, a man all too aware of how dangerous science in the service of governments can be. He set for himself the question of "What is a scientific theory?" I wish everyone would read the first four pages of this excerpt. It would tone down the rhetoric of the global warming debate and send the creationists back to their pews. http://keck.ucsf.edu/~craig/Ka...

In fact the two main operators of employees-only bus networks in San Francisco are:

1. Google [discussed here]

2. UC San Francisco

Gaining weight happens because the human body isn't prepared, evolutionarily, to regulate its own food intake very well. We have a high inclination toward absorbing and storing extra energy because that gives us the best chance of surviving a famine. Because sugar is the most basic kind of food, the body uses it as a clue to say "it's time to absorb nutrients!", hence sugary foods make you gain weight even faster. This is part of the normal purpose of the hormone insulin.

The human body is really good at regulating the intake of natural foods. It is refined foods that we have trouble with. Try to get diabetes by eating only meat and vegetables. It was the introduction of agriculture, and the recent commercial introduction of HFCS that really messed us up. Here are some interesting references.

Paleolithic Diet.

Good Calories, Bad Calories

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Stop repeating such stupidity. Health care costs have been spiraling out of control everywhere:

http://healthvalue.ucsf.edu/about.html

Yeah... junkscience says that insurance premiums aren't going to go up, so that must be correct. After-all, the founder Milloy, was never involved in disinformation campaigns, for example, saying the there are no problems with tobacco.

And he isn paid to fight for big carbon, but I'm sure he's a man of science.

But what of his claim? What does the insurance industry have to say on the matter.

But I'm sure the skeptics are right. After-all, they're right about everything.

We could give reliable stun guns to every teacher, and train them, without fear that students would get killed due to negligence.

Why do people think that these weapons are non-lethal? Please read:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/01/4188/first-study-test-real-world-effects-stun-gun-use-raises-questions-abo

Interesting idea. Under that scenario, in order to settle, they would have to give Mann whatever he demands -- cash damages, a retraction, a groveling apology.

Mann could still insist that they disclose their documents as a condition of the settlement. That was one of the conditions of the tobacco industry settlement. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco

It's a conspiracy by big tobacco and unscrupulous scientists that is documented by papers that were subpoenaed and released in court cases.

http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco

LOL you've got lung cancer http://www.chantixsite.net/images/joe_camel.jpg

How about research into that? The reputable sources and limited studies show that obese people with type II diabetes almost all seem to revert to a non-diabetic status once they go on a ketogenic (very low carbohydrate diet).

While there are certainly some portion of type II diabetes sufferers who will not respond to, people like Robert Lustig seem to believe that low carb diets have an extremely high success rate in basically eliminating type II diabetes.

But not eating carbs doesn't sell drugs or allow people to go on eating food toxified with high levels of HFCS.

Thanks for your insights. Of the many people I've asked so far, your response is the most practical from a "user's" perspective. I've been primed onto this trajectory of inquiry based on one suggestion that I ought to look to specific software packages in determining what hardware is supported. One well known tool from UCSF called "Chimera" does indeed have some relevant documentation.

http://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/chimera/data/downloads/1.6.2/stereo.html

But those requirements are way too extravagant for a casual home user like me. Though your response doesn't approach the level of a "drop-in" alternative, I am grateful that your response represents a step in the right contextual direction for my question.

Thanks again!

It's funny but more than one year since the UCSF letter of concern was issued many of the points have been largely ignored by our government. The TSA continues to roll them out and gets more funding for junk that doesn't work and creates more risks in terms of possibly damaging health issues than it protects. There has been no independent study, there has not been any proof that these make our skies safer and people still get additional screening in most cases after going through these contraptions. I'm sorry, but if there has ever been a white elephant in our government, it's these devices and a full, unbiased, study of the health effects and security benefits must be undertaken. Until that time, turn them off and give everybody a pat-down. That's the only way somebody can be assured that the traveling public at least from the traveling public's perspective is safe.

Even after using one of these scanners, the TSA agents failed to stop somebody who had a fire arm. While the dipshits were looking at the screens and confirming what they saw, the person left the screening area. If that one incident doesn't show how screwed up the DHS is and the TSA, then I don't know what does.

It's time to de-fund the TSA and start putting some reasonable "sanity checks" back into place where air travel safety is concerned.

• Perspectives
• VMD
• Chimera
• Foldit

Etc.

But my question is, how much of this software will see the light outside the universities?

Impossible to answer. What defines a serious project versus someone's pet project or proof of concept? Then of those, how do you measure success? How many Sourceforge projects "see the light" outside Sourceforge?

Is there any list of successful software created entirely inside universities' labs that became widely used?

This is the question you seem to be getting an answer to in the forum here. Hopefully it helps.

http://www.kitchenlab.org/www/bmah/Software/pchar/
http://www.isc.org/software/irrtoolset
http://oss.oetiker.ch/mrtg/
http://www.caida.org/tools/

If you want transparency, you can always do it yourself. Why wait for Google? You've a list of tools right there that will tell you who is throttling, when, where, how, by how much, and maybe even what they had for breakfast.

http://www.internettrafficreport.com/main.htm
http://www.internettrafficreport.com/namerica.htm

Then there's the Weather Channel for geeks. That should give you a good indication of "unusual" packet losses, indicative of throttling.

http://www.noc.ucla.edu/weather.html
http://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/weather/weather.html

For more local weather on the tens, there's UCLA and UCSF.

There ya go, and it cost you rather less than the same information is costing Google.

You're comparing apples to piles of manure. An LVN is a few steps below the average UCSF nursing program, and an LVN without a degree will have to enroll in a special program just to be eligible for the pre-RN coursework.

LVNs are unlikely to make more than $30-40k/year. RNs are unlikely to earn less than $40k/year, and can earn quite a bit more in plenty of places.

Additionally, UCSF's RN tuition isn't that high, at least for in-state students. It looks like it's plenty expensive for doctoral programs, but that's kind of expected, especially from a top-notch institution.

Now, you want some real fun, try comparing pass rates on licensure exams: UCSF rates, well above average (all over 90%) vs. UoPhoenix. I can't find comprehensive stats for them, but their pass rate in Arizona is 78.4%. I'm willing to bet that UCSF grads have better employment opportunities and higher average earnings 10 years after graduation as well.

That said, you should acknowledge that UCSF is offering a valuable degree (and a high probability of passing licensing exams) for roughly the same price as a for-profit is offering... no degree, potential ineligibility to take the exams, and a very low pass rate.

Science disagrees that "fructose isn't the problem". Fructose is only metabolized by the liver, and a large percentage ends up as fat. In nature, it's found in small quantities, and usually with large amounts of fiber that slow the digestion. It's alcohol without the buzz. http://www.ucsf.edu/science-cafe/articles/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-by-fructose-sugar-diet/ There's also a 90 minute lecture on youtube if you have too much time on your hands. And yes, to first order, table sugar=HFCS

It's probably about time to mention the fact that the expansion Machine Access Code is in wide use, even if it is not the expansion you like.

Examples;

• UCSF ITFS: Wireless Networking and Security Standards: Legacy host based authorization systems utilizing the machine address code (MAC) may continue to be used until June 30th 2010
• Bluetooth essentials for programmers: 1.2.1: "Identical to the Machine Access Code (MAC) address for Ethernet"
• Source: Computer Crime Research Center, for another user's Ethernet address (known as a MAC or Machine Address Code)
• Book of the Dead, Patricia Daniels Cornwell; "Sandman's IP doesn't correspond to any MAC at the port. That's the Machine Address Code. Whatever computer the Sandman is using to send his e-mails, it doesn't seem to be one at the port,"
• Symantec.com, "When a host wants to join an IP Multicast group, it sends an Internet Group Multicast Protocol (IGMP) join message specifying its Machine Address Code (MAC) address and "
• Valparaiso University, Finding Windows System information, " 5. The Ethernet Address will be listed as the Physical Address. Machine Address Code (MAC)"
• PostgreSQL: A comprehensive guide, Korry Douglas, Susan Douglas; pg 106; "The acronym MAC stands for one of the following: Machine Address Code, Media Access Control, or Macaroni and Cheese"
• [1]
• Temple University, "Please note that you must first register the machine address code (MAC) of your laptop with Computer and Media Services before you can take advantage of this service. "
• Pharmacology Information Technology, "To register your computer, you'll need to know your computer's Machine Address Code (MAC) address, basically the serial number of your ethernet port."
• Chaminade Univeristy, "Examples of information which we receive, and may store, include (although are not necessarily limited to) the Internet protocol (IP) address used to communicate with us; the Machine Address Code (MAC) number of your computer"
• eHow: How to Find the Machine Address Code on a PowerMac

I'd love to see more or less comprehensive statistics on the part in bold.

Let's start with this article which references several different studies over the years which have shown that abstinence-only programs fail at their message when compared to a comprehensive sex education program.

The reports do not say that these were in fundamentally religious communities, but the results would probably be similar in those communities.

However, there is this report (pdf) which discusses abstinence-only vs. a comprehensive sex education program.

Finally, there is this report (pdf) from the Journal of Adolescent Health which reviews current (2005) U.S. policy of abstinence and abstinence-only programs.

Here is the link (pdf) to the report mentioned from the Guttmacher Institute. They also produced this report (pdf) which does talk about a somewhat successful abstinence-only program for young African-Americans, but notes this was not the normal abstinence-only type program.

Hope this helps.

If you dug a little deeper you'd find that W. Edelstein is one of the pioneers of magnetic resonance imaging (my own field). "Physics" is an awfully big field. I couldn't find out what his original specialization was, but it's been a LONG time since he did any space-related work. He is certainly an outsider to the field of manned space travel.

I've never heard of his co-author, Arthur Edelstein. It looks like he's a programmer at UCSF, formerly UC Berkeley. William's son? Grandson? Google scholar only shows up a couple of hits. W and A Edelstein have a paper on MR in JMRI (looks like from W's lab, he's senior author, A buried in the middle). The two of them have been covering a lot of ground - they've also got an arxiv preprint on electronic voting machines. That's kind of weird too - it doesn't have much to do with physics and every one of the references are web pages, including Wikipedia.

  His abstract seems a bit strange - I'd have thought you'd have to do something a little more in depth to get accepted to an APS meeting. I've seen much the same calculation in Slashdot posts over the years. Maybe those posters should have submitted something. It's also possible there's a lot more content in the actual presentation.

Now, what was it you were saying about presumptions?

Don't forget R/Bioconductor! Not only is R free/free, but there are thousands of available Bioconductor packages ready for out-of-the-box use. Also consider Cytoscape and or EGAN for graph visualization of established and experimental bio-knowledge. http://www.bioconductor.org/ http://www.cytoscape.org/ http://akt.ucsf.edu/EGAN/ (full disclosure - I work on EGAN)

To date the bulk of my work has been articles in journals where I've had to sign over copyright ownership to the journal (to my frustration). As I understand it, books are the same - to publish, you have to sign over copyright to the publisher. However, sign-overs for articles often make allowances for individual distribution, which is why I'm able to at least create websites with articles as pdfs - I'm the 'P.Davidson' on the following, for example: https://php10.ucsf.edu/ufostudy/ufo_pubs.html. However, I'm expecting to retain full copyright to the next couple of articles I have in the pipe as the research involved was funded by the US National Institutes of Health, which is mandating that research it pays for must be free to access within 1 year and that authors retain copyright (giving authors the ability to release or re-release under whatever license they choose). I'll happily re-release those works under an attribution license.

I disagree that copyright itself is a useless hindrance to academics though - what's more problematic is loss of control of copyright simply because of an historic need for physical distribution by a third party. I wrote it; I (think) I should get to decide how it gets distributed for the next couple of years, since the way it is distributed affects me (allowing others in the same field to use my work without attribution is a problem in a discipline which ranks people on how often people cite ideas, for example). For me that means finished work should be available to anyone who wants it under an attribution license; work in progress should be able to be distributed to interested parties but not further without the author's permission. If I was in another field, attribution might not be as important but some other aspect of 'classic' copyright might be. The notion of copyright is not useless - the GPL and CC and so on are all extremely powerful *uses* of copyright; the problem as I see it is abuses of duration and ownership of copyright. I should not have to sign over copyright simply to distribute my work; nor should I retain some absolute right over a work decades after publication.

As someone invested in stemcells, I find this headline even more misleading than that... it may be the first for stem cells in treating ALS, but another company has had 2 phase 1 trials for stem cell treatment of neurodegenerative diseases: http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/first-stem-cell-clinical-trial-for-treating-brains-communication-highway/ StemCells, Inc. "The study is the second neural stem cell clinical trial for neurodegenerative diseases to be conducted in the United States. A Phase I trial using the same type of neural stem cells was completed in January..." (emphasis mine).

It is pretty tough to maintain when the lead developer takes extended vacations with the Rough Riders and the Bitch Babies at their favorite hideaway Oh, for information, it seems that Hans is one of the bitch babies

Also, there is a guy, out there on his own (so who knows if he is a quack or not) that believes fructose is worse than other sugars:

Lustig believes that fructose generates greater insulin resistance than other foodstuffs, and that fructose calories, therefore, fail to blunt appetite in the same way as other foods.

The full article is here:

http://www.ucsf.edu/science-cafe/articles/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-by-fructose-sugar-diet/

(he says bad things about table sugar and HFCS in the article, he thinks people simply eat too much of it)

He doesn't have a problem with fruit (because people tend not to eat a great deal of it at once), but he doesn't like fruit juice.

You replied in another thread to a guy who linked a video by the doctor (Fudrucker), I think Fudrucker was probably confusing HFCS and fructose when he made his post:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1338085&cid=29089857

Oops, forgot the link:

http://www.ucsf.edu/science-cafe/articles/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-by-fructose-sugar-diet/

1. Download Chimera (It's free!)

Ahem! you could have pointed to the download page where you can download it for a variety of platforms.

I'm glad someone has the balls to say it: Universities are still pumping out IT graduates into an already crowded job market. It's like these kids have shown up to the California Gold Rush after all the gold has gone. IT has well and truly jumped the shark. There will still be jobs, but not enough to support the hordes of unemployed IT people out there. The parties over. Sorry you didn't score, but it's time to go home anyway.

But fear not, because Uncle CuteSteveJobs has a backup plan for you: Biotech. Bioinformatics is a new are and lets even little old you try and crack the genetic code. Hunt through DNA. Discover proteins. Build new drugs, all on your PC. Open source your discoveries, or sell out to Big Pharma.

You'll need to learn a bit of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics. Take heart: It's said Bioinformatics is closer to IT than it is to either of the former. Think of it as learning another language. That .NET isn't exactly cutting it these days, is it?

You'll be curing people and doing far more to help the world. And it's a lot more useful than doing another useless social networking website. Let me help you get started:

1. Download Chimera (It's free!)
https://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/cgi-bin/chimera-get.py?file=win32/chimera-1.3-win32.exe

2. File > Fetch by ID > PDB=1BGX [Fetch] ...wait... Actions > Atoms & Bonds > Show Only ...rotate with mouse...

3. That molecule is a polymerase. It can run down a DNA chain, unzip it, and build a protein as it goes. Yes, a little protein nanomachine? How cool is that? And to think you wanted to write web sites instead. C'mon. Try doing something useful! ;)

There was no ban on embryonic stem cell research. There was a ban on the federal government using tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Sounds nice when you put it like that, but in practice it's extremely difficult to make sure you're not spending federal grants on your HESC research projects. And, you know, there's just not enough red tape and bureaucracy with medical research. The ban on federal funds didn't ban research, sure, but it was definitely an obstacle designed to hinder the research as much as possible.

http://today.ucsf.edu/stories/ucsfs-kriegstein-says-bush-veto-disappointing-but-field-advancing/

There is lots of research linking cost of cigarettes to reduction of smoking. Since you're too lazy to look it up (you could try Google) or allergic to facts, here are some references: (sorry about the sloppy formatting but I'm too lazy to format for trolls.)

1 Philip Morris document, "General Comments on Smoking and Health," Appendix I in The Perspective of PM International on Smoking and Health Initiatives, March 29, 1985, Bates No. 2023268329-8348. 2 Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris, 1994 draft speech to the Philip Morris USA Trade Council, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oyf35e00. 3 R.J. Reynolds Executive D. S. Burrows, âoeEstimated Change In Industry Trend Following Federal Excise Tax Increase,â RJR Document No. 501988846 -8849, September 20, 1982. 4 Philip Morris Research Executive Myron Johnston, âoeTeenage Smoking and the Federal Excise Tax on Cigarettes,â PM Document No. 2001255224, September 17, 1981. 5 Philip Morris Executive Jon Zoler, âoeHandling An Excise Tax Increase,â PM Document No. 2022216179, September 3, 1987. 6 Philip Morris Executive Claude Schwab, âoeCigarette Attributes and Quitting,â PM Doc. 2045447810, March 4, 1993. 7 Chaloupka, F, et al., âoeTax, Price and Cigarette Smoking: Evidence from the Tobacco Documents and implications for tobacco company marketing strategies,â Tobacco Control 11: 62-72, March 2002. 8 See, e.g., Chaloupka, F, âoeMacro-Social Influences: The Effects of Prices and Tobacco Control Policies on the Demand for Tobacco Products,â Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 1999; other studies at http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/; Tauras, J, âoePublic Policy and Smoking Cessation Among Young adults in the United States,â Health Policy 6*:321-32, 2004; Tauras, J, et al., âoeEffects of Price and Access Laws on Teenage Smoking Initiation: A National Longitudinal Analysis,â Bridging the Gap Research, ImpacTeen, April 24, 2001, and others at http://www.impacteen.org/researchproducts.htm. Chaloupka, F & Pacula, R, An Examination of Gender and Race Differences in Youth Smoking Responsiveness to Price and Tobacco Control Policies, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6541, April 1998, http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc; Emery, S, et al., âoeDoes Cigarette Price Influence Adolescent Experimentation?,â Journal of Health Economics 20:261-270, 2001; Evans, W & Huang, L, Cigarette Taxes and Teen Smoking: New Evidence from Panels of Repeated Cross-Sections, working paper, April 15, 1998, www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/evans/wrkpap.htm; Harris, J & Chan, S, âoeThe Continuum-of-Addiction: Cigarette Smoking in Relation to Price Among Americans Aged 15-29,â Health Economics Letters 2(2):3-12, February 1998, www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey. 9 See, e.g., U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), âoeResponses to Cigarette Prices By Race/Ethnicity, Income, and Age Groups â" United States 1976-1993,â Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47(29):605-609, July 31, 1998, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054047.htm; Chaloupka, F & Pacula, R, An Examination of Gender and Race Differences in Youth Smoking Responsiveness to Price and Tobacco Control Policies, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6541, April 1998. 10 Ringel, J & Evans, W, âoeCigarette Taxes and Smoking During Pregnancy,â American Journal of Public Health, 2001 See also, TFK Factsheet, Harm Caused by Pregnant Women Smoking or Being Exposed to Secondhand Smoke, http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0007.

Yes..I'd say largely both [Ryan White and Arthur Ashe] examples...were fairly isolated incidences.

IAAD (I am a doctor), and dude, don't act like I didn't dare you. You should have known I already had the stats to back myself up.

"As of December 2001, an estimated 14,262 persons have been diagnosed with AIDS as a result of transfusing contaminated blood or blood products."

To you Cayenne8, Ryan White, Arthur Ashe and 14,260 other "isolated incidents" with names, with real families and real loved ones all send their love.

When we will be able to reprogram them (for example) to become insulin islet cells, then we have won the battle. We will cure diabetes.

We already do know how to do this.

But when we will know how to reprogram them, then we will not need Umbilical cells, that aren't of much use today (although they aren't totally useless). We could easily use somatic cells (mature cells in the body) and program them to behave as we want ... some nice progress is being made on that field today ...

I'm a researcher in this field and what you say is total BS!!! Believing this is like believing that global climate change doesn't exist. Anything you've heard contrary is just Bush pushing bad science to fuhrer his policy decisions. It's MUCH easier to differentiate a truly undifferentiated cell into a desired tissue than to revert an already matured on. It will be easier to cure cancer than preform this feat. We can't even differentiate near cousin islet alph-cells into beta-cells. If you can find a way to afford it, you'd be stupid not to bank umbilical cord. The benifits of having the cord far outweigh the cost to bank it. Hell, if you find your self in need of a bone marrow transplant, and find your child is a donor, you could potentially use the umbilical stem cells rather than put your child under the knife. If this magical 'cellar differentiation' does somehow become possible in your child's life time, then you simply stop paying the yearly up-keep fees.