Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates On the Past, Future, and Google
editingwhiz writes "eWEEK reports that Bill Gates told PBS talk show host Charlie Rose and a Stanford University audience at TechNet Wednesday that 'We're at the beginning of something important again' in the development of technology — just as in the 1980s with the advent of the PC. He also discussed the growing Microsoft-Google competition, world health issues, how to give lots of money away to the benefit of mankind, and whether he'll return to Harvard to finish his studies." From the article: "On whether there's another idea today that is as powerful as the idea of the personal computer in the 1970s: 'If I knew medicine like I do computers, I would like to be able to control the [human] immune system, to fight against the onset of disease on a world level ... but I think the idea of the PC still would have topped that.'"
This is the original article for the dupe posted earlier today.
Every day your heart would stop beating for no reason and they'd have to restart it with CPR, but nobody would think that was odd.
Actually, CPR doesn't restart your heart. It keeps the blood circulating through the body until a paramedic can use a defibulator to actually restart it.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
The only reason he likes [compares] PC's and the human immune system is due to the control to make lots of $$$. His money donated goes to drug manufacturing companies to 'aid' the world health. Unfortunately drug companies are cartels anyway (like big Microsofts), and seeing as he and his family have an interest in/and investment in major drug manufacturing companies, where else is there to give away money to get it back straight in the front door.
Gates & co do not care less about human welfare or health. Money and control is the only thing on the agenda.
Lets do some sums.
Suppose the UK Health service has 100,000 PC's (I expect a lot, lot more). Suppose half of those run MSOffice. At £200.00 a licence (a conservative estimate on price), that is £10,000,000 straight away - before any patients even get an aspirin. Now use the same calculation on ALL the worlds health services that run MS products. I bet the bill (pun intended) is BILLIONS of £ to MS before anyone patient gets treated.
He really cares doesn't he?
rubberbando, you are completely wrong. CPR is cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The technique is used if the patient goes into cardiac or pulmonary arrest. It literally starts their heart beating again, or makes them start breathing again. Using a defibrillator on someone in cardiac arrest wont do anything. A defibrillator (as its name implies) is used to revive a person who's heart is in atrial or ventricular fibrillation, which is an erratic pattern of contraction, instead of the normal pattern as observed by ECG. The defibs cause a complete depolarization of hopefully the entire myocardium in an attempt to get it to contract all together again. If the heart isn't beating at all, the defibs won't do anything.
It keeps the blood circulating through the body until a paramedic can use a defibulator to actually restart it.
...)
That is not correct. A defibrillator is useless on a person whose heart has stopped. It is used when the heart goes into "fibrillation", which is an uncoordinated sequence of heart muscle contractions that result in no net blood flow. Since fibrillation almost never resolves itself, left untreated it will cause death within minutes.
In fact the defibrillator works by applying an electrical shock which stops the heart -- thus ending the fibrillation. The hope is that the heart's normal rhythm will start again immediately thereafter.
In CPR, the idea is to maintain blood flow and oxygen in the lungs until (hopefully) the heart starts again on its own. This is why CPR has such a low success rate (5-10%), although still much better than the zero per cent success rate of doing nothing.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. (Although I have a PhD, so technically
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
That's a myth. The Earth has enough resources to sustain many times its current population. There's also no correlation between population density and standard of living.