Saying they've "cracked" the code to these two cancers (skin and lung) is not really as big a step as the title implies. They've found the genetic mutations associated with the cancers. That's probably the easy part (and it wasn't so easy). The problem in studying cancer is that the function of genes is often dynamic and interdependent. Think of a room with 30,000 light switches. Sometimes light switch #5 will turn on the light bulb, but sometimes it won't. It depends on whether light switch # 7, 100, and 10542 are all on simultaneously or not. And if switch #2742 is on, the light, if it's on, will be very dim. This why even though we give a cancer a single name - e.g. "melanoma" - there are often very different mutations present, any one or multiple ones which can affect the person's survival, but not necessarily all the time. There are cancers which reliably result from single mutations, but the most common ones are due to mutations in many many different genes. To the point that most cases of cancer can or should be considered unique.
IMHO, where I think the results of these studies may be most helpful with regards to treating people successfully is figuring out which mutations cause the cancer to spontaneously regress, whether it's by self-destruction or immune mechanisms. Even then, maybe it's not even because of a cancer mutation. Maybe some people possess some genetic trait in their immune system that allows them to destroy cancers. In which case, too many people would be looking in the wrong haystack for a needle.
While I don't think it's ever going to disappear, I do think that the gaming aspect of consoles is slowly becoming less important than its media functions. I'm a tech geek and I only recently bought a PS3, but not for its games. I bought it because: #1 it became slimmer, #2 it became cheaper, #3 it plays DVD's and Blu-Ray movies, #4 it can stream my photos, music, and videos wirelessly from my MacBook.
After I got it, I discovered that I could also rent a substantial selection of videos (though not as much as iTunes yet and the prices are still $1-2 too high), and buy very cheap ($5-15) downloadable games that are often much more fun than the games on a disk b/c they were simpler to play, took much less time to play, and I didn't have to pop in a new disc everytime I wanted to play a different game. Furthermore, I really enjoyed the news by location feature in Life with Playstation (the World Heritage Channel is very cool too if you like National Geographic quality photos).
After I showed all these "features" to my non-techie friends, 3 of them went out and bought a PS3, and 2 more are about to. If Sony manages to either finally bring PlayTV and/or Hulu to the PS3 in the US, they have essentially managed the very nifty trick of turning their "gaming console" into a Home Theater system. It would essentially negate the necessity of owning a HTPC.
I don't own a Xbox 360, but it seems that Microsoft is essentially going for the same thing. Nintendo looked like they were going to head down this path at the beginning with their "channels" menu system, but they haven't done as much as Sony or Microsoft. I'm guessing the next Wii will have HD hardware and push harder towards this goal. So, while I don't think console gaming is dying, what we think of traditionally as a gaming console is being transformed. "Convergence" would be term I suppose?
In fact, I think it would tell the admissions committee a lot more about their applicants if they were to just eliminate any rules from the essay. Just, "Write something about anything..."
Applicants could be a lot more creative if you let them be. Plus, it might give strong hints about the not-so-stable ones.
It's ironic that in her essay Ms. Bayley states, "As fuzzy logic becomes more and more obsolete (in humans, at least), boolean values have come to rule all. Precision, accuracy, the Styrofoam cup holding your coffee, and the microprocessor in your toaster oven are all a product of infinitely many zeros and ones, a concept I find both irresistibly ridiculous and intriguing." An essay, used as a factor in deciding admissions, is quite 'fuzzy' when compared to grades and SAT scores.
As for the essay itself, meh. It's not all that bad, but the wit sounded a bit forced and also a little too self-aware. I also get the feeling that she read and was influenced by the infamous I have not yet gone to college essay.
So if you stuck the marshmallow on a square of chocolate and graham cracker and they are able to resist that, then perhaps we will have found a future POTUS?
Sounds to me like they patented e-mail and SMS too. Looking forward to reading about their lawsuits against Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.
The Caps Lock function can easily be retained by software means, for example by double tapping Shift (single tap to turn it off). That way you could use the Caps Lock for the Windows or Apple key, thus freeing up space on the lower left to make the CTRL and ALT keys bigger. While we're at it, let's throw away the right side CTRL and Alt keys.
Though I have no proof of this and Wolfram may prove me to be wrong, I get the feeling that most of the time ToS's are used to cover them in case they need it, rather than persecute people. I suspect if you use it to generate answers that you could otherwise get through Google, Wikipedia, or other means (books, magazines, audio, lectures), they would have a very hard time pursuing you. And if they did, it would kill their business.
I would think the purpose of this is to cover them in case somebody finds a novel way of turning their computational engine into a cash cow. Well, good for whoever does that, but then again, they ARE piggybacking off the hard work of someone else - Wolfram. Therefore, Wolfram *SHOULD* profit/benefit from aforementioned cash cow. I doubt anyone's going to give them money of their own free will. This ToS gives them the legal means to enforce it. Of course, what they *should* get and what they end up getting is debatable and would depend on the cash cow and how much it relied on Wolfram. But of course, Wolfram as a company would like to put themselves in a position of power if such a situation arises rather than rely on the good will of others.
I don't think they'd be stupid enough to pursue someone when their answer is another copyrighted source. Copyright is violated everyday all the time all across the web by blogs, Google, Wikipedia, etc, etc. In my view, it's really only a CYA move now and I think it's going to be a matter of time before it's completely ignored because too many cases of unpursued or accepted copyright violations will come up as precedent.
I'm not an ID proponent at all and I realize you're at least half-joking, but this research finding doesn't do anything to disprove ID. In fact, if anything it somewhat favors it. ID asserts that there are certain aspects of the universe and life forms that require a directed force by an intelligent being. IOW, it requires planning. This research demonstrates that a lot of steps and manipulation that are NOT present in nature, were required to end up with RNA. It didn't happen "naturally". Ergo, "intelligent design" was required to create it.
This is weird. If MS wants users to clean install so badly, why not just have the RC refuse to install unless it's clean? This is harder to do than beg users to not do it because they're worried about the damage it might cause?
At the moment, I'm trying to get over to a female acquaintance why it's a bad idea to get back together with exes. She persists in believing that it's better the second, third or fourth time around and that things will change. Nothing ever does change though. Any apparent change you think you see is short-lived, a leopard doesn't change it's spots and if it ever was going to happen, well, it would have happened by now. You can't get past someone's history, their history is their problem not yours and you only end up getting used. It sounds like you're blaming the ex. But if you actually got back together a second, third, or fourth time, then she's not the only one who believed that things would be better. And so if you're bitter and cynical now, it's not entirely her fault. Now what were we saying about Microsoft again...?:)
In all seriousness, best wishes in getting over the ex.
# Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making. # Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it. # YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and similar things.
Free speech hypocrites It's a private site. They can interpret free speech however they like. Just because they decide certain things are unacceptable doesn't mean they don't believe in free speech. After all, free speech is never entirely free. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. You can't make jokes about bombs going through airport security.
Anyhow, the point is that Youtube's people are free to decide what's acceptable and what's not on their own site. The government OTOH, cannot make that decision or legislate it for YouTube. THAT'S free speech.
That always puzzles me - a consumer camera like a Nikon Coolpix allows you to see the final image through the LCD (even with zoom), while Digital SLR's, costing several thousands of pounds always switch the LCD off when a picture is about to be taken.
Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye.
When you click the shutter, the mirror flips up (viewfinder goes dark), exposing the shutter which then opens and shuts the right amount of time the actual camera sensor.
That's not to say it's not possible to say, add a little cameraphone like sensor and offer a live preview (several dSLRs do this now), but historically, it wasn't possible. The light is either going to the main camera sensor, or the viewfinder. A small amount is actually reflected *down* for autofocus, though.
Though, as anyone knows, holding your camera at arm's length (so you can use the LCD as a viewfinder) sucks for camera shake. And most camera LCDs are of QVGA or lower resolution, so you miss out on all the nice little details youc an see through a real optical viewfinder like that on a dSLR...
Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye. Not true. Ever since the Olympus E-330 introduced a couple of years ago, 4/3 SLR cameras with Live MOS all have Live View (Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica)
Problem is that you're thinking of this from the user perspective. If YOU ran Microsoft, would you do that?? If you did, and I were a MSFT shareholder, I'd vote to have you fired. The real problem is here is the irrational hatred of ANYTHING that Microsoft does. If they had done what you suggested, no doubt that many posters (perhaps even you), would then rake Microsoft over the coals for leaving behind so many users. And then proceed to cackle gleefully as Microsoft's IE8 marketshare never gains a foothold. Apparently, the only thing that will satisfy some people is if Microsoft commits corporate suicide.
Looking at this new machine, I really like that they've lowered the weight more and slightly increased the screen size; however, I have to wonder what the point of a 1440X900 resolution is at 13' inches. A higher DPI is always a good thing in my opinion. It offers you more flexibility. For those times you need the extra resolution to display more of a photo or more of a webpage, it's there. For those times when the font is too small, just increase the size.
I also have to ask what the point of including a touch pad is, when you have one of those "keyboard nipple" trackpoints. The trackpoints are so ridiculously and unambiguously superior to a touch pad, that it just seems like a waste of space. I agree that they are better for fine control, but for getting across the screen quickly, a touch pad is better. Thus, Thinkpads with both have the best solution.
The third issue with the new spec, is that it is still VGA output instead of DVI output. Pretty much all modern monitors have DVI inputs, so I don't see the point of going with the old standard. I agree with this, but I suspect the reason they didn't do it is because it is a business class notebook, which has less need for it. If they come out with an IdeaPad equivalent, it would probably have it (the U110 looks like it may come close, but with an 11" screen).
Finally, I'm not convinced of the benefits of a flash harddrive. If they are saving weight, that's nice (although I'm not sure they are lighter). However, it's a pretty small drive, and it is a myth that flash drives are faster. Flash drives have better random access, but slower sequential access, and most accesses are sequential. Things are going to seem *slower* moving to flash, not faster. In real world usage, most tests that I've read about have shown flash drives to be faster at both booting up, and with applications. Regardless, my own personal preference for the flash drive is because of two reasons: better battery life (the harddrive uses quite a bit of a battery's power), and better drop damage resistance. I think it's inevitable that flash drives will overtake harddrives. It's just a matter of when.
$1500 for a whole SSD harddrive. This is $999 for an *upgrade*. Meaning you lose the 80 GB 4200 RPM 1.8" hard drive which is about $200 on its own. Then the price differential is only about $300. Considering that Apple probably gets a very nice volume discount, it's not *that* great a deal. Fair, but definitely not a screaming bargain. Apple's not a nonprofit charitable organization, no matter what the diehards would have you believe.
Somebody much less cynical than me, please explain how this is a useful development? Have pilots in bomber aircraft been complaining that they wished they were able to drop bombs at supersonic speeds?
The current day military and the government's use of it is why this country is going down the tubes. We either solve problems that don't exist, or our solutions create problems that didn't exist before.
Is it just me or does it seem like every few months, the healthcare media pops up an article about some newfangled treatment that shows "promise" for some disease that everyone knows about? And is it me again, or do we almost never hear about these promising treatments years later? The cynic in me would say that it smells like someone trying to drum up some investment money. What's that? Prana Biotechnologies is listed on the Nasdaq as "PRAN"? And the announcement hit the media before the Monday opening bell? I'm shocked.
Sadly, the less cynical part of me wonders why we only ever read articles about drugs that show "promise"? When was the last time we saw an article titled "Cure for Disease Found!"? And no, I don't have Alzheimers. I honestly can't recall.
The problem with this drug is that its promise is based on 2 assumptions: 1) that amyloid has a causal role in Alzheimers 2) lowering amyloid will halt or reverse Alzheimers
Given that we don't actually know that either is true, we really have no idea how good the promise of this drug is. What we DO know is that promises have made a lot of pharmaceutical companies and their management very very very rich. Not that I would begrudge them that if they actually come through with a halfway effective drug. But I also think there should be penalties for putting out media announcements and raising false hopes without even having tested it out on a single human being yet.
Okay, 24 flaws were found. And yeah sure, it could be that it was actually "six times more than" (see the great post about "more than" abuse) found in all of 2005. It could just mean that they've been looking harder this year, not because flaws didn't exist before. The longer the program has been in development, the longer they have had to expose flaws. Plus, we really don't know anything about these "flaws". The article is very vague. We don't know the nature of the flaws, how difficult they will be to fix, or even how likely any hacker would be able to even use the flaw to do any serious damage.
And on the topic of flawed interpretation, I really must protest the comparison of an entire suite of at least 4 applications to ONE (internet explorer). That's worse than meaningless - that's just plain stupid.
You know how the saying goes about statistics - "The average human being has one breast and one testicle."
Selection bias. They have no way for controlling the quantity of alcohol that these people consume NOR the number of years for which they consume it. Even alcoholics all drink different amounts of alcohol. Therefore you have no way of knowing if the coffee drinkers also tend to drink less alcohol (ergo, less damage to the liver), which is a very plausible explanation. The authors even admit they don't have a biologically plausible theory for why coffee might protect the liver.
And 20% is nothing with a sample size this small. An 80% drop when they drink 4 or more cups of coffee? Who has room for alcohol when they've drunk 4 cups of coffee per day? I'm willing to bet there's a huge drop in cirrhosis rates when someone eats a lot too.
There's a huge difference between association and causality, but lack of distinction results in hasty and flawed interpretations.
Okay, first of all, you admit in your username that you're a Mac Fanboy so essentially, you're already destroying any credibility or lack of bias in your opinion.
Let's start with Vista. Fine, so it got delayed by a few months. Gosh, that's the worst mispelling of six years I've ever seen!
Second of all, it doesn't make any sense that you're so indignant about Microsoft's delay. You're a Mac user! Besides, delaying Windows hurts Microsoft, not you. Or Apple.
I find it ironic that Microsoft's core business is software which is probably what the grade is based on. It's ironic because hardware is one area which they have actually had quite a good track record. They make very VERY good keyboards and mice. I never hesitate to get one when I need a replacement. Their fingerprint reader works pretty well. And until they stopped selling it, their 802.11b wireless routers were some of the very few on the market that even my mother could setup and worked quite reliably. I honestly wonder why they haven't gone deeper into the hardware market. Maybe even into...dare I say it?...computers. Most of the problems with Windows seem to come from the fact that they have to deal with a nearly endless array of hardware in near infinite combinations running random amounts and types of software. If they were able to design a reference computer, I actually think there's a good chance it would run pretty well. It seems to me that they ought to be headed towards the same ground that Apple now occupies. Just my $0.02.
This lawsuit is so ridiculous in its rationale that I'm beginning to wonder if Google set this up themselves somehow just to add more karma points to the company. After all, they appear to be ready to partially give in to the governments demands, so they need a little good sympathetic PR to help alleviate the slight drop in Good-Guy status they'll receive when they do. I just don't see how the folks at Kinderstart could see any chance in hell of winning this. Then again, maybe they just took a page out of the Hollywood playbook - sometimes bad PR is the best PR.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying they've "cracked" the code to these two cancers (skin and lung) is not really as big a step as the title implies. They've found the genetic mutations associated with the cancers. That's probably the easy part (and it wasn't so easy). The problem in studying cancer is that the function of genes is often dynamic and interdependent. Think of a room with 30,000 light switches. Sometimes light switch #5 will turn on the light bulb, but sometimes it won't. It depends on whether light switch # 7, 100, and 10542 are all on simultaneously or not. And if switch #2742 is on, the light, if it's on, will be very dim. This why even though we give a cancer a single name - e.g. "melanoma" - there are often very different mutations present, any one or multiple ones which can affect the person's survival, but not necessarily all the time. There are cancers which reliably result from single mutations, but the most common ones are due to mutations in many many different genes. To the point that most cases of cancer can or should be considered unique.
IMHO, where I think the results of these studies may be most helpful with regards to treating people successfully is figuring out which mutations cause the cancer to spontaneously regress, whether it's by self-destruction or immune mechanisms. Even then, maybe it's not even because of a cancer mutation. Maybe some people possess some genetic trait in their immune system that allows them to destroy cancers. In which case, too many people would be looking in the wrong haystack for a needle.
While I don't think it's ever going to disappear, I do think that the gaming aspect of consoles is slowly becoming less important than its media functions. I'm a tech geek and I only recently bought a PS3, but not for its games. I bought it because: #1 it became slimmer, #2 it became cheaper, #3 it plays DVD's and Blu-Ray movies, #4 it can stream my photos, music, and videos wirelessly from my MacBook.
After I got it, I discovered that I could also rent a substantial selection of videos (though not as much as iTunes yet and the prices are still $1-2 too high), and buy very cheap ($5-15) downloadable games that are often much more fun than the games on a disk b/c they were simpler to play, took much less time to play, and I didn't have to pop in a new disc everytime I wanted to play a different game. Furthermore, I really enjoyed the news by location feature in Life with Playstation (the World Heritage Channel is very cool too if you like National Geographic quality photos).
After I showed all these "features" to my non-techie friends, 3 of them went out and bought a PS3, and 2 more are about to. If Sony manages to either finally bring PlayTV and/or Hulu to the PS3 in the US, they have essentially managed the very nifty trick of turning their "gaming console" into a Home Theater system. It would essentially negate the necessity of owning a HTPC.
I don't own a Xbox 360, but it seems that Microsoft is essentially going for the same thing. Nintendo looked like they were going to head down this path at the beginning with their "channels" menu system, but they haven't done as much as Sony or Microsoft. I'm guessing the next Wii will have HD hardware and push harder towards this goal. So, while I don't think console gaming is dying, what we think of traditionally as a gaming console is being transformed. "Convergence" would be term I suppose?
In fact, I think it would tell the admissions committee a lot more about their applicants if they were to just eliminate any rules from the essay. Just, "Write something about anything..."
Applicants could be a lot more creative if you let them be. Plus, it might give strong hints about the not-so-stable ones.
It's ironic that in her essay Ms. Bayley states, "As fuzzy logic becomes more and more obsolete (in humans, at least), boolean values have come to rule all. Precision, accuracy, the Styrofoam cup holding your coffee, and the microprocessor in your toaster oven are all a product of infinitely many zeros and ones, a concept I find both irresistibly ridiculous and intriguing." An essay, used as a factor in deciding admissions, is quite 'fuzzy' when compared to grades and SAT scores.
As for the essay itself, meh. It's not all that bad, but the wit sounded a bit forced and also a little too self-aware. I also get the feeling that she read and was influenced by the infamous I have not yet gone to college essay.
So if you stuck the marshmallow on a square of chocolate and graham cracker and they are able to resist that, then perhaps we will have found a future POTUS?
Sounds to me like they patented e-mail and SMS too. Looking forward to reading about their lawsuits against Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.
The Caps Lock function can easily be retained by software means, for example by double tapping Shift (single tap to turn it off). That way you could use the Caps Lock for the Windows or Apple key, thus freeing up space on the lower left to make the CTRL and ALT keys bigger. While we're at it, let's throw away the right side CTRL and Alt keys.
Though I have no proof of this and Wolfram may prove me to be wrong, I get the feeling that most of the time ToS's are used to cover them in case they need it, rather than persecute people. I suspect if you use it to generate answers that you could otherwise get through Google, Wikipedia, or other means (books, magazines, audio, lectures), they would have a very hard time pursuing you. And if they did, it would kill their business.
I would think the purpose of this is to cover them in case somebody finds a novel way of turning their computational engine into a cash cow. Well, good for whoever does that, but then again, they ARE piggybacking off the hard work of someone else - Wolfram. Therefore, Wolfram *SHOULD* profit/benefit from aforementioned cash cow. I doubt anyone's going to give them money of their own free will. This ToS gives them the legal means to enforce it. Of course, what they *should* get and what they end up getting is debatable and would depend on the cash cow and how much it relied on Wolfram. But of course, Wolfram as a company would like to put themselves in a position of power if such a situation arises rather than rely on the good will of others.
I don't think they'd be stupid enough to pursue someone when their answer is another copyrighted source. Copyright is violated everyday all the time all across the web by blogs, Google, Wikipedia, etc, etc. In my view, it's really only a CYA move now and I think it's going to be a matter of time before it's completely ignored because too many cases of unpursued or accepted copyright violations will come up as precedent.
Abiogenesis.... Take that ID-iots!
I'm not an ID proponent at all and I realize you're at least half-joking, but this research finding doesn't do anything to disprove ID. In fact, if anything it somewhat favors it. ID asserts that there are certain aspects of the universe and life forms that require a directed force by an intelligent being. IOW, it requires planning. This research demonstrates that a lot of steps and manipulation that are NOT present in nature, were required to end up with RNA. It didn't happen "naturally". Ergo, "intelligent design" was required to create it.
This is weird. If MS wants users to clean install so badly, why not just have the RC refuse to install unless it's clean? This is harder to do than beg users to not do it because they're worried about the damage it might cause?
For my part, Microsoft will only improve its image when they remove DRM support from the OS and its bundled applications (IE, Media Player).
So there's another OS that you prefer that doesn't support DRM and doesn't have bundled applications? Which one?
In all seriousness, best wishes in getting over the ex.
# Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making.
# Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
# YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and similar things.
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
Free speech hypocrites It's a private site. They can interpret free speech however they like. Just because they decide certain things are unacceptable doesn't mean they don't believe in free speech. After all, free speech is never entirely free. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. You can't make jokes about bombs going through airport security.
Anyhow, the point is that Youtube's people are free to decide what's acceptable and what's not on their own site. The government OTOH, cannot make that decision or legislate it for YouTube. THAT'S free speech.
Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye.
When you click the shutter, the mirror flips up (viewfinder goes dark), exposing the shutter which then opens and shuts the right amount of time the actual camera sensor.
That's not to say it's not possible to say, add a little cameraphone like sensor and offer a live preview (several dSLRs do this now), but historically, it wasn't possible. The light is either going to the main camera sensor, or the viewfinder. A small amount is actually reflected *down* for autofocus, though.
Though, as anyone knows, holding your camera at arm's length (so you can use the LCD as a viewfinder) sucks for camera shake. And most camera LCDs are of QVGA or lower resolution, so you miss out on all the nice little details youc an see through a real optical viewfinder like that on a dSLR... Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye. Not true. Ever since the Olympus E-330 introduced a couple of years ago, 4/3 SLR cameras with Live MOS all have Live View (Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica)
Problem is that you're thinking of this from the user perspective. If YOU ran Microsoft, would you do that?? If you did, and I were a MSFT shareholder, I'd vote to have you fired. The real problem is here is the irrational hatred of ANYTHING that Microsoft does. If they had done what you suggested, no doubt that many posters (perhaps even you), would then rake Microsoft over the coals for leaving behind so many users. And then proceed to cackle gleefully as Microsoft's IE8 marketshare never gains a foothold. Apparently, the only thing that will satisfy some people is if Microsoft commits corporate suicide.
$1500 for a whole SSD harddrive. This is $999 for an *upgrade*. Meaning you lose the 80 GB 4200 RPM 1.8" hard drive which is about $200 on its own. Then the price differential is only about $300. Considering that Apple probably gets a very nice volume discount, it's not *that* great a deal. Fair, but definitely not a screaming bargain. Apple's not a nonprofit charitable organization, no matter what the diehards would have you believe.
Somebody much less cynical than me, please explain how this is a useful development? Have pilots in bomber aircraft been complaining that they wished they were able to drop bombs at supersonic speeds?
The current day military and the government's use of it is why this country is going down the tubes. We either solve problems that don't exist, or our solutions create problems that didn't exist before.
Is it just me or does it seem like every few months, the healthcare media pops up an article about some newfangled treatment that shows "promise" for some disease that everyone knows about? And is it me again, or do we almost never hear about these promising treatments years later? The cynic in me would say that it smells like someone trying to drum up some investment money. What's that? Prana Biotechnologies is listed on the Nasdaq as "PRAN"? And the announcement hit the media before the Monday opening bell? I'm shocked.
Sadly, the less cynical part of me wonders why we only ever read articles about drugs that show "promise"? When was the last time we saw an article titled "Cure for Disease Found!"? And no, I don't have Alzheimers. I honestly can't recall.
The problem with this drug is that its promise is based on 2 assumptions:
1) that amyloid has a causal role in Alzheimers
2) lowering amyloid will halt or reverse Alzheimers
Given that we don't actually know that either is true, we really have no idea how good the promise of this drug is. What we DO know is that promises have made a lot of pharmaceutical companies and their management very very very rich. Not that I would begrudge them that if they actually come through with a halfway effective drug. But I also think there should be penalties for putting out media announcements and raising false hopes without even having tested it out on a single human being yet.
Okay, 24 flaws were found. And yeah sure, it could be that it was actually "six times more than" (see the great post about "more than" abuse) found in all of 2005. It could just mean that they've been looking harder this year, not because flaws didn't exist before. The longer the program has been in development, the longer they have had to expose flaws. Plus, we really don't know anything about these "flaws". The article is very vague. We don't know the nature of the flaws, how difficult they will be to fix, or even how likely any hacker would be able to even use the flaw to do any serious damage.
And on the topic of flawed interpretation, I really must protest the comparison of an entire suite of at least 4 applications to ONE (internet explorer). That's worse than meaningless - that's just plain stupid.
You know how the saying goes about statistics - "The average human being has one breast and one testicle."
Selection bias. They have no way for controlling the quantity of alcohol that these people consume NOR the number of years for which they consume it. Even alcoholics all drink different amounts of alcohol. Therefore you have no way of knowing if the coffee drinkers also tend to drink less alcohol (ergo, less damage to the liver), which is a very plausible explanation. The authors even admit they don't have a biologically plausible theory for why coffee might protect the liver.
And 20% is nothing with a sample size this small. An 80% drop when they drink 4 or more cups of coffee? Who has room for alcohol when they've drunk 4 cups of coffee per day? I'm willing to bet there's a huge drop in cirrhosis rates when someone eats a lot too.
There's a huge difference between association and causality, but lack of distinction results in hasty and flawed interpretations.
Okay, first of all, you admit in your username that you're a Mac Fanboy so essentially, you're already destroying any credibility or lack of bias in your opinion.
Let's start with Vista. Fine, so it got delayed by a few months.
Gosh, that's the worst mispelling of six years I've ever seen!
Second of all, it doesn't make any sense that you're so indignant about Microsoft's delay. You're a Mac user! Besides, delaying Windows hurts Microsoft, not you. Or Apple.
I don't understand people sometimes.
I find it ironic that Microsoft's core business is software which is probably what the grade is based on. It's ironic because hardware is one area which they have actually had quite a good track record. They make very VERY good keyboards and mice. I never hesitate to get one when I need a replacement. Their fingerprint reader works pretty well. And until they stopped selling it, their 802.11b wireless routers were some of the very few on the market that even my mother could setup and worked quite reliably. I honestly wonder why they haven't gone deeper into the hardware market. Maybe even into...dare I say it?...computers. Most of the problems with Windows seem to come from the fact that they have to deal with a nearly endless array of hardware in near infinite combinations running random amounts and types of software. If they were able to design a reference computer, I actually think there's a good chance it would run pretty well. It seems to me that they ought to be headed towards the same ground that Apple now occupies. Just my $0.02.
Don't you know? IT people live off of Doritos and soda. $50,000 should last a team of four at LEAST 12 months.
This lawsuit is so ridiculous in its rationale that I'm beginning to wonder if Google set this up themselves somehow just to add more karma points to the company. After all, they appear to be ready to partially give in to the governments demands, so they need a little good sympathetic PR to help alleviate the slight drop in Good-Guy status they'll receive when they do. I just don't see how the folks at Kinderstart could see any chance in hell of winning this. Then again, maybe they just took a page out of the Hollywood playbook - sometimes bad PR is the best PR.