A meningioma is a tumor of the brain covering, so it isn't in the brain tissue itself (although can press on it giving you significant problems).
In medicine we don't have a formal definition of "brain tumor." Instead we divide them into CNS (Central nervous system) tumors and PNS (peripheral nervous system) tumors. It sounds like they looked at the most common CNS tumors in adults. Gliomas is a large category that includes astrocytomas, oligodendroglimoas, and ependymomas. Meningiomas are tumors of the covering around the brain.
It doesn't mention neuroal tumors, which are tumors from actual neurons. Some people (like the parent) seem to think those are real "brain tumors" while all the other glial tumors in your brain are something else. I DEFY you try and convince a patient with a glioblastoma multiforme (a really nasty form of astrocytoma) that the mass in his head is likely to kill him within the next 12 months, but it isn't a "brain tumor."
If you RTFA you'd see the question isn't "does the government need a warrant to read your email." It is clear the answer to that is "yes."
The question is "if the government does have a warrant to read your email held on a third party server, clearly the warrant has to be delivered to that third party. Does the account holder, by necessity, need to be informed by the government that their email was just read?"
He's not 100 percent certain, yet he tells the patent that anyway!?! How f-ed up is that?
So you think doctors should withhold information that is critical to the patient's understanding that if the disease gets worse the patient should come back and seek immediate treatment without delay? That would be fucked up.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing with the rest of us your sure fire 100% accurate fool-proof method of diagnosing bacterial meningitis.
MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same. What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.
Medicine is not an exact science and if you propose to make doctor's criminally liable when they are "proven wrong" you will put an end to the entire medical industry. That would be fucked up.
Don't get me wrong, there are bad doctors out there who are incompetent and they should be removed from the system. But faulting a doctor because they are unable to prove their diagnosis beyond ANY doubt which would expose them to reprisal if the test provided a false result would pretty much send medicine back a couple of hundred years.
The last thing the medical industry needs is more lawyers unless you want to continue to drive up the costs beyond the reach of everyone.
which is a form of SRY silencing. The gene is being expressed, but ignored due to an inability of the receptor to bind to the relevant gene products.
So by your own admission the SRY gene is working great, doing exactly what it should be doing, and while a totally different gene is damaged you are going to call that "SRY silencing?" Sorry, no.
The SRY gene isn't silenced, it is talking just fine. The androgen receptor isn't listening. They are not the same thing and can present very differently depending on the level of insensitivity. Total insensitivity will look very much like a SRY defect while partial insensitivity won't.
My main point is that the genetics are irrelevant, unless she's undergone sex reassignment surgery in which case she was at one point phenotypically male and simply chopped it off to compete with the girls.
I'll play along. In AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome) which occurs in 1 in 20,000 live births it is possible to have normal appearing female genitals yet have cryptic (hidden) testicles. (Reference - Before We Were Born by Moore, Persaud, 7th ed, page 184.)
Is a 46 XY person with a vagina and testicles phenotypically male or female?
Even more important: unlike trannies (no offense intended to any TG folk reading this), we intersexed people do not choose to be in the situation we are in.
The current belief and understanding about Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is that it results from the uneven sex hormone distribution or possible localized insensitivity.
The in utero developing embyo isn't a homogeneous vat of chemicals. When the gonads (either male or female) start releasing their sex hormones early in embryonic life they have to travel to the brain and take effect making that brain "male" or "female." We can see these gross (gross meaning "without a microscope") changes on brain slices take most-mortem. We can see a similar set of changes in many of the people who are homosexual.
The theory is, compared to someone without GID or who is not homosexual, your brain was not exposed to inappropriate levels of sex androgens for its "programming" (for lack of a better word) to match the body's physical characteristics. It is also possible that the sex adrogen receptors are damaged and not able to see the signally molecules that are present. It isn't a choice any more than choosing to have 4 toes.
This is all pretty mainstream stuff and it was taught to me in medical school which are not known to be the most liberal places.
The people with GID probably understand your situation better than you might think at first glance.
Anything that makes her develop into a woman is the result of the SRY gene being silenced.
While SRY being silenced will lead to a female phenotype, it isn't the only cause. Another common cause is a mutation in the male androgen receptor.
You can pump out testosterone and DHT all day long but if none of your cells can recognize it, you'll have the same net effect.
My main point is that if you are going beyond karyotyping to determine gender you are going to have to inspect more than just the single SRY gene.
One of the most surefire way is to see if her gametes can play their respective roll. If they can manage to form a viable embryo from her egg, case closed.
On a practical side you would never get this past any ethics committee. They would laugh you out of the room for proposing to create a new human life to determine gender.
They don't decide - they render emergency care unless you refuse it - implied consent and all that. Who pays the bill is a different matter, and that can be figured out after the fact.
Billing is the easy part. Getting them to pay is the hard part which is why if we're going to have people "pay" for their own mistakes we need to sort that out up front so that payment can be assured rather than chased after.
So what you're saying is that I can choose to destroy my organs by refusing medication, or by drinking some cocktail with who-knows-what effects, but I should not be allowed to choose to take a medication whose properties are actually fairly well characterized? How exactly is the one better than the other?
You've lost me with your reference to "a medication whose properties are actually fairly well characterized." Are you trying to morph this into some argument about illegal drugs because that's a whole different argument.
But yes, you can refuse treatment and you can accept treatment.
If I want to drink water from a stream polluted with chromium nobody in the medical community will stop me, but heaven forbid that I want to take 5mg of lisinopril which might cause some liver damage after a few years!
Again I'm not really sure what you're proposing here. The medical community should care about the population at large with respect to such issues as drinking water? They do and they even have their own specialty (Community Medicine).
As far as I know lisinopril does not affect the liver. But it can seriously impair your renal function and mess with your electrolytes (specifically potassium).
If there's a drug that works for you, discuss it with your doctor. Most of the time they are very receptive. If they are not or cannot provide you reasons why they disagree with using that medication then you might need to find another doctor who actually listens to their patients.
How is it any of your business if I want to destroy my kidneys or kill myself? Now, you shouldn't have to pay for this if it happens, but my body is my own responsibility to care for, so how as a society do we get off telling people how to care for themselves?
This is a specious argument. Unless you plan to sit at home and die quietly how exactly is the ER physician supposed to determine if you did this to yourself or not? The concept works okay in theory but fails to be even slightly practical or implementable. Unless the idea is to just let the ER physician decide on their own accord who they should or should not treat.
As a society we don't tell you how to care for yourself. As long as you are 18 and of sound mind you cannot be treated against your will. Nobody can force you to see a doctor, take any medication, or anything else. If they do treat you against your will in most places that's at least assault.
You can see an MD, DO, PA, DDS, NP, acupuncturist, aromatherapist, shaman, voodoo doctor, crystal healer, televangelist or anything else that floats your boat.
What we do say is that the average person does not understand pathology, physiology, pharmacology, and pathophysiology to make complex judgments about the medication they should be taking. (You do get to make simple decisions assuming there are reasonably safe drugs to treat the problem like NSAIDs.)
In Texas the doctor must give you a copy of your medical records upon request. If they don't comply in a timely fashion then you can file a complaint (and many do) with the Texas State Medical Board.
They also can't withhold your records because you owe them money. They can charge you a nominal copying cost, though.
I wouldn't be for always providing medical record copies that, for the most part, are going straight into the garbage bin. We no longer force receipts on people who pay at the pump, this shouldn't be any different.
Also making most drugs over the counter is a seriously bad idea. Yes, there are some that could be OTC and the impact would be minimal. But if you have hypertension do you know if you should be on an ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, Calcium channel blocker, ARB, or something else.
Careful 'cause if you "guess" wrong you could cause renal failure or even kill yourself.
It also was not capable of driving as much current as I suspect you want, so you'll need external amplifiers,
You wouldn't drive the LEDs with the PIC (or the microprocessor of your choice). Instead, you would provide a ground for the LEDs and tie the other end to your power source.
This simply changes the question to "Can the processor sink the necessary power?". However, you have a much better chance of being able to sink the necessary current into your processor than to have the current to drive the LEDs to the brightness you want off of a general purpose IO (GPIO) pin.
I have done this very thing with PIC16CXX series chips without a problem.
To use an external amplifier would only increase the chip count and power requirements.
If this is a real concern then add them to your safe deposit box rental. Much like a bank account with multiple parties, it does not enter probate since it defaults to the other person.
If you don't trust the person enough to have a key to your box then you shouldn't trust them on your network.:-)
Now, if both you and your SO died, then you'd have a problem. But you of course have a will with a simultanous death clause.
Actually, you do have a way to force them out. The police. If they don't leave, it is criminal tresspass.
Of course, you're illegally discriminating against people if you adopt a "whites only" policy. Instead they could adopt a "no shoplifters allowed" policy and do just fine.
>Does Moshe have a son/daughter named "foo"?
>
>Moshe:
>
>Moshe does not have children yet. We do plan to >fork() some children eventually, but have not >yet made plans about their names.:-)
The order goes foo, bar, baz. So the question should have been:
Is your parent process named foo?
Will your child process be named baz?
If you have plugged your printer into a UPS, you have larger issues.
The load generated by a small laser printer is smaller than your run of the mill hairdryer. So it may be safer, but I'm not sure that laser printers are unsafe.
Also, the documents produced by injets are unsafe and are easily destroyed by moisture. This is my biggest problem with injets.
As an aside, I have used laser printers that could draw 12 amps since it did multi-stage color laser printing. And the first time we printed with it, BAM the lights went out.
Re:No matter what you use daily, you still need vi
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
As I always tell people you only need enough vi to build emacs and add it to your path.
The problem I'd be worried about is not "can my computer start a fire," but "what will happen to my computer in a fire."
Having went through a fire in the not too distant past, it becomes clear that a UPS can be down right dangerous to your systems in a fire.
Typically the first thing your fire department will do is cut power. If you don't have a UPS, you're computers at least have a chance of survival if they are anywhere near the fire.
However, with a UPS all it will take some water to kill the system for good. Especially if you leave the cases off of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm currently in medical school and you might be amazed at how often Wiki is used as a source to justify an answer.
and in worst case, damage your heart or lungs.
Minor correction:
Worst case is death, typically due to a massive clot lodging in your lungs (also called a saddle embolus)
Really bad case is with certain heart conditions they can bypass the lungs and cause a stroke.
Just plain damage? That's probably "bad case."
A meningioma is a tumor of the brain covering, so it isn't in the brain tissue itself (although can press on it giving you significant problems).
In medicine we don't have a formal definition of "brain tumor." Instead we divide them into CNS (Central nervous system) tumors and PNS (peripheral nervous system) tumors. It sounds like they looked at the most common CNS tumors in adults. Gliomas is a large category that includes astrocytomas, oligodendroglimoas, and ependymomas. Meningiomas are tumors of the covering around the brain.
It doesn't mention neuroal tumors, which are tumors from actual neurons. Some people (like the parent) seem to think those are real "brain tumors" while all the other glial tumors in your brain are something else. I DEFY you try and convince a patient with a glioblastoma multiforme (a really nasty form of astrocytoma) that the mass in his head is likely to kill him within the next 12 months, but it isn't a "brain tumor."
The question is "if the government does have a warrant to read your email held on a third party server, clearly the warrant has to be delivered to that third party. Does the account holder, by necessity, need to be informed by the government that their email was just read?"
He's not 100 percent certain, yet he tells the patent that anyway!?! How f-ed up is that?
So you think doctors should withhold information that is critical to the patient's understanding that if the disease gets worse the patient should come back and seek immediate treatment without delay? That would be fucked up. Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing with the rest of us your sure fire 100% accurate fool-proof method of diagnosing bacterial meningitis.
MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same. What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.
Medicine is not an exact science and if you propose to make doctor's criminally liable when they are "proven wrong" you will put an end to the entire medical industry. That would be fucked up.
Don't get me wrong, there are bad doctors out there who are incompetent and they should be removed from the system. But faulting a doctor because they are unable to prove their diagnosis beyond ANY doubt which would expose them to reprisal if the test provided a false result would pretty much send medicine back a couple of hundred years.
The last thing the medical industry needs is more lawyers unless you want to continue to drive up the costs beyond the reach of everyone.
which is a form of SRY silencing. The gene is being expressed, but ignored due to an inability of the receptor to bind to the relevant gene products.
So by your own admission the SRY gene is working great, doing exactly what it should be doing, and while a totally different gene is damaged you are going to call that "SRY silencing?" Sorry, no.
The SRY gene isn't silenced, it is talking just fine. The androgen receptor isn't listening. They are not the same thing and can present very differently depending on the level of insensitivity. Total insensitivity will look very much like a SRY defect while partial insensitivity won't.
My main point is that the genetics are irrelevant, unless she's undergone sex reassignment surgery in which case she was at one point phenotypically male and simply chopped it off to compete with the girls.
I'll play along. In AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome) which occurs in 1 in 20,000 live births it is possible to have normal appearing female genitals yet have cryptic (hidden) testicles. (Reference - Before We Were Born by Moore, Persaud, 7th ed, page 184.)
Is a 46 XY person with a vagina and testicles phenotypically male or female?
Even more important: unlike trannies (no offense intended to any TG folk reading this), we intersexed people do not choose to be in the situation we are in.
The current belief and understanding about Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is that it results from the uneven sex hormone distribution or possible localized insensitivity.
The in utero developing embyo isn't a homogeneous vat of chemicals. When the gonads (either male or female) start releasing their sex hormones early in embryonic life they have to travel to the brain and take effect making that brain "male" or "female." We can see these gross (gross meaning "without a microscope") changes on brain slices take most-mortem. We can see a similar set of changes in many of the people who are homosexual.
The theory is, compared to someone without GID or who is not homosexual, your brain was not exposed to inappropriate levels of sex androgens for its "programming" (for lack of a better word) to match the body's physical characteristics. It is also possible that the sex adrogen receptors are damaged and not able to see the signally molecules that are present. It isn't a choice any more than choosing to have 4 toes.
This is all pretty mainstream stuff and it was taught to me in medical school which are not known to be the most liberal places.
The people with GID probably understand your situation better than you might think at first glance.
Anything that makes her develop into a woman is the result of the SRY gene being silenced.
While SRY being silenced will lead to a female phenotype, it isn't the only cause. Another common cause is a mutation in the male androgen receptor. You can pump out testosterone and DHT all day long but if none of your cells can recognize it, you'll have the same net effect. My main point is that if you are going beyond karyotyping to determine gender you are going to have to inspect more than just the single SRY gene.
One of the most surefire way is to see if her gametes can play their respective roll. If they can manage to form a viable embryo from her egg, case closed.
On a practical side you would never get this past any ethics committee. They would laugh you out of the room for proposing to create a new human life to determine gender.
They don't decide - they render emergency care unless you refuse it - implied consent and all that. Who pays the bill is a different matter, and that can be figured out after the fact.
Billing is the easy part. Getting them to pay is the hard part which is why if we're going to have people "pay" for their own mistakes we need to sort that out up front so that payment can be assured rather than chased after.
So what you're saying is that I can choose to destroy my organs by refusing medication, or by drinking some cocktail with who-knows-what effects, but I should not be allowed to choose to take a medication whose properties are actually fairly well characterized? How exactly is the one better than the other?
You've lost me with your reference to "a medication whose properties are actually fairly well characterized." Are you trying to morph this into some argument about illegal drugs because that's a whole different argument.
But yes, you can refuse treatment and you can accept treatment.
If I want to drink water from a stream polluted with chromium nobody in the medical community will stop me, but heaven forbid that I want to take 5mg of lisinopril which might cause some liver damage after a few years!
Again I'm not really sure what you're proposing here. The medical community should care about the population at large with respect to such issues as drinking water? They do and they even have their own specialty (Community Medicine).
As far as I know lisinopril does not affect the liver. But it can seriously impair your renal function and mess with your electrolytes (specifically potassium).
If there's a drug that works for you, discuss it with your doctor. Most of the time they are very receptive. If they are not or cannot provide you reasons why they disagree with using that medication then you might need to find another doctor who actually listens to their patients.
How is it any of your business if I want to destroy my kidneys or kill myself? Now, you shouldn't have to pay for this if it happens, but my body is my own responsibility to care for, so how as a society do we get off telling people how to care for themselves?
This is a specious argument. Unless you plan to sit at home and die quietly how exactly is the ER physician supposed to determine if you did this to yourself or not? The concept works okay in theory but fails to be even slightly practical or implementable. Unless the idea is to just let the ER physician decide on their own accord who they should or should not treat.
As a society we don't tell you how to care for yourself. As long as you are 18 and of sound mind you cannot be treated against your will. Nobody can force you to see a doctor, take any medication, or anything else. If they do treat you against your will in most places that's at least assault.
You can see an MD, DO, PA, DDS, NP, acupuncturist, aromatherapist, shaman, voodoo doctor, crystal healer, televangelist or anything else that floats your boat.
What we do say is that the average person does not understand pathology, physiology, pharmacology, and pathophysiology to make complex judgments about the medication they should be taking. (You do get to make simple decisions assuming there are reasonably safe drugs to treat the problem like NSAIDs.)
In Texas the doctor must give you a copy of your medical records upon request. If they don't comply in a timely fashion then you can file a complaint (and many do) with the Texas State Medical Board. They also can't withhold your records because you owe them money. They can charge you a nominal copying cost, though. I wouldn't be for always providing medical record copies that, for the most part, are going straight into the garbage bin. We no longer force receipts on people who pay at the pump, this shouldn't be any different. Also making most drugs over the counter is a seriously bad idea. Yes, there are some that could be OTC and the impact would be minimal. But if you have hypertension do you know if you should be on an ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, Calcium channel blocker, ARB, or something else. Careful 'cause if you "guess" wrong you could cause renal failure or even kill yourself.
Don't do that. You'll just cause them to go looking for the anti-marketing dollar. Huge market.
A hammer is a tool. I can kill someone with a hammer Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. Apparently this includes Google.
Power User = Someone who has power accidents
Googlewashing isn't a word. I know, I checked on google and there were no sites.
You wouldn't drive the LEDs with the PIC (or the microprocessor of your choice). Instead, you would provide a ground for the LEDs and tie the other end to your power source.
This simply changes the question to "Can the processor sink the necessary power?". However, you have a much better chance of being able to sink the necessary current into your processor than to have the current to drive the LEDs to the brightness you want off of a general purpose IO (GPIO) pin.
I have done this very thing with PIC16CXX series chips without a problem.
To use an external amplifier would only increase the chip count and power requirements.
slander = spoken
Hence, this would be an issue of libel.
If you don't trust the person enough to have a key to your box then you shouldn't trust them on your network. :-)
Now, if both you and your SO died, then you'd have a problem. But you of course have a will with a simultanous death clause.
Of course, you're illegally discriminating against people if you adopt a "whites only" policy. Instead they could adopt a "no shoplifters allowed" policy and do just fine.
That's right! If it isn't stable, you'll take your OS dollars somewhere else.
Oh, wait...
>
>Moshe:
>
>Moshe does not have children yet. We do plan to
>fork() some children eventually, but have not
>yet made plans about their names.
The order goes foo, bar, baz. So the question should have been:
Is your parent process named foo?
Will your child process be named baz?
The load generated by a small laser printer is smaller than your run of the mill hairdryer. So it may be safer, but I'm not sure that laser printers are unsafe.
Also, the documents produced by injets are unsafe and are easily destroyed by moisture. This is my biggest problem with injets.
As an aside, I have used laser printers that could draw 12 amps since it did multi-stage color laser printing. And the first time we printed with it, BAM the lights went out.
As I always tell people you only need enough vi to build emacs and add it to your path.
Having went through a fire in the not too distant past, it becomes clear that a UPS can be down right dangerous to your systems in a fire.
Typically the first thing your fire department will do is cut power. If you don't have a UPS, you're computers at least have a chance of survival if they are anywhere near the fire.
However, with a UPS all it will take some water to kill the system for good. Especially if you leave the cases off of the system.