"He admitted he didn't know. But in a large percentage of people with my symptoms, it was due to a bacterial infection. The antibiotics cost less then the lab work, and the lab work took time, meaning that if I did have a bacterial infection, I wouldn't get effective treatment until after the tests."
Well, I would call that a good doctor.
Still don't like the willingness to prescribe antibiotics when they might not be needed but at least most cases seem to need them. I mean if you were otherwise healthly and could wait for the test, I would say overuse of antibiotics is a worse problem. But then, I don't have all the facts and the doctor made a reasonable call.
"They were like bad help desk personnel reading from the same script."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. Of course, I feel many specialists aren't much better. And I wish it wasn't so...
Once you get to the proper doctor it general seems so easy. The best part is how those doctors wonder how other specialts missed the obvious symptoms (had that more than once). The hard part is finding that doctor. At least now I know that I need to find the proper doctor-it shortens the process a great deal (no sense dealing with more than one GP...)
The last GP I had was not a great doctor but I liked her. She knew very little about my chronic problems (and admitted it) but was willing to write referrals any time I wanted...
"The self-diagnosis and doctor-hopping don't help. As noted in the previous Patrick Volkerding thread, he should stick with one doctor and let him/her check things out."
IF that one doctor is WILLING to check it out, then yes, doctor-hopping is bad. If that doctor is unwilling to help (all the tests say you are fine, so you must be fine) then self-diagnosis and doctor-hopping is the ONLY way to get proper treatment. I hate to say it, but if it is unusual, the chance of the first (few?) doctors you go to being helpful are about nil (in my experience).
"...None of you have the training or experience to diagnose anything. Don't act like you do."
Funny, that seems to apply to a good proportion of the doctors I have seen. Things they (doctors) have not diagnosed when symptoms were obvious to someone in their field (or failed to send me to another doctor) have included: TMJ problems manifested as ear pain, went to ENT, nothing wrong), pinched nerve in neck (neurologist said nothing wrong), etc. These were eventually treated properly by GOOD doctors-who were incredulous that the original specialists missed the problem. The only reason they were diagnosed by doctors?-because I switched doctors and came up with the proper diagnosis at least in part.
Sorry, but most medicine is merely following flow charts. Sure, experience and training is useful (how you become an expert), but if you miss an important piece of information (or won't consider it) your diagnosis will be wrong. And no better than an "untrained" person who has a clue.
Currently with my known medical problems, I know more than most specialists. In other words, any advice a doctor gives me will likely be WRONG. Frankly, if I didn't need them for presciptions and tests, I wouldn't go. Hell, if I want to get better treatment for migraines, for instance, I would have to travel out of Columbus, OH to do it, and Columbus isn't a small town. AFAIK, I have exhausted the "useful" knowledge locally. The best ones realize they don't know everything and say this-they don't use you as a guinea pig without your consent.
Some other points:
"The reason he initially thinks it's "the thing going around", is because 90% of the time it is. Only when that treatment fails, will the doctor move off that."
If that is his sole reason, he/she is a poor doctor. I mean, that is no better than saying, I think I have symptoms x, y, z and need drug A.
"Only when that treatment fails, will the doctor move off that. Instead of actually going back to the doctor in two weeks like he suggested..."
More likely, the doctor doesn't know one way or another and is unwilling to admit that. So, give a drug and get the patient out the door. Come back in two weeks if it is worse. As far as I am concerned, that is code for "I don't give a damn" or "I can't find anything wrong, so it is all in your head, quit bothering me". In simple terms, the reason/rationale for the treatment needs to be EXPLAINED. Is this the best way?, the cheapest?, the quickest?, etc. If doing nothing is the best treatment, say so.
Unfortunately, I have had a heck of a lot of doctors (most of them) treat this job more as a help desk position (get them out as quickly as possible whether or not the problem has been solved...) than a healing position. I could accept that if they were charging me help desk rates. But they are charging me consultant rates (hundreds of dollars an hour equivalent) and I expect GOOD service for that price.
Ahh, but this way they don't have to count anything. And everything will be labeled correctly. I mean, computers never screw up nor do the people putting labels on things or entering the information.....
It's funny, at the temp. warehouse job I work, I seem to pay less attention when there is a computer "check" than when there isn't. In other words, when there is no computer to potentially correct my mistakes, I seem to make less because I pay better attention. And people still screw up a lot with the computer checks-don't think it can't happen. Somehow, I think the same concept may apply here.
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit!
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 1
"OK, let me be the first to call it since the NTSB is a bunch of politically correct pussies who don't want to piss off the fucking geezers in the AARP."
Well, to be fair to the NTSB, their job isn't to give the LIKELY cause of the accident. It is to find the cause or say they can't. They aren't supposed to make assumptions. Being "too old to drive" isn't the root cause of the accident. Sure, it likely contributed....but that's not the same thing. Losing control isn't the cause. Maybe his heart stopped causing him to lose control in part because he was old-but how do you PROVE this was the reason. Maybe he just hit the gas instead of the brakes....
Considering how often they string up the pilots, aka "human error" in a plane crash, I don't think they (the investigators) have a problem pissing people off.... Of course, if there are no mechanical problems with the vehicle, I guess they SHOULD say "driver error". Well, maybe the managers ARE "politically correct pussies":)
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit!
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 1
"Admittedly teenagers are bad drivers, but they're going to get better as they age, someone who's 16 years old will probably be a better and safer driver in 10 years when they're 26, the same cannot be said for a 70 year old."
Thanks for the post. You know, for some reason, I never really considered this before your post (younger drivers improving in x years vs older drivers...) It may have been an unstated assumption but I never really thought about it. Thanks.
Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Stated much better than I did elsewhere.
Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad.
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 1
"However, for things like using a car, I dont see it as a problem."
Well, I do. Sure, let's assume the blackbox records everything perfectly and is only accessed appropriately. It's still not a panacea. It doesn't know WHY you did what you did. Oh, you swerved/sped up/braked hard etc. Those could all be the signs of a bad driver causing an accident or a better driver trying to prevent one and failing. Which is it? It will end up this way: computer said you did something bad, you are at fault, reality/totality of the circumstances be damned.
I'll take my chances with incompetent/greedy insurance companies/lawyers/police under the current system, thank you very much...
"You have feeder industries to the scrubber industries and feeder industries to those industries and the eventual cost of production of electricity is likely to drop as you take the opportunity to put new more efficient generating technology into your electic plants along with the green upgrades."
So, how exactly are you going to scrub out the CO2? I have worked in a project dealing with CO2 sequestration (the end point of CO2 scrubbing) and someone noted that it would require about 25% of the power generation of the power plant for this scrubbing (really collecting and concentrating the gas so it can be injected in the subsurface). Many things come to mind after these rough calculations-reduction in energy costs was not one of them. Reinforcing my belief that it was a pork political and science project so we could do real geology work was another...
Not to mention, many emission controls require energy to work, and in any case, cost money. Sure they may be offset by increased efficiency (more money). Look, energy costs will not go down (probably a good thing in the end). Other industries will benefit. But remember, it will be the utilities customers paying for this (that's you and me). I would like to see a good cost/benefit analysis and not some handwaving or "trust us, we are from the government/environment group/industry" before it starts...
"Because the amount of effort involved is amazing. While I believe it's vitally important that we do what we can and now, you simply can't tell industries to discard the technology they use today that are still economically viable for minor gain."
In response to the GP who said:
"The answer, of course, is that many of the politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful.
If push comes to shove and people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see those people dropping out of it."
I think you just made his point. Potential hardship for little gain. But lots of political benefit.
Look, it is easy to reduce CO2 generation. Burn less fuel. If you have a more fuel efficient vehicle, use less power at home, buy less stuff, etc., CO2 use WILL GO DOWN. This will be a lifestyle change-most people don't want this and will be mighty unhappy with the person who makes them do it (or thinks will make them do it) without a CLEAR benefit. There is a reason Republicans seem better able to capture the executive branch in this country-they give the people what they want.
Of course, there are certain countries that have a problem, like France. They get so much energy from nuclear power that it is HARD to reduce CO2 without expending lots of money or wrecking industry. If I am not mistaken, they are going to shut down their coal industry, probably in part due to Kyoto. It's rather amusing that they may be hurt most by the treaty even though they probably meet it best in spirit.
"Note that this data is directly measured from well-dated bubbles trapped in ice cores. This is not a speculative reconstruction. It's observational data."
That data, unfortunately, is not widely distributed across the world. Which is a problem. Mid-latitude information is rather sparse (L. Thompson has made a rather large push to gather info before it disappears...) There are also a bunch of other assumptions that go into that data (well dated, representative of atmosphere, etc.) that I don't spend much time questioning because the the data distribution is a killer....
The end result of increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere seems to be speculative.... Yes, there are models, they are reasonable (all things considered), but still they are still best guesses. Look, most people don't give a crap about X degrees of warming/cooling in general regions-so what. They need concrete information (it will cause x, y, and z, costing this much vs this much to mitigate NOW). The models can't do that.
In other words, for there to be significant support for change the consequences will have to be pretty well known-that's just the way it is. Of course by then change may not matter....
Finally, part of the problem with the treaty (for the US) is that it was/is seen as unfair. IF excess greenhouse gases are bad then it shouldn't matter who is producing them-industrialized or not. It was easy for Russia to sign the treaty because they are ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE. Don't have to change a thing.
"In CSI they routinely use liver temperature measurement. It can be easily done with a simple electronic thermometer and it gives the time of death with an accuracy of 2-4 hours."
I guess we have different definitions of accurate.Two to four hours for a RECENTLY dead person isn't very accurate or precise. And not very useful for a person who has been dead long enough for their body to reach room temperature or has decomposed, etc.....
"This will save you MORE than money.This will potentially save you (or your family members) lives as it prevents fake drugs- or at least makes them a lot harder to produce."
Huh? It doesn't make the counterfeits any harder to produce. It just means they have to fake the RFID.
The only useful thing about this requirement is that the whole shipping step of the drugs will be available in a database. It is just a computerized Chain of Custody. Nothing more, nothing less. No pharmacist is their right mind would accept these with JUST a RFID confirmation-they will check them as they normally do. So, no cost savings.
It WILL make recalls easier in theory. Potentially easier to track counterfeits AFTER the fact (because of the computerization of records).
"The benefit is that you can be pretty darn sure tha medicine you get is legit."
Nope. Sorry. No more reason to believe it now than before. Oh, it may be easier to catch the bad guys but you can still be screwed easily. It all comes down to whether you trust the people selling you the prescriptions and always will.
"I think it's worth it."
Reasonable step. As long as it doesn't lead to overconfidence (oh, it has the correct RFID, it must be the correct/real medication).
True. But it's not a very good starting place to suggest that something might exist either.... Evidence is nice to have.
"but a complete lack of evidence does not default to "it wasn't real", "it didn't exist", "it didn't happen", etc. It defaults to, "I don't know", but nobody wants to admit that there are things we really just don't know."
No, it defaults to, "Because there is no evidence, there is not much point in wasting time considering the possibility. Sure, if you enjoy it, go ahead, but don't pretend it's real without ANY good evidence. And if you find good evidence, get back to me because there are things that we really just don't know"
In short, I think we can say it is very likely there are no "fire-breathing dragons, or little green men from Mars". No Atlantis, who the hell knows? It depends greatly on your definition (some would say Santorini IS Atlantis....)
"You say, "you can't prove a negative", but that's not actually true."
So, how would you? If it is merely "extremely difficult", I imagine you could give me an example? Look, I can't prove God doesn't exist, I suspect he/she/it doesn't but I really can't prove it. Sure, I might be able to disprove certain "types" of a God (say the Christian variety), but that isn't the same thing...
Re:Er, doesn't this claim require external evidenc
on
Atlantis Found. Again.
·
· Score: 1
"A Christian believes that the writers were inspired by God, that the message is life to those who hear it, and that it is the key to knowing and having a relationship with God."
Well, maybe a "reasonable" Christian-but faith and reason don't always go together. Growing up going to church (Catholic) I recall the bible being the "word of God". Not the word of God according to men (even though that is what it is in reality....) For better or worse, I have mostly outgrown that particular superstition, although technically I am still Catholic:)
"I think their current economic model consists of getting rich off of each others' click-throughs and showing thumbnails of each others' thumbnails."
Hmmm, this seems oddly like the dot com craze and stock prices. I wonder if the same people will get screwed....
Re:I'm surprised no one has said this yet
on
A College Guide to EA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Professor Randy Pausch at CMU is himself known as somewhat of a slavedriver, among his graduate students."
Not to defend the professor, but this statement can be said about virtually ANY "successful" (however you want to term this) professor with graduate students. Graduate students tend to be driven already. Couple that with a driven professor....
I have also noticed there is a difference (even with the same prof.) depending upon whether the student is a MS or PhD student. Of course, it is hardly a surprise when you encounter these professors-their reputations as "slave-drivers" are NOT hidden. It is only a surprise to the student when they find that, yes, they are no different than anyone else-if everyone else worked like a dog for him/her, you will too. Remember, professors look out for themselves first, their students second, just like everywhere else (employer/employee relationship at work for instance)-it just so happens that many times those interests tend to be the same.
I am just amazed at the students (who should have known better/claimed to know better) who get screwed or feel they get screwed in this arrangement. The same ones who had ample warning that it was going to happen but did it anyway. My advisor wasn't a "slave-driver" but I had problems in other ways and I dealt with them-no point in whining about it (excessively)-do something about it, do something to prevent it in the future, or just shut up. The same thing applies in work environments.
"the department even has an official "reasonable person policy""
Question: Is it enforced? Or more importantly, do those with no power (grad students) feel they can take complaints to the department and something will happen AND they won't get screwed. If not, then the department really has no policy. My department had lots of rules but we all knew which ones were enforced (depended greatly on your advisor) and which weren't (hint: does it help the department). The only real recourse would have been to burn the department chair and graduate chair-sure you would have won the battle but lost the war.... Otherwise you play the game and imply you might, and document in case you HAVE to nuke the bridges....
"He's not your average academic...."
Oh, I would say he is VERY close to your average academic. Maybe not in funding or OUTWARD demeanor but you don't become tenured faculty without having a rather large ego. Some are just better at concealing it.
"Wow, Overrated should not be allowed on a post that hasn't received any moderation. That's just abusive."
Why exactly? I could get a "2" for this comment, however, I will forgo my karma because it is off-topic. I assume you believe that the "overrated" category should only be applied to posts that have been moderated-a reasonable viewpoint but one I don't agree with. Just because you can post at 0, 1 or 2 doesn't mean your comment is worth it...
And if it is rated as "overrated" it HAS been moderated. Not that I agree with the moderation- but that is another issue.
"The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years."
Well, it WAS incorrect. The continents don't move, rather the plates they are on move. Wegener also wasn't the first the theorize this idea-he just had the best supported theory.
One of the problems? in science (well geology at least and I assume other fields) is that you have to propose a mechanism for the theory in order for it to be taken seriously (even if all the data fits). And many times the mechanism will be attacked....
Of course, no good mechanism was known until the 1960's. It is currently called the theory (or paradigm) of plate tectonics NOT continental drift-there is a difference.
"I never really understood *why* people in the US expect to know results "before bedtime". Do they really?"
Nope. Sure, it would be nice. But technically we didn't know the results of the 2004 race before bedtime (at least those who work first shift....)
"Or is it just a sensationalist media creation, which tries to portray elections like a "game" - this was even more evident in this year's election coverage - with CNN's bank of wide screens and "more projections after the break"."
Yep. Hell, the whole campaign is covered like a horse race. Much easier than covering issues. Let's face it, most journalists do not deserve that title. Hell, I have a lower opinion of journalists as a profession than lawyers-at least lawyers are supposed to do anything (legal) to paint their clients in the best light. Journalists in the media have no such excuse...
Slashdot Mirror
"He admitted he didn't know. But in a large percentage of people with my symptoms, it was due to a bacterial infection. The antibiotics cost less then the lab work, and the lab work took time, meaning that if I did have a bacterial infection, I wouldn't get effective treatment until after the tests."
Well, I would call that a good doctor.
Still don't like the willingness to prescribe antibiotics when they might not be needed but at least most cases seem to need them. I mean if you were otherwise healthly and could wait for the test, I would say overuse of antibiotics is a worse problem. But then, I don't have all the facts and the doctor made a reasonable call.
"They were like bad help desk personnel reading from the same script."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. Of course, I feel many specialists aren't much better. And I wish it wasn't so...
Once you get to the proper doctor it general seems so easy. The best part is how those doctors wonder how other specialts missed the obvious symptoms (had that more than once). The hard part is finding that doctor. At least now I know that I need to find the proper doctor-it shortens the process a great deal (no sense dealing with more than one GP...)
The last GP I had was not a great doctor but I liked her. She knew very little about my chronic problems (and admitted it) but was willing to write referrals any time I wanted...
"The self-diagnosis and doctor-hopping don't help. As noted in the previous Patrick Volkerding thread, he should stick with one doctor and let him/her check things out."
IF that one doctor is WILLING to check it out, then yes, doctor-hopping is bad. If that doctor is unwilling to help (all the tests say you are fine, so you must be fine) then self-diagnosis and doctor-hopping is the ONLY way to get proper treatment. I hate to say it, but if it is unusual, the chance of the first (few?) doctors you go to being helpful are about nil (in my experience).
"...None of you have the training or experience to diagnose anything. Don't act like you do."
Funny, that seems to apply to a good proportion of the doctors I have seen. Things they (doctors) have not diagnosed when symptoms were obvious to someone in their field (or failed to send me to another doctor) have included: TMJ problems manifested as ear pain, went to ENT, nothing wrong), pinched nerve in neck (neurologist said nothing wrong), etc. These were eventually treated properly by GOOD doctors-who were incredulous that the original specialists missed the problem. The only reason they were diagnosed by doctors?-because I switched doctors and came up with the proper diagnosis at least in part.
Sorry, but most medicine is merely following flow charts. Sure, experience and training is useful (how you become an expert), but if you miss an important piece of information (or won't consider it) your diagnosis will be wrong. And no better than an "untrained" person who has a clue.
Currently with my known medical problems, I know more than most specialists. In other words, any advice a doctor gives me will likely be WRONG. Frankly, if I didn't need them for presciptions and tests, I wouldn't go. Hell, if I want to get better treatment for migraines, for instance, I would have to travel out of Columbus, OH to do it, and Columbus isn't a small town. AFAIK, I have exhausted the "useful" knowledge locally. The best ones realize they don't know everything and say this-they don't use you as a guinea pig without your consent.
Some other points:
"The reason he initially thinks it's "the thing going around", is because 90% of the time it is. Only when that treatment fails, will the doctor move off that."
If that is his sole reason, he/she is a poor doctor. I mean, that is no better than saying, I think I have symptoms x, y, z and need drug A.
"Only when that treatment fails, will the doctor move off that. Instead of actually going back to the doctor in two weeks like he suggested..."
More likely, the doctor doesn't know one way or another and is unwilling to admit that. So, give a drug and get the patient out the door. Come back in two weeks if it is worse. As far as I am concerned, that is code for "I don't give a damn" or "I can't find anything wrong, so it is all in your head, quit bothering me". In simple terms, the reason/rationale for the treatment needs to be EXPLAINED. Is this the best way?, the cheapest?, the quickest?, etc. If doing nothing is the best treatment, say so.
Unfortunately, I have had a heck of a lot of doctors (most of them) treat this job more as a help desk position (get them out as quickly as possible whether or not the problem has been solved...) than a healing position. I could accept that if they were charging me help desk rates. But they are charging me consultant rates (hundreds of dollars an hour equivalent) and I expect GOOD service for that price.
'Actually most probably don't...
:) Of course, many don't have one....
"Can't take the team out to lunch with it."
Isn't this a benefit?
"Can't go shopping with it."
Don't know what you buy regularly that doesn't fit that would in another typical vehicle... Some may consider it a benefit.
"Can't pack up the family in it."
Very large benefit
"Probably wouldn't want to drive cross town in it."
Personal opinion. Granted, I probably wouldn;t want to drive cross country in it but that's not its purpose....
Ahh, but this way they don't have to count anything. And everything will be labeled correctly. I mean, computers never screw up nor do the people putting labels on things or entering the information.....
It's funny, at the temp. warehouse job I work, I seem to pay less attention when there is a computer "check" than when there isn't. In other words, when there is no computer to potentially correct my mistakes, I seem to make less because I pay better attention. And people still screw up a lot with the computer checks-don't think it can't happen. Somehow, I think the same concept may apply here.
"OK, let me be the first to call it since the NTSB is a bunch of politically correct pussies who don't want to piss off the fucking geezers in the AARP."
:)
Well, to be fair to the NTSB, their job isn't to give the LIKELY cause of the accident. It is to find the cause or say they can't. They aren't supposed to make assumptions. Being "too old to drive" isn't the root cause of the accident. Sure, it likely contributed....but that's not the same thing. Losing control isn't the cause. Maybe his heart stopped causing him to lose control in part because he was old-but how do you PROVE this was the reason. Maybe he just hit the gas instead of the brakes....
Considering how often they string up the pilots, aka "human error" in a plane crash, I don't think they (the investigators) have a problem pissing people off.... Of course, if there are no mechanical problems with the vehicle, I guess they SHOULD say "driver error". Well, maybe the managers ARE "politically correct pussies"
"Admittedly teenagers are bad drivers, but they're going to get better as they age, someone who's 16 years old will probably be a better and safer driver in 10 years when they're 26, the same cannot be said for a 70 year old."
Thanks for the post. You know, for some reason, I never really considered this before your post (younger drivers improving in x years vs older drivers...) It may have been an unstated assumption but I never really thought about it. Thanks.
Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Stated much better than I did elsewhere.
"However, for things like using a car, I dont see it as a problem."
Well, I do. Sure, let's assume the blackbox records everything perfectly and is only accessed appropriately. It's still not a panacea. It doesn't know WHY you did what you did. Oh, you swerved/sped up/braked hard etc. Those could all be the signs of a bad driver causing an accident or a better driver trying to prevent one and failing. Which is it? It will end up this way: computer said you did something bad, you are at fault, reality/totality of the circumstances be damned.
I'll take my chances with incompetent/greedy insurance companies/lawyers/police under the current system, thank you very much...
"Researchers have found a correlation between chocolate sales and crime rate. Chocolate must be banned!"
:)
:)
Really? I also heard that there was a correlation between girl scouts and alcoholics....
"People often see a correlation and jump to the conclusion that there must be some type of causitive effect."
Yep.
"You have feeder industries to the scrubber industries and feeder industries to those industries and the eventual cost of production of electricity is likely to drop as you take the opportunity to put new more efficient generating technology into your electic plants along with the green upgrades."
So, how exactly are you going to scrub out the CO2? I have worked in a project dealing with CO2 sequestration (the end point of CO2 scrubbing) and someone noted that it would require about 25% of the power generation of the power plant for this scrubbing (really collecting and concentrating the gas so it can be injected in the subsurface). Many things come to mind after these rough calculations-reduction in energy costs was not one of them. Reinforcing my belief that it was a pork political and science project so we could do real geology work was another...
Not to mention, many emission controls require energy to work, and in any case, cost money. Sure they may be offset by increased efficiency (more money). Look, energy costs will not go down (probably a good thing in the end). Other industries will benefit. But remember, it will be the utilities customers paying for this (that's you and me). I would like to see a good cost/benefit analysis and not some handwaving or "trust us, we are from the government/environment group/industry" before it starts...
Let's see, you said:
"Because the amount of effort involved is amazing. While I believe it's vitally important that we do what we can and now, you simply can't tell industries to discard the technology they use today that are still economically viable for minor gain."
In response to the GP who said:
"The answer, of course, is that many of the politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful.
If push comes to shove and people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see those people dropping out of it."
I think you just made his point. Potential hardship for little gain. But lots of political benefit.
Look, it is easy to reduce CO2 generation. Burn less fuel. If you have a more fuel efficient vehicle, use less power at home, buy less stuff, etc., CO2 use WILL GO DOWN. This will be a lifestyle change-most people don't want this and will be mighty unhappy with the person who makes them do it (or thinks will make them do it) without a CLEAR benefit. There is a reason Republicans seem better able to capture the executive branch in this country-they give the people what they want.
Of course, there are certain countries that have a problem, like France. They get so much energy from nuclear power that it is HARD to reduce CO2 without expending lots of money or wrecking industry. If I am not mistaken, they are going to shut down their coal industry, probably in part due to Kyoto. It's rather amusing that they may be hurt most by the treaty even though they probably meet it best in spirit.
"Note that this data is directly measured from well-dated bubbles trapped in ice cores. This is not a speculative reconstruction. It's observational data."
That data, unfortunately, is not widely distributed across the world. Which is a problem. Mid-latitude information is rather sparse (L. Thompson has made a rather large push to gather info before it disappears...) There are also a bunch of other assumptions that go into that data (well dated, representative of atmosphere, etc.) that I don't spend much time questioning because the the data distribution is a killer....
The end result of increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere seems to be speculative.... Yes, there are models, they are reasonable (all things considered), but still they are still best guesses. Look, most people don't give a crap about X degrees of warming/cooling in general regions-so what. They need concrete information (it will cause x, y, and z, costing this much vs this much to mitigate NOW). The models can't do that.
In other words, for there to be significant support for change the consequences will have to be pretty well known-that's just the way it is. Of course by then change may not matter....
Finally, part of the problem with the treaty (for the US) is that it was/is seen as unfair. IF excess greenhouse gases are bad then it shouldn't matter who is producing them-industrialized or not. It was easy for Russia to sign the treaty because they are ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE. Don't have to change a thing.
"In CSI they routinely use liver temperature measurement. It can be easily done with a simple electronic thermometer and it gives the time of death with an accuracy of 2-4 hours."
I guess we have different definitions of accurate.Two to four hours for a RECENTLY dead person isn't very accurate or precise. And not very useful for a person who has been dead long enough for their body to reach room temperature or has decomposed, etc.....
Then maybe don't buy drugs from China? Buy direct from the drug manufacturer.
Or don't try to save a few bucks-I mean that REALLY cheap price couldn't possibly be an indication that it is a fake or anything....
I suspect GREED (buyer AND seller) is behind a lot of the counterfeit problems-and changing the packaging isn't going to change help.
"This will save you MORE than money.This will potentially save you (or your family members) lives as it prevents fake drugs- or at least makes them a lot harder to produce."
Huh? It doesn't make the counterfeits any harder to produce. It just means they have to fake the RFID.
The only useful thing about this requirement is that the whole shipping step of the drugs will be available in a database. It is just a computerized Chain of Custody. Nothing more, nothing less. No pharmacist is their right mind would accept these with JUST a RFID confirmation-they will check them as they normally do. So, no cost savings.
It WILL make recalls easier in theory. Potentially easier to track counterfeits AFTER the fact (because of the computerization of records).
"The benefit is that you can be pretty darn sure tha medicine you get is legit."
Nope. Sorry. No more reason to believe it now than before. Oh, it may be easier to catch the bad guys but you can still be screwed easily. It all comes down to whether you trust the people selling you the prescriptions and always will.
"I think it's worth it."
Reasonable step. As long as it doesn't lead to overconfidence (oh, it has the correct RFID, it must be the correct/real medication).
"Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence."
True. But it's not a very good starting place to suggest that something might exist either.... Evidence is nice to have.
"but a complete lack of evidence does not default to "it wasn't real", "it didn't exist", "it didn't happen", etc. It defaults to, "I don't know", but nobody wants to admit that there are things we really just don't know."
No, it defaults to, "Because there is no evidence, there is not much point in wasting time considering the possibility. Sure, if you enjoy it, go ahead, but don't pretend it's real without ANY good evidence. And if you find good evidence, get back to me because there are things that we really just don't know"
In short, I think we can say it is very likely there are no "fire-breathing dragons, or little green men from Mars". No Atlantis, who the hell knows? It depends greatly on your definition (some would say Santorini IS Atlantis....)
"You say, "you can't prove a negative", but that's not actually true."
So, how would you? If it is merely "extremely difficult", I imagine you could give me an example? Look, I can't prove God doesn't exist, I suspect he/she/it doesn't but I really can't prove it. Sure, I might be able to disprove certain "types" of a God (say the Christian variety), but that isn't the same thing...
"A Christian believes that the writers were inspired by God, that the message is life to those who hear it, and that it is the key to knowing and having a relationship with God."
:)
Well, maybe a "reasonable" Christian-but faith and reason don't always go together. Growing up going to church (Catholic) I recall the bible being the "word of God". Not the word of God according to men (even though that is what it is in reality....) For better or worse, I have mostly outgrown that particular superstition, although technically I am still Catholic
"I think their current economic model consists of getting rich off of each others' click-throughs and showing thumbnails of each others' thumbnails."
Hmmm, this seems oddly like the dot com craze and stock prices. I wonder if the same people will get screwed....
"Professor Randy Pausch at CMU is himself known as somewhat of a slavedriver, among his graduate students."
Not to defend the professor, but this statement can be said about virtually ANY "successful" (however you want to term this) professor with graduate students. Graduate students tend to be driven already. Couple that with a driven professor....
I have also noticed there is a difference (even with the same prof.) depending upon whether the student is a MS or PhD student. Of course, it is hardly a surprise when you encounter these professors-their reputations as "slave-drivers" are NOT hidden. It is only a surprise to the student when they find that, yes, they are no different than anyone else-if everyone else worked like a dog for him/her, you will too. Remember, professors look out for themselves first, their students second, just like everywhere else (employer/employee relationship at work for instance)-it just so happens that many times those interests tend to be the same.
I am just amazed at the students (who should have known better/claimed to know better) who get screwed or feel they get screwed in this arrangement. The same ones who had ample warning that it was going to happen but did it anyway. My advisor wasn't a "slave-driver" but I had problems in other ways and I dealt with them-no point in whining about it (excessively)-do something about it, do something to prevent it in the future, or just shut up. The same thing applies in work environments.
"the department even has an official "reasonable person policy""
Question: Is it enforced? Or more importantly, do those with no power (grad students) feel they can take complaints to the department and something will happen AND they won't get screwed. If not, then the department really has no policy. My department had lots of rules but we all knew which ones were enforced (depended greatly on your advisor) and which weren't (hint: does it help the department). The only real recourse would have been to burn the department chair and graduate chair-sure you would have won the battle but lost the war.... Otherwise you play the game and imply you might, and document in case you HAVE to nuke the bridges....
"He's not your average academic...."
Oh, I would say he is VERY close to your average academic. Maybe not in funding or OUTWARD demeanor but you don't become tenured faculty without having a rather large ego. Some are just better at concealing it.
"Wow, Overrated should not be allowed on a post that hasn't received any moderation. That's just abusive."
Why exactly? I could get a "2" for this comment, however, I will forgo my karma because it is off-topic. I assume you believe that the "overrated" category should only be applied to posts that have been moderated-a reasonable viewpoint but one I don't agree with. Just because you can post at 0, 1 or 2 doesn't mean your comment is worth it...
And if it is rated as "overrated" it HAS been moderated. Not that I agree with the moderation- but that is another issue.
Or poor nutrition/health from diverting funds from "oil for food" programs to other military related activities...
Okay, just to nitpick:
"The consensus sneered at continental
drift for fifty years."
Well, it WAS incorrect. The continents don't move, rather the plates they are on move. Wegener also wasn't the first the theorize this idea-he just had the best supported theory.
One of the problems? in science (well geology at least and I assume other fields) is that you have to propose a mechanism for the theory in order for it to be taken seriously (even if all the data fits). And many times the mechanism will be attacked....
Of course, no good mechanism was known until the 1960's. It is currently called the theory (or paradigm) of plate tectonics NOT continental drift-there is a difference.
"I never really understood *why* people in the US expect to know results "before bedtime". Do they really?"
Nope. Sure, it would be nice. But technically we didn't know the results of the 2004 race before bedtime (at least those who work first shift....)
"Or is it just a sensationalist media creation, which tries to portray elections like a "game" - this was even more evident in this year's election coverage - with CNN's bank of wide screens and "more projections after the break"."
Yep. Hell, the whole campaign is covered like a horse race. Much easier than covering issues. Let's face it, most journalists do not deserve that title. Hell, I have a lower opinion of journalists as a profession than lawyers-at least lawyers are supposed to do anything (legal) to paint their clients in the best light. Journalists in the media have no such excuse...