See I'm not even sure about that one (big budget movies). Originally I was trying to find a breakdown of where the money went in making Lord of the rings, the closest I came was here, where it says about a third of the budget went into marketing. The second thing I noticed though is that the lifetime gross is four times that of its production cost. Now I'm not sure if lifetime gross for movies includes dvd, merchandise sales or not, or if production budget really includes everything spent on the making of the movie, but I'd guess it adds up to a pretty nice profit at the end of the day despite downloading.
So maybe big budget movies still have their place in the theaters, and its only dvd sales that would suffer if anything. The original thing I was trying to get evidence for is that the big budget isn't even necessary for a good movie, or even the big budget look. Computer games however are more interesting since it's almost completely a software industry, but in my opinion there are far too many games these days repeating the same old thing anyway and it could use some trimming down. In fact I would probably be more likely to pay a developing team I like upfront for a good game with a high level of replay value than to simply go out there today and pick up a game(still playing Age of Empires II). My little brother, on the other hand, buys half the new 360 games that come out and plays them for a month then moves on to the next one, so that seems to be the new strategy for big budget videogames which isn't really good for gamers anyway.
The bottom line is that at least 90 percent of entertainment is only out to get your money for something you don't really need anyway. And by the way I've been using two "br" tags in between my paragraphs to get them separated, whats the proper thing to do.
So what? the "artist" should have another job (or find some guy with money who likes his stuff to fund him just for the hell of it) if he cant make enough money by selling his art, for whatever reason. Really think back at musicians, authors, anything in the last century and name any who's art really improved that much after their first work (presumably written when it was not a source of income). You're a musician? get a job writing jingles or at a studio or something like that. A writer? Work as a journalist or at a publishing house. Or just work and have the art be you hobby, it can be fulfilling in and of itself trust me.
Right, thats exactly what I was saying. The problem is people expect people in the medical/research field to be "more professional" (turns out I've been disappointed by the lack of this) than people with other more mundane jobs, when thats just not realistic. Just take how much you care each individual client/customer and add ten of whatever defines your scale to it and thats how much more they really care; and thats just because the stakes are higher so theres more prestige or personal achievement (could be an ego boost due to helping somebody, I'm not saying altruism plays no role) to be gained or lost.
First of all I want you to just realize that you're grouping all psychiatrists together here just based on the bad ones. And second of all its a job like any other. Really don't trust your body to doctors or psychiatrists or anyone like that, they are people just like you who do the same half assed things sometimes. The only difference is that they're more informed so their half-assed opinion is better than yours. If you're ever confronted with someone prescribing something for you do your own research to the best of your ability, or at least get second/third opinions.
So how was the drug inappropriately marketed? and why is that allowed to be kept confidential? and where does the money go if the government won the case?
Plus if you take that logic (Private Corporations should fund all Research) eventually what you end up with is corporations approaching the size of our government funding the same thing or it not happening at all. Theres simply nowhere else to get such giant amounts of money from.
Well first of all they go on to recommend against unprotected sex. Second nobody likes to be forced to have sex with someone else so I think there would be alot of things going on there besides the researchers trusting their results. I mean if i take your logic a little farther the only people allowed to do research that discovers HIV is less infectious than thought would be those who have a sexual relationship with someone who is HIV positive in the first place. Or else how can we trust what they say? Really I don't see where you're coming from. What do you think motivated this press release?
Since every other post on here seems to be by someone who hasn't read the article... here it is:
Swiss HIV experts have produced the first-ever consensus statement to say that HIV-positive individuals on effective antiretroviral therapy and without sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are sexually non-infectious. The statement is published in this week's Bulletin of Swiss Medicine (Bulletin des médecins suisses). The statement also discusses the implications for doctors; for HIV-positive people; for HIV prevention; and the legal system.
The statement, on behalf of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS was authored by four of Switzerland's foremost HIV experts: Prof Pietro Vernazza, of the Cantonal Hospital in St. Gallen, and President of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS; Prof Bernard Hirschel from Geneva University Hospital; Dr Enos Bernasconi of the Lugano Regional Hospital; and Dr Markus Flepp, president of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health's Sub-committee on the clincal and therapeutic aspects of HIV / AIDS.
The statement's headline statement says that "after review of the medical literature and extensive discussion," the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS resolves that, "An HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia ("effective ART") is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact."
It goes on to say that this statement is valid as long as:
* the person adheres to antiretroviral therapy, the effects of which must be evaluated regularly by the treating physician, and
* the viral load has been suppressed ( 40 copies/ml) for at least six months, and
* there are no other sexually transmitted infections.
The article begins by stating that the Commission "realises that medical and biologic data available today do not permit proof that HIV-infection during effective antiretroviral therapy is impossible, because the non-occurrence of an improbable event cannot be proven. If no transmission events were observed among 100 couples followed for two years, for instance, there might still be some such events if 10,000 couples are followed for ten years. The situation is analogous to 1986, when the statement 'HIV cannot be transmitted by kissing' was publicised. This statement has not been proven, but after 20 years' experience its accuracy appears highly plausible."
It then states that the evidence for the Commission's current assertion about the relationship between treatment and sexual HIV transmisson is much more informed than what was available in 1986 regarding the transmission of HIV through kissing.
For example, they note, Quinn and colleagues found that in sero-discordant couples the risk of transmission depended on the viral load of the HIV-positive partner, and refer also to a prospective study of 393 heterosexual sero-discordant couples from Castilla and colleagues found that there were no infections among partners of persons on antiretroviral therapy, compared to a rate of transmission of 8.6% among partners of untreated patients. They also note that transmission from mother to newborn also depends on the maternal viral load, and can be avoided by taking antiretroviral therapy.
They go on to assert that effective antiretroviral therapy eliminates HIV from genital secretions. They say that HIV RNA, measured in sperm, declines below the limits of detection on antiretroviral therapy, and that HIV RNA is also below the limits of female genital secretions is, as a rule, during effective antiretroviral therapy. "As a rule," they write, "it rises after, not before, an increase in plasma viral load."
They also assert that although cell-associated viral genomes are present in genital secretions, even on antiretroviral therapy, these are not infectious virions since "HIV-containing cells in sperm lack markers of viral proliferations such as circular LTR-DNA."
The article begins by stating that the Commission "realises that medical and biologic data available today do not permit proof that HIV-infection during effective antiretroviral therapy is impossible, because the non-occurrence of an improbable event cannot be proven. If no transmission events were observed among 100 couples followed for two years, for instance, there might still be some such events if 10,000 couples are followed for ten years. The situation is analogous to 1986, when the statement 'HIV cannot be transmitted by kissing' was publicised. This statement has not been proven, but after 20 years' experience its accuracy appears highly plausible."
Maybe you should read the article before being a smartass?
I'm aware of the miller-urey experiment, I was just responding to the parent so used the theory proposed in the article at hand as an example. Actually the two phenomenon could have worked together to create early life. Simple overview: Functional RNA forms in ice then when the ice melted it attained a membrane then proteins formed in via the miller-urey method entered the "cell" and any that facilitated its survival were selectively absorbed/let in, etc. However, how the ribosomal complex developed I have no idea.
I don't think you're getting the beauty of this. There is no need for the involvement of a special animating force, all thats required are the "forces" we already see as behind everything else thats going on at a molecular level (ie electrostatic). Under certain conditions (adsorbing to the ice surface and being in high concentrations in a cold environment) the would-be collection of random atoms assume a more stable state by reacting with each other and eventually forming compounds like adenine.
My impression from the article is that a cold, ice environment facilitates the creation of single nucleotides (and obviously other molecules) from "scratch' due to 1) the ice surface acting as a catalyst, and 2) water tending to form into crystals (a more stable arrangement in cold temperatures) which requires the exclusion of other molecules to elsewhere and hence small pockets with high concentrations of molecules with similar polarity.
Basically the first phenomenon is a lowering of the Activation energy (here an addition reaction of cyanide to itself and then to ammonia; actually if anyone knows the proposed mechanism for the formation of adenine I would be really interested in seeing it)and the second is just raising the concentrations of the reagents. Now that creates an environment more conducive to the formation of adenine than a "primal soup", but relative to the use of enzymes and selective uptake of precursor molecules (as done by cells) this is not an advantageous process. So basically the original cryophiles would be outcompeted by their descendants.
I hope that was clear enough
First off, cancer is a specific type of "cellular aberration", you know the whole A is a type of B but not all instances of B are A type of thing. Basically what you're talking about is prevention of the illness (vaccines)rather then either a treatment or a cure. My definitions: A cure is a type of treatment something that makes a disease go away( if you get it again thats irrelevant)while a treatment is something that(at least)makes you feel better but doesn't necessarily deal with the fundamental problem. I guess what you want from a cure for cancer is something that lets people do whatever they want without getting cancer, which would be awesome and maybe this is the first step towards that.
We've all got nanotubes inside us doing various medical things. Will this bring a new age of IR lasers? What about taking pictures with night vision turned on? Anyone would be able to see all your diseased areas
Slashdot Mirror
9+7=16...
so do you check every label, or is there somewhere that lists products manufactured in the U.S. (not companies just headquartered here).
See I'm not even sure about that one (big budget movies). Originally I was trying to find a breakdown of where the money went in making Lord of the rings, the closest I came was here, where it says about a third of the budget went into marketing. The second thing I noticed though is that the lifetime gross is four times that of its production cost. Now I'm not sure if lifetime gross for movies includes dvd, merchandise sales or not, or if production budget really includes everything spent on the making of the movie, but I'd guess it adds up to a pretty nice profit at the end of the day despite downloading.
So maybe big budget movies still have their place in the theaters, and its only dvd sales that would suffer if anything. The original thing I was trying to get evidence for is that the big budget isn't even necessary for a good movie, or even the big budget look. Computer games however are more interesting since it's almost completely a software industry, but in my opinion there are far too many games these days repeating the same old thing anyway and it could use some trimming down. In fact I would probably be more likely to pay a developing team I like upfront for a good game with a high level of replay value than to simply go out there today and pick up a game(still playing Age of Empires II). My little brother, on the other hand, buys half the new 360 games that come out and plays them for a month then moves on to the next one, so that seems to be the new strategy for big budget videogames which isn't really good for gamers anyway.
The bottom line is that at least 90 percent of entertainment is only out to get your money for something you don't really need anyway. And by the way I've been using two "br" tags in between my paragraphs to get them separated, whats the proper thing to do.
So what? the "artist" should have another job (or find some guy with money who likes his stuff to fund him just for the hell of it) if he cant make enough money by selling his art, for whatever reason. Really think back at musicians, authors, anything in the last century and name any who's art really improved that much after their first work (presumably written when it was not a source of income). You're a musician? get a job writing jingles or at a studio or something like that. A writer? Work as a journalist or at a publishing house. Or just work and have the art be you hobby, it can be fulfilling in and of itself trust me.
Note: I am an Amateur Musician
That's what I was thinking. So at what point is the FDA accountable for letting something bad be distributed?
Right, thats exactly what I was saying. The problem is people expect people in the medical/research field to be "more professional" (turns out I've been disappointed by the lack of this) than people with other more mundane jobs, when thats just not realistic. Just take how much you care each individual client/customer and add ten of whatever defines your scale to it and thats how much more they really care; and thats just because the stakes are higher so theres more prestige or personal achievement (could be an ego boost due to helping somebody, I'm not saying altruism plays no role) to be gained or lost.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absquatulate Henry James mist have made up that one.
First of all I want you to just realize that you're grouping all psychiatrists together here just based on the bad ones. And second of all its a job like any other. Really don't trust your body to doctors or psychiatrists or anyone like that, they are people just like you who do the same half assed things sometimes. The only difference is that they're more informed so their half-assed opinion is better than yours. If you're ever confronted with someone prescribing something for you do your own research to the best of your ability, or at least get second/third opinions.
So how was the drug inappropriately marketed? and why is that allowed to be kept confidential? and where does the money go if the government won the case?
either way it'd be quite a sight
if the odds of that are of a penis entering a vagina Id say thats pretty good odds
Plus if you take that logic (Private Corporations should fund all Research) eventually what you end up with is corporations approaching the size of our government funding the same thing or it not happening at all. Theres simply nowhere else to get such giant amounts of money from.
when did this republican=pub thing start, it makes everything sound like its the drunks vs. the idiots (dem sort of sounds like dim.. i dont know)
well I didn't mean it as a criticism of the technology, more of a sci-fi what if but it didn't take apparently
a six-pack split three ways? cmon man
Well first of all they go on to recommend against unprotected sex. Second nobody likes to be forced to have sex with someone else so I think there would be alot of things going on there besides the researchers trusting their results. I mean if i take your logic a little farther the only people allowed to do research that discovers HIV is less infectious than thought would be those who have a sexual relationship with someone who is HIV positive in the first place. Or else how can we trust what they say? Really I don't see where you're coming from. What do you think motivated this press release?
Since every other post on here seems to be by someone who hasn't read the article... here it is:
Swiss HIV experts have produced the first-ever consensus statement to say that HIV-positive individuals on effective antiretroviral therapy and without sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are sexually non-infectious. The statement is published in this week's Bulletin of Swiss Medicine (Bulletin des médecins suisses). The statement also discusses the implications for doctors; for HIV-positive people; for HIV prevention; and the legal system.
The statement, on behalf of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS was authored by four of Switzerland's foremost HIV experts: Prof Pietro Vernazza, of the Cantonal Hospital in St. Gallen, and President of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS; Prof Bernard Hirschel from Geneva University Hospital; Dr Enos Bernasconi of the Lugano Regional Hospital; and Dr Markus Flepp, president of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health's Sub-committee on the clincal and therapeutic aspects of HIV / AIDS.
The statement's headline statement says that "after review of the medical literature and extensive discussion," the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS resolves that, "An HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia ("effective ART") is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact."
It goes on to say that this statement is valid as long as:
* the person adheres to antiretroviral therapy, the effects of which must be evaluated regularly by the treating physician, and
* the viral load has been suppressed ( 40 copies/ml) for at least six months, and
* there are no other sexually transmitted infections.
The article begins by stating that the Commission "realises that medical and biologic data available today do not permit proof that HIV-infection during effective antiretroviral therapy is impossible, because the non-occurrence of an improbable event cannot be proven. If no transmission events were observed among 100 couples followed for two years, for instance, there might still be some such events if 10,000 couples are followed for ten years. The situation is analogous to 1986, when the statement 'HIV cannot be transmitted by kissing' was publicised. This statement has not been proven, but after 20 years' experience its accuracy appears highly plausible."
It then states that the evidence for the Commission's current assertion about the relationship between treatment and sexual HIV transmisson is much more informed than what was available in 1986 regarding the transmission of HIV through kissing.
For example, they note, Quinn and colleagues found that in sero-discordant couples the risk of transmission depended on the viral load of the HIV-positive partner, and refer also to a prospective study of 393 heterosexual sero-discordant couples from Castilla and colleagues found that there were no infections among partners of persons on antiretroviral therapy, compared to a rate of transmission of 8.6% among partners of untreated patients. They also note that transmission from mother to newborn also depends on the maternal viral load, and can be avoided by taking antiretroviral therapy.
They go on to assert that effective antiretroviral therapy eliminates HIV from genital secretions. They say that HIV RNA, measured in sperm, declines below the limits of detection on antiretroviral therapy, and that HIV RNA is also below the limits of female genital secretions is, as a rule, during effective antiretroviral therapy. "As a rule," they write, "it rises after, not before, an increase in plasma viral load."
They also assert that although cell-associated viral genomes are present in genital secretions, even on antiretroviral therapy, these are not infectious virions since "HIV-containing cells in sperm lack markers of viral proliferations such as circular LTR-DNA."
I'm aware of the miller-urey experiment, I was just responding to the parent so used the theory proposed in the article at hand as an example. Actually the two phenomenon could have worked together to create early life. Simple overview: Functional RNA forms in ice then when the ice melted it attained a membrane then proteins formed in via the miller-urey method entered the "cell" and any that facilitated its survival were selectively absorbed/let in, etc. However, how the ribosomal complex developed I have no idea.
I don't think you're getting the beauty of this. There is no need for the involvement of a special animating force, all thats required are the "forces" we already see as behind everything else thats going on at a molecular level (ie electrostatic). Under certain conditions (adsorbing to the ice surface and being in high concentrations in a cold environment) the would-be collection of random atoms assume a more stable state by reacting with each other and eventually forming compounds like adenine.
My impression from the article is that a cold, ice environment facilitates the creation of single nucleotides (and obviously other molecules) from "scratch' due to 1) the ice surface acting as a catalyst, and 2) water tending to form into crystals (a more stable arrangement in cold temperatures) which requires the exclusion of other molecules to elsewhere and hence small pockets with high concentrations of molecules with similar polarity. Basically the first phenomenon is a lowering of the Activation energy (here an addition reaction of cyanide to itself and then to ammonia; actually if anyone knows the proposed mechanism for the formation of adenine I would be really interested in seeing it)and the second is just raising the concentrations of the reagents. Now that creates an environment more conducive to the formation of adenine than a "primal soup", but relative to the use of enzymes and selective uptake of precursor molecules (as done by cells) this is not an advantageous process. So basically the original cryophiles would be outcompeted by their descendants. I hope that was clear enough
Ah yea Eugene Dubois
First off, cancer is a specific type of "cellular aberration", you know the whole A is a type of B but not all instances of B are A type of thing. Basically what you're talking about is prevention of the illness (vaccines)rather then either a treatment or a cure. My definitions: A cure is a type of treatment something that makes a disease go away( if you get it again thats irrelevant)while a treatment is something that(at least)makes you feel better but doesn't necessarily deal with the fundamental problem. I guess what you want from a cure for cancer is something that lets people do whatever they want without getting cancer, which would be awesome and maybe this is the first step towards that.
The distinction you're making is confusing. I guess name a disease/illness/whatever that you think has been cured and that would help.
We've all got nanotubes inside us doing various medical things. Will this bring a new age of IR lasers? What about taking pictures with night vision turned on? Anyone would be able to see all your diseased areas