Spot on! Consider garbage collectors; no other profession has had a larger impact on the health of society as a whole. Without them rampant cholera would actually be the least of our troubles.
Well, Cholera is a water born disease, so I'd the above remark applies more to the engineers and maintenance workers who run our treatment and distribution systems for potable water, as well as sewage systems. This is really the number one public health system that a government takes care of, and when you've got lots of refugees, it's usually one of the things that will start killing people in large numbers, when you don't have clean water.
Garbage collection is important in keeping the population of rats and vermin under control. But while they can serve as disease vectors, they really doesn't compare to the importance of water.
This is purely antidotal but a colleague got sick and when to the doctor. The doctor, without testing, said he had H1N1.
This is actually a reasonably diagnosis.
From statistical sampling of the population (with strain typing) that's been done so far, the normal seasonal flu strains are not really circulating yet, while H1N1 has been observed to be spiking in frequency. I think there's some diagnosis guideline out there that your family doctor should assume any flu case is H1N1, at this time of the year.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
-The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
I bought some flood-light type bulb replacements from a big box store (Lowes or Home Depot, I forget which). The bulb looked like a flood light, but you could see it was just a curly CFL inside.
The bulbs were purchased about 18 months ago, so I assume they were "modern".
I hated them. They were slow to start, and had a terrible pink cast to them until they warmed up over 5 to 10 minutes. I was both surprised and glad that they lasted less than a year (maybe 1500 hours on them).
The nVision brand floodlights? Although their regular lamps are pretty good, I've had a similar problems with their 120w-equivalents floods, they start especially dimly and slowly compared to other CFLs. I bought 4 bulbs and one failed within a week. BTW, I believe the pink cast at start mostly comes from the Argon base gas in the bulb.
Anyway, I've found Phillips CFL floodlights work much, much better. I recently had one in a main Hallway ceiling, one of the old triple U-tube kind. It finally burned out, and I discovered the receipt when changing the bulb -- I had kept it as an experiment to see how long it lasted. Remember Hechinger's hardware stores, that went bankrupt in '99? I bought the bulb during their bankruptcy sale, that's how long it lasted.
I only use them on the outside garage fixtures that our neighborhood covenant requires that I leave on all night. (They're on a light-sensing switch.) Despite the promises, they manage to only last about a year or two.
There's your problem, light sensing switches (and dimmers) will absolutely destroy most CFLs. I'm surprised they lasted over a year. Your typical light sensing switch isn't equivalent to a regular light switch that flips on and off based on the amount of light.
There's a couple of problems with photosensor switches. First, around dusk and dawn it may flicker on and off, which shortens the life of CFLs (but not cold-cathode CFLs, which are ok with rapid cycling). Second, even when completely "off", many photosensor switches will leak a bit of current, which may mess with your CFL's electronics, anything less than full-on / full-off is bad. Third, some photosensors and dimmers may have built-in "bulb saver" features meant to extend the life of incandescents -- they may pass the current through a diode or negativetemperature coefficient (NTC) thermistor (which again will kill CFLs).
Since the brain makes little distinction between hardware, instructions, and data, perhaps the crux of the problem is that it wasn't designed with any way to do a read-out from the big squishy mess. If an "upload" of any sort ever becomes possible, I think it will require a brain engineered from before birth, to contain specialized features that will enable a dump.
Perhaps it'll be in the form of some little chemical tags that will accumulate in cell bodies, produced in varying mixes whose profiles reveal what the cell did when it was still alive and who it was connected to -- stable enough to be scanned out of diced sheets post-mortem. Or maybe they'll pulse out their secrets encoded in bio-luminescent flashes. Or maybe they'll be a mesh of nerve fibers splayed across the brain of this new human, bio-engineered to output something a computer can understand, with characteristics to help mitigate problems like requiring precise electrode placement, or incompatibility with artificial materials.
In any case, there would be immortality, but not for us...
Looking at these figures, I'd say hundreds to thousands would be just about right for a worldwide tally, considering that the U.S. figures ranged from 47 in 2004-2005, to 153 in 2003-2004. That being said, it's an example of the combination of an overall tiny mortality rate, intersecting with a high exposure rate. From a public health perspective, the impact from morbidity is much more of a concern than the actual mortality.
In 1968 and 1997, the vaccine produced was the wrong one, it didn't match the prevalent strains for the following winter. People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.
It's not so simple as "mismatch = no protection". Often there is some cross-protection against mis-matching strains, that varies with the degree of mismatch. This partial protection is especially notable for Live Attenuated vaccine (FluMist). A following question is, how does a mismatch (which reduces effectiveness in protecting against infection) affect mortality? It may not necessarily be a simple proportion between the two measures.
Which brings me to the next issue -- the shifting virulence of Flu from year to year, and the pattern of natural immunity left behind each previous wave, which interacts with the incoming wave. As you've mentioned, "...It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual, but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine...". Amazing coincidences can be pretty common when you've only got two data points, with quite a bit of variance in the range of possible values.
You say, "Furthermore, it has been shown to be effective against viruses that have undergone some genetic drift." But there's nothing about that in the CDC site.
It's in there, in this part: "...An open-label, nonrandomized, community-based influenza vaccine trial conducted during an influenza season when circulating H3N2 strains were poorly matched with strains contained in the vaccine also indicated that LAIV, but not TIV, was effective against antigenically drifted H3N2 strains during that influenza season..."
The live attenuated flu vaccine, FluMist is substantially more effective than the inactivated injected vaccine (something that's blindingly obvious to those of us who've studied basic immunology). It provides a potent T-cell response, and a large pool of memory cells. Furthermore, it has been shown to be effective against viruses that have undergone some genetic drift.
I happen to have worked in the influenza vaccine business before. For children and younger recipients, what you've said has been clinically demonstrated to be true -- live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV, you may also see it referred to as CAIV in some literature) gives a more intense response, and better protection against mismatched strains.
However, things get a little iffy when it gets to the adult population, where there doesn't seem to be any superiority for LAIV in that group (your link shows that).
While it's not exactly known why, last I heard the theory was that, in contrast to the naive response in children, adults already have pre-existing responses to various wild influenza strains, that (although not matched to the target strains) cross-react with the LAIV and neutralize it too quickly, before it has a chance to replicate a little and provoke a stronger response (that matches the targeted strains).
I haven't seen this last part in print anywhere (although I also haven't been looking), it was just an idea that was being passed around by some researchers who were working at MedImmune (company that makes FluMist).
It does exist, although only in the sense that the group Anonymous exists. That's the same lack of hierarchy/organisation/official structure. In my analogy, moot = Osama bin Laden.
This needs to be meme'd! Complete with a moe-fied Osama-chan with kitty-ears or something.
Just what exactly happened with the platform nVidia was putting together with VIA? From what I can tell, the specs looked pretty good, and then nVidia suddenly killed it.
What they were putting together seemed to resemble their current ION platform, except intended for the Nano CPU. I'm guessing there was some kind of nVidia-Intel deal that resulted in the sudden switch between CPUs? Still, I can't understand why nVidia would swap out VIA (which really needs the business) for Intel, who pretty much has no interest in pricing Atom at a level that would let a competitor take part of their chipset business.
Before 9/11, many Americans were ignorant of the fact that they are largely hated around the world. The media spun the situation, claiming the world hating Americans is a new phenomenon due only to Bush.
I'd have to say that calling it spin is unjustified. The media was perhaps simplified as usual, but did indeed reflect accurately what was happening abroad. To say that America-haters existed before Bush is entirely correct, but misses insight into the magnitude of the shift; the degree to which it affected the mainstream public in various countries, and how it included countries that historically had been friendly or at least neutral.
Individual America-haters have always been able to make a spectacle; perhaps make some embarassing speeches, set off a few bombs. In a few countries, they even happened to be the head honcho in charge. In either of those cases I'm sure nothing much changed.
However, when the countries we're dealing with are democracies (we like those, right?), such major opinion shifts can have large impacts indeed on how foreign policy works, or doesn't.
I suspect the reasoning behind this prize has much more to do with influencing his future actions.
To a great degree, he's limited by the opinion of the general population, as well as Congressional and media attitudes. And, some of his "peace"-oriented moves may be the result of hardball geopolitics; the rollback of missile defense in Europe probably had more to do with a backroom exchange of favors with Russia (I hope we got a good trade out of it).
However, remember when he pondered reaching out to the more moderate (moderate being an extremely relative word, in this case) factions of the Taliban for negotiation? The backlash made him reverse quite quickly, but I doubt few politicians in the US would have been willing to voice the possibility of less-shooty-more-talky in this case.
Now, the peace prize is a little different (okay, a lot different) from the scientific prizes, but it still carries a lot of heft. Not only does it possibly open up some possibilities, it may also close of other avenues of action, as he may now feel he has to live up to the reputation of a Nobel winner. Even if he doesn't allow himself to feel that pressure, from the public's perspective, it now makes it more ridiculous, for a "Peace Prize winner" to be seen talking in the cowboy-tough manner that U.S. presidents seem to resort to whenever they need to ward off accusations of being soft.
"The most ridiculous interview I heard with my own ears:
Interviewer: "What did you have this morning as breakfast?"
Applicant: "Bread." I: "Nothing else?"
Applicant: "No."
Interviewer: "According to American law, we cannot grant you a visa."
Applicant: "....". I was sitting beside the person when he was rejected. You know, it is funny to reject someone according American law just because he only had bread in the morning."
The Economist has a short but good piece containing their take on the book deal. Includes criticism of where they think the agreement could be dangerous, but also how it those trouble areas could be dealt with:
Predators shouldn't announce their presence. There's a scene in the trailer where a dino-thing jumps out of the bushes, roars, and runs after people. I see this all the time in action movies where some large animal is about to attack the hero: the predator rises from the bushes (or from behind whatever), bellows, then rushes to attack.
Predators announce their presence before attacking quite often. I usually assume a big, showy attack is an example of a territorial defense, with the human viewed as a rival predatory species.
1. Dirt 2. Refined Sugar or Corn Syrup 3. Carbohydrates 4. Protein 5. Fruits and Vegetables 6. Fats (Olive Oil, Butter, etc.) 7. Nuts 8. Champaign, Caviar or Hookers
High-quality fats (olive oil, butter, cocoa butter, etc.) are indeed expensive, but this is true of premium items in every category. Commodity oils and fats are extremely cheap, and account for the bulk of our consumption. While the cost of the fruits and vegetables (Rank 6) has risen considerably over the past few decades, fats are one of the food items that have gotten cheaper in real terms over time.
In terms of calories per dollar, fats (considering the overall mix of what we consume) would probably rank around 3 or 4. Definitely cheaper than protein.
From the Article, concerning killing a PKing player (a "slayer"):
6. If you or someone else kills a slayer, 12 nearby players of the dead body will receive buffs.
Is the buff substantial? It sounds like it may be possible for players to use an alternate char to PK deliberately for the purpose of getting themselves killed, to buff their main characters. This might have the unintended consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Press the key to continue.
Ok, Steve Jobs has really gone too far with the minimalist controls this time.
Spot on! Consider garbage collectors; no other profession has had a larger impact on the health of society as a whole. Without them rampant cholera would actually be the least of our troubles.
Well, Cholera is a water born disease, so I'd the above remark applies more to the engineers and maintenance workers who run our treatment and distribution systems for potable water, as well as sewage systems. This is really the number one public health system that a government takes care of, and when you've got lots of refugees, it's usually one of the things that will start killing people in large numbers, when you don't have clean water.
Garbage collection is important in keeping the population of rats and vermin under control. But while they can serve as disease vectors, they really doesn't compare to the importance of water.
This is purely antidotal but a colleague got sick and when to the doctor. The doctor, without testing, said he had H1N1.
This is actually a reasonably diagnosis.
From statistical sampling of the population (with strain typing) that's been done so far, the normal seasonal flu strains are not really circulating yet, while H1N1 has been observed to be spiking in frequency. I think there's some diagnosis guideline out there that your family doctor should assume any flu case is H1N1, at this time of the year.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
-The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
combo vibrating coffee-stirrer/dildo
Honey, my coffee takes kind of odd this morning, did we switch brands again?
I bought some flood-light type bulb replacements from a big box store (Lowes or Home Depot, I forget which). The bulb looked like a flood light, but you could see it was just a curly CFL inside.
The bulbs were purchased about 18 months ago, so I assume they were "modern".
I hated them. They were slow to start, and had a terrible pink cast to them until they warmed up over 5 to 10 minutes. I was both surprised and glad that they lasted less than a year (maybe 1500 hours on them).
The nVision brand floodlights? Although their regular lamps are pretty good, I've had a similar problems with their 120w-equivalents floods, they start especially dimly and slowly compared to other CFLs. I bought 4 bulbs and one failed within a week. BTW, I believe the pink cast at start mostly comes from the Argon base gas in the bulb.
Anyway, I've found Phillips CFL floodlights work much, much better. I recently had one in a main Hallway ceiling, one of the old triple U-tube kind. It finally burned out, and I discovered the receipt when changing the bulb -- I had kept it as an experiment to see how long it lasted. Remember Hechinger's hardware stores, that went bankrupt in '99? I bought the bulb during their bankruptcy sale, that's how long it lasted.
I only use them on the outside garage fixtures that our neighborhood covenant requires that I leave on all night. (They're on a light-sensing switch.) Despite the promises, they manage to only last about a year or two.
There's your problem, light sensing switches (and dimmers) will absolutely destroy most CFLs. I'm surprised they lasted over a year. Your typical light sensing switch isn't equivalent to a regular light switch that flips on and off based on the amount of light.
There's a couple of problems with photosensor switches. First, around dusk and dawn it may flicker on and off, which shortens the life of CFLs (but not cold-cathode CFLs, which are ok with rapid cycling). Second, even when completely "off", many photosensor switches will leak a bit of current, which may mess with your CFL's electronics, anything less than full-on / full-off is bad. Third, some photosensors and dimmers may have built-in "bulb saver" features meant to extend the life of incandescents -- they may pass the current through a diode or negativetemperature coefficient (NTC) thermistor (which again will kill CFLs).
Since the brain makes little distinction between hardware, instructions, and data, perhaps the crux of the problem is that it wasn't designed with any way to do a read-out from the big squishy mess. If an "upload" of any sort ever becomes possible, I think it will require a brain engineered from before birth, to contain specialized features that will enable a dump.
Perhaps it'll be in the form of some little chemical tags that will accumulate in cell bodies, produced in varying mixes whose profiles reveal what the cell did when it was still alive and who it was connected to -- stable enough to be scanned out of diced sheets post-mortem. Or maybe they'll pulse out their secrets encoded in bio-luminescent flashes. Or maybe they'll be a mesh of nerve fibers splayed across the brain of this new human, bio-engineered to output something a computer can understand, with characteristics to help mitigate problems like requiring precise electrode placement, or incompatibility with artificial materials.
In any case, there would be immortality, but not for us...
Your statement is blatantly false. As the most minor of checks would show you.
Children don't due from flu in the hundreds each year.
http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/0607season.htm#children
Looking at these figures, I'd say hundreds to thousands would be just about right for a worldwide tally, considering that the U.S. figures ranged from 47 in 2004-2005, to 153 in 2003-2004. That being said, it's an example of the combination of an overall tiny mortality rate, intersecting with a high exposure rate. From a public health perspective, the impact from morbidity is much more of a concern than the actual mortality.
In 1968 and 1997, the vaccine produced was the wrong one, it didn't match the prevalent strains for the following winter. People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.
It's not so simple as "mismatch = no protection". Often there is some cross-protection against mis-matching strains, that varies with the degree of mismatch. This partial protection is especially notable for Live Attenuated vaccine (FluMist). A following question is, how does a mismatch (which reduces effectiveness in protecting against infection) affect mortality? It may not necessarily be a simple proportion between the two measures.
Which brings me to the next issue -- the shifting virulence of Flu from year to year, and the pattern of natural immunity left behind each previous wave, which interacts with the incoming wave. As you've mentioned, "...It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual, but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine...". Amazing coincidences can be pretty common when you've only got two data points, with quite a bit of variance in the range of possible values.
You say, "Furthermore, it has been shown to be effective against viruses that have undergone some genetic drift." But there's nothing about that in the CDC site.
It's in there, in this part: "...An open-label, nonrandomized, community-based influenza vaccine trial conducted during an influenza season when circulating H3N2 strains were poorly matched with strains contained in the vaccine also indicated that LAIV, but not TIV, was effective against antigenically drifted H3N2 strains during that influenza season..."
LAIV = Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine
TIV = Tri-valent Influenza Vaccine
The live attenuated flu vaccine, FluMist is substantially more effective than the inactivated injected vaccine (something that's blindingly obvious to those of us who've studied basic immunology). It provides a potent T-cell response, and a large pool of memory cells. Furthermore, it has been shown to be effective against viruses that have undergone some genetic drift.
I happen to have worked in the influenza vaccine business before. For children and younger recipients, what you've said has been clinically demonstrated to be true -- live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV, you may also see it referred to as CAIV in some literature) gives a more intense response, and better protection against mismatched strains.
However, things get a little iffy when it gets to the adult population, where there doesn't seem to be any superiority for LAIV in that group (your link shows that).
While it's not exactly known why, last I heard the theory was that, in contrast to the naive response in children, adults already have pre-existing responses to various wild influenza strains, that (although not matched to the target strains) cross-react with the LAIV and neutralize it too quickly, before it has a chance to replicate a little and provoke a stronger response (that matches the targeted strains).
I haven't seen this last part in print anywhere (although I also haven't been looking), it was just an idea that was being passed around by some researchers who were working at MedImmune (company that makes FluMist).
It does exist, although only in the sense that the group Anonymous exists. That's the same lack of hierarchy/organisation/official structure. In my analogy, moot = Osama bin Laden.
This needs to be meme'd! Complete with a moe-fied Osama-chan with kitty-ears or something.
Just what exactly happened with the platform nVidia was putting together with VIA? From what I can tell, the specs looked pretty good, and then nVidia suddenly killed it.
What they were putting together seemed to resemble their current ION platform, except intended for the Nano CPU. I'm guessing there was some kind of nVidia-Intel deal that resulted in the sudden switch between CPUs? Still, I can't understand why nVidia would swap out VIA (which really needs the business) for Intel, who pretty much has no interest in pricing Atom at a level that would let a competitor take part of their chipset business.
Before 9/11, many Americans were ignorant of the fact that they are largely hated around the world. The media spun the situation, claiming the world hating Americans is a new phenomenon due only to Bush.
Taking a look at some of the international polling data:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264
I'd have to say that calling it spin is unjustified. The media was perhaps simplified as usual, but did indeed reflect accurately what was happening abroad. To say that America-haters existed before Bush is entirely correct, but misses insight into the magnitude of the shift; the degree to which it affected the mainstream public in various countries, and how it included countries that historically had been friendly or at least neutral.
Individual America-haters have always been able to make a spectacle; perhaps make some embarassing speeches, set off a few bombs. In a few countries, they even happened to be the head honcho in charge. In either of those cases I'm sure nothing much changed.
However, when the countries we're dealing with are democracies (we like those, right?), such major opinion shifts can have large impacts indeed on how foreign policy works, or doesn't.
I suspect the reasoning behind this prize has much more to do with influencing his future actions.
To a great degree, he's limited by the opinion of the general population, as well as Congressional and media attitudes. And, some of his "peace"-oriented moves may be the result of hardball geopolitics; the rollback of missile defense in Europe probably had more to do with a backroom exchange of favors with Russia (I hope we got a good trade out of it).
However, remember when he pondered reaching out to the more moderate (moderate being an extremely relative word, in this case) factions of the Taliban for negotiation? The backlash made him reverse quite quickly, but I doubt few politicians in the US would have been willing to voice the possibility of less-shooty-more-talky in this case.
Now, the peace prize is a little different (okay, a lot different) from the scientific prizes, but it still carries a lot of heft. Not only does it possibly open up some possibilities, it may also close of other avenues of action, as he may now feel he has to live up to the reputation of a Nobel winner. Even if he doesn't allow himself to feel that pressure, from the public's perspective, it now makes it more ridiculous, for a "Peace Prize winner" to be seen talking in the cowboy-tough manner that U.S. presidents seem to resort to whenever they need to ward off accusations of being soft.
"The most ridiculous interview I heard with my own ears:
Interviewer: "What did you have this morning as breakfast?"
Applicant: "Bread." I: "Nothing else?"
Applicant: "No."
Interviewer: "According to American law, we cannot grant you a visa."
Applicant: "....".
I was sitting beside the person when he was rejected. You know, it is funny to reject someone according American law just because he only had bread in the morning."
From http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20060519_getting_us_visa_in_china.htm
Hopefully the 5GHz band does not become clogged up now that all the new shiny 11n gear hits the market :-/
Isn't a lot of the cheaper 802.11n gear 2.4GHz only? I seemed to recall only certain 11n units with "dual band" operation models will offer 5GHz.
The Economist has a short but good piece containing their take on the book deal. Includes criticism of where they think the agreement could be dangerous, but also how it those trouble areas could be dealt with:
The Economist
Predators shouldn't announce their presence. There's a scene in the trailer where a dino-thing jumps out of the bushes, roars, and runs after people. I see this all the time in action movies where some large animal is about to attack the hero: the predator rises from the bushes (or from behind whatever), bellows, then rushes to attack.
Predators announce their presence before attacking quite often. I usually assume a big, showy attack is an example of a territorial defense, with the human viewed as a rival predatory species.
1. Dirt
2. Refined Sugar or Corn Syrup
3. Carbohydrates
4. Protein
5. Fruits and Vegetables
6. Fats (Olive Oil, Butter, etc.)
7. Nuts
8. Champaign, Caviar or Hookers
High-quality fats (olive oil, butter, cocoa butter, etc.) are indeed expensive, but this is true of premium items in every category. Commodity oils and fats are extremely cheap, and account for the bulk of our consumption. While the cost of the fruits and vegetables (Rank 6) has risen considerably over the past few decades, fats are one of the food items that have gotten cheaper in real terms over time.
In terms of calories per dollar, fats (considering the overall mix of what we consume) would probably rank around 3 or 4. Definitely cheaper than protein.
I just briefly scrolled through the list and for a half of a second thought I saw "90210" listed as an up-and-coming Sci-Fi movie.
Our SF club used to refer to "Space: Above and Beyond" as "Space: 90210". Or sometimes "Melrose Space". Too many young, good looking, vapid actors.
From the Article, concerning killing a PKing player (a "slayer"):
6. If you or someone else kills a slayer, 12 nearby players of the dead body will receive buffs.
Is the buff substantial? It sounds like it may be possible for players to use an alternate char to PK deliberately for the purpose of getting themselves killed, to buff their main characters. This might have the unintended consequences.
how is babby formed?
how girl get pragnent?
Babby is formed when you accidentally in her base.
...and it suddenly dawns on everyone exactly why Archon V2.0 failed in his childhood dream to become a lyricist...
It's okay, we're getting to the part of the thread that doesn't have any words:
"Naah-naah-na-na-na-na, Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-na-na-na-na-na-naaa...."