Keep in mind that viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) are nothing new in the US. what happens in the United States with other fatal VHFs, that, like Ebola, are only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations:
Hanta is especially on point, as the US typically has dozens of cases -- and dozens of deaths -- each year, all of which are rapidly contained. The cases of "imported" VHFs, like has occurred with Marburg and Lassa, result in identification, isolation, and either the recovery or death of that person -- and that's the end of it.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Saying "only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations" seems to be a very dismissive attitude.
You can't declare them roughly equivalent to Ebola since they all cause types of hemorrhagic fevers, and therefor Ebola isn't anything special because it's "nothing new".
Hanta in particular. It isn't even transmitted from person to person, only from exposure to infected rodents. It isn't at all relevant to discussions on Ebola.
Lassa is also from exposure to rodents with 80% of cases asymptomatic, and from what I understand is much less likely to transmit person to person than Ebola.
Hanta and Lassa also have much lower mortality rates than Ebola.
Marburg seems to be especially rare, with one case ever of someone returning to the US with it, and it wasn't during an outbreak the size of the current one with Ebola, but is also to be taken seriously should there be an outbreak. I don't know the ease of person to person transmission with this one.
There were three *entire* sentences that were self-plagiarized? They shouldn't just kill the journal, but the author himself!
The horror.
But seriously, it seems to me that the librarian-blogger is full of himself, and that the publisher may be hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism (or might have people making decisions whose virtually religious views on the topic of climate change align with the librarian, and this was used as an excuse to smack down the journal). Of course that is just supposition.
This instance of self-plagiarism doesn't exactly seem like it was malicious, I imagine it was an oversight that the journal and author(s) would have no problem correcting.
So now internet companies are essentially trying to train users to trust whatever information shows up on a web page that claims to be from 'known' sources?
After all the problems that spoof emails cause for people who don't know better, you'd think an internet provider *would* know better.
Him, you and all the people like you couldn't be more wrong. Science and mathematics has everything to do with the economic growth of the United States. How can the U.S. compete in biotechnology if what we learn in biology courses is that god created the beetle? How can we compete in oil production if all we learn is that fossils are there to fool the unbelievers and the earth is 6000 years old? Time and evolution created both: 4.54 billion years is a LONG time, animal species can change a lot over that amount of time.
I'm not even religious, but I'm pretty sure this post is trolling (if not 'just' idiotic).
Somehow religious people who buy into creationism are incapable of science and technology? What is the line of thinking.. "God created this creature, so I can't *possibly* bring myself to study how it works and duplicate it's function in novel technologies for mankind's use!" ?
Is the 11th commandment something like "You shall not look too closely at my other creations," or "You shall respect the privacy of all other creatures (but you can still eat them)" ?
And competing in fossil fuels..??? I think even the most devout church-goer knows that oil, coal, and natural gas are in the ground, and they can be quite useful if dug up or pumped out.
The same point applies to most other areas of technology and research, caveats being areas with moral concerns such as cloning and genetic manipulation. But even with those, there are legitimate non-religious reasons to be wary of progress with a lack of understanding the long term implications.
Basically, the logic is that every weather event or phenomenon is somehow either proof of global warming, or happened despite it and in no way can be used to refute it. Haven't you figured that out yet?
So, out of 1,000,000 clinical trials, only one patient didn't recover as predicted by such and such's neural net(they're *all* that accurate, of course).
Was this a million cases of a mildly scraped knee? Did that one patient some how get his scrap infected with flesh eating bacteria? Flesh eating bacteria throws neural nets off every time, I bet.
My point is, there is no possible way for an 'artifical neural net' to be that accurate with *anything* as complicated as medical diagnosis. Last I knew neural nets weren't down to an exact science. For an exisiting artificial neural net to be that accurate, the case would have to be something as simple as:
'Is this color black, red, or green?'
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) are nothing new in the US. what happens in the United States with other fatal VHFs, that, like Ebola, are only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations:
Hanta: http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/... [cdc.gov]
Marburg: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe... [cdc.gov]
Lassa: http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea... [cdc.gov]
Hanta is especially on point, as the US typically has dozens of cases -- and dozens of deaths -- each year, all of which are rapidly contained. The cases of "imported" VHFs, like has occurred with Marburg and Lassa, result in identification, isolation, and either the recovery or death of that person -- and that's the end of it.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Saying "only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations" seems to be a very dismissive attitude.
You can't declare them roughly equivalent to Ebola since they all cause types of hemorrhagic fevers, and therefor Ebola isn't anything special because it's "nothing new".
Hanta in particular. It isn't even transmitted from person to person, only from exposure to infected rodents. It isn't at all relevant to discussions on Ebola.
Lassa is also from exposure to rodents with 80% of cases asymptomatic, and from what I understand is much less likely to transmit person to person than Ebola.
Hanta and Lassa also have much lower mortality rates than Ebola.
Marburg seems to be especially rare, with one case ever of someone returning to the US with it, and it wasn't during an outbreak the size of the current one with Ebola, but is also to be taken seriously should there be an outbreak. I don't know the ease of person to person transmission with this one.
No kidding:P
Question is, is it marked 5 Funny because of what he said or what he missed?
You may need to hash out your post a bit.. I can't tell if you're mad at the cost of the licenses or mad at uber drivers not needing to pay it.
Anyway, if it really costs THAT much for a taxi license then the regulators are crazy. Why aren't the protests directed at that?
There were three *entire* sentences that were self-plagiarized? They shouldn't just kill the journal, but the author himself!
The horror.
But seriously, it seems to me that the librarian-blogger is full of himself, and that the publisher may be hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism (or might have people making decisions whose virtually religious views on the topic of climate change align with the librarian, and this was used as an excuse to smack down the journal). Of course that is just supposition.
This instance of self-plagiarism doesn't exactly seem like it was malicious, I imagine it was an oversight that the journal and author(s) would have no problem correcting.
Slashdot is trolling us:(
So now internet companies are essentially trying to train users to trust whatever information shows up on a web page that claims to be from 'known' sources?
After all the problems that spoof emails cause for people who don't know better, you'd think an internet provider *would* know better.
Him, you and all the people like you couldn't be more wrong. Science and mathematics has everything to do with the economic growth of the United States. How can the U.S. compete in biotechnology if what we learn in biology courses is that god created the beetle? How can we compete in oil production if all we learn is that fossils are there to fool the unbelievers and the earth is 6000 years old? Time and evolution created both: 4.54 billion years is a LONG time, animal species can change a lot over that amount of time.
I'm not even religious, but I'm pretty sure this post is trolling (if not 'just' idiotic).
Somehow religious people who buy into creationism are incapable of science and technology? What is the line of thinking.. "God created this creature, so I can't *possibly* bring myself to study how it works and duplicate it's function in novel technologies for mankind's use!" ?
Is the 11th commandment something like "You shall not look too closely at my other creations," or "You shall respect the privacy of all other creatures (but you can still eat them)" ?
And competing in fossil fuels..??? I think even the most devout church-goer knows that oil, coal, and natural gas are in the ground, and they can be quite useful if dug up or pumped out.
The same point applies to most other areas of technology and research, caveats being areas with moral concerns such as cloning and genetic manipulation. But even with those, there are legitimate non-religious reasons to be wary of progress with a lack of understanding the long term implications.
of course, if she did, they would probably end up in her yahoo account.
This is such a blatantly partisan, biased post, it's sad to see it rated "5, interesting".
It almost seems like satire of the far-left.
Basically, the logic is that every weather event or phenomenon is somehow either proof of global warming, or happened despite it and in no way can be used to refute it. Haven't you figured that out yet?
So, out of 1,000,000 clinical trials, only one patient didn't recover as predicted by such and such's neural net(they're *all* that accurate, of course). Was this a million cases of a mildly scraped knee? Did that one patient some how get his scrap infected with flesh eating bacteria? Flesh eating bacteria throws neural nets off every time, I bet. My point is, there is no possible way for an 'artifical neural net' to be that accurate with *anything* as complicated as medical diagnosis. Last I knew neural nets weren't down to an exact science. For an exisiting artificial neural net to be that accurate, the case would have to be something as simple as: 'Is this color black, red, or green?'